Search

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) are a unique subset of lymphomas with a poor prognosis due to limited treatment options. We performed a phase 1 study of carfilzomib in patients with relapsed/refractory PTCL to determine the safety profile and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of this agent. The study was a classical 3 + 3 phase 1 design with intra-patient dose escalation allowed beginning on day 8 of cycle 1 and subsequently. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as the occurrence of any grade 3/4 adverse event. Carfilzomib was given on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of a 28-day cycle. Fifteen patients were enrolled from 3 centers. The median age of patients was 62. The median number of prior therapies for subjects on this trial was five. The MTD of carfilzomib was 36 mg/m2. Dose-limiting toxicities included anemia and sepsis. Serious adverse events were seen in 45% of patients. Single-agent carfilzomib leads to a complete response in one patient and a partial response in one patient. Overall, the drug was reasonably tolerated for a heavily pretreated population, but the limited response rate and short duration of response demonstrate a lack of promise for carfilzomib as a single agent in this patient population.

R-FND (rituximab, fludarabine, mitoxantrone, and dexamethasone) can induce molecular remissions in indolent lymphoma. The addition of 90yttrium ibritumomab tiuxetan (90YIT) radioimmunotherapy following first-line induction treatment in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) may improve remission rates. We now report 10-year follow-up results from our sequential treatment approach with an abbreviated regimen of R-FND followed by 90YIT consolidation and rituximab maintenance. Forty-nine patients were enrolled; 47 received treatment. Patients had high-risk (FLIPI score ≥3) FL of grade 1-3A and stage III/IV with adequate hematologic function. Following R-FND, the complete and partial response rates were 91% and 8.5%, respectively. After 90YIT consolidation, the CR rate increased to 97%. The 10-year PFS rate was 49%. The most common non-hematologic, grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue, dyspnea, and myalgia. Five developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). This treatment approach is most appropriate in FLIPI-based high-risk patients whose outlook with standard therapy is inadequate.

PURPOSE Burkitt lymphoma is an aggressive B-cell lymphoma curable with dose-intensive chemotherapy derived from pediatric leukemia regimens. Treatment is acutely toxic with late sequelae. We hypothesized that dose-adjusted etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) may obviate the need for highly dose-intensive chemotherapy in adults with Burkitt lymphoma. METHODS We conducted a multicenter risk-adapted study of DA-EPOCH-R in untreated adult Burkitt lymphoma. Low-risk patients received three cycles without CNS prophylaxis, and high-risk patients received six cycles with intrathecal CNS prophylaxis or extended intrathecal treatment if leptomeninges were involved. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), and secondary endpoints were toxicity and predictors of EFS and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Between 2010 and 2017, 113 patients were enrolled across 22 centers, and 98 (87%) were high risk. The median age was 49 (range, 18-86) years, and 62% were ≥ 40 years. Bone marrow and/or CSF was involved in 29 (26%) of patients, and 28 (25%) were HIV positive. At a median follow-up of 58.7 months, EFS and OS were 84.5% and 87.0%, respectively, and EFS was 100% and 82.1% in low- and high-risk patients. Therapy was equally effective across age groups, HIV status, and International Prognostic Index risk groups. Involvement of the CSF identified the group at greatest risk for early toxicity-related death or treatment failure. Five treatment-related deaths (4%) occurred during therapy. Febrile neutropenia occurred in 16% of cycles, and tumor lysis syndrome was rare. CONCLUSION Risk-adapted DA-EPOCH-R therapy is effective in adult Burkitt lymphoma regardless of age or HIV status and was well tolerated. Improved therapeutic strategies for adults with CSF involvement are needed (funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01092182 ).

7528 Background: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a rare disease that commonly occurs in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) which is typically defined as 15 to 39 years. Given their young age at presentation, key factors in treatment selection include a high cure rate and limiting long-term toxicities. Brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris®; A) is a CD30-directed ADC approved in combination with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine chemotherapy (A+AVD) for adults with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL based on results from the phase 3 ECHELON-1 trial. Recent 5-year data demonstrated a significantly improved PFS per investigator (INV) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54–0.9; P = 0.003) (Straus 2020). Here we describe key efficacy and safety results for AYA pts enrolled in ECHELON-1. Methods: ECHELON-1 (N = 1334) is a global, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial of pts with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL. A total of 771 AYAs (57.8%) received either A+AVD (n = 396) or ABVD (n = 375) with a PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2). An analysis of PFS (time from randomization to progression or death from any cause) per INV was conducted. Results: After a median follow-up of 60.7 months (95% CI, 60.4-61.0), there was a 36% reduction in the risk of progression or death in AYAs receiving A+AVD vs ABVD (HR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92; P = 0.013) with a 5-year PFS of 86.3% vs 79.4%, respectively, similar to the ITT population. The PFS benefit of A+AVD vs ABVD was independent of PET2 status; PET2 positivity (Deauville 4-5) was 6% and 8%, respectively. On the A+AVD arm, 81 AYAs (20%) had at least 1 subsequent anticancer therapy vs 96 AYAs (26%) on the ABVD arm; 26 AYAs (7%) received subsequent high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant vs 32 AYAs (9%) on the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Resolution or improvement of peripheral neuropathy (PN) were similar in both arms; 224 AYAs (88%) on the A+AVD had resolution or improvement of PN vs 133 AYAs (89%) on the ABVD arm. Ongoing PN was predominantly Gr 1 (62%) and Gr 2 (26%), with 8 AYAs (13%) on the A+AVD arm and 1 AYA (5%) on the ABVD arm reporting ongoing Gr 3 PN. Finally, 7 AYAs (1.8%) and 5 AYAs (1.4%) on the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively, reported a secondary malignancy. Subsequent pregnancies were reported in female pts (44 A+AVD; 26 ABVD) and partners of male pts (31 A+AVD; 30 ABVD). No stillbirths were reported. All but 1 pt in each arm was < 40. Conclusions: Consistent with the ITT population, AYAs treated with A+AVD compared to ABVD had a durable PFS benefit at this significant 5-year milestone. No impact on the rate of secondary malignancies and a numerically greater number of pregnancies were observed, outcomes of interest to AYAs. Additionally, the majority of PN events improved or resolved over time. A+AVD should be considered a treatment option for AYAs with stage III/IV cHL. Clinical trial information: NCT01712490.

Introduction The phase 3 ECHELON-2 study (NCT01777152) demonstrated that frontline treatment with brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A+CHP) is superior to cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) for patients (pts) with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30-expressing peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) (Horowitz S, et al. Lancet 2019). With a median follow-up of 36.2 months for progression-free survival (PFS), the hazard ratio (HR) (0.71 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.54, 0.93], P=0.01) favored A+CHP over CHOP. The median PFS was 48.2 months (95% CI: 35.2, not evaluable) versus 20.8 months (95% CI: 12.7, 47.6) for A+CHP and CHOP, respectively. With a median follow-up of 42.1 months for overall survival (OS), the HR (0.66 [95% CI: 0.46, 0.95], P=0.02) also favored A+CHP over CHOP. Median OS was not reached for either arm. With these results, A+CHP was the first treatment regimen to show an OS benefit over CHOP in this pt population. Herein, we report results with a median follow-up of 44.3 months for PFS and 55.5 months for OS. Methods ECHELON-2 is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, active-comparator, multicenter study. Eligible adult pts with previously untreated CD30-positive PTCL (targeting 75% ± 5% with sALCL) were randomized to A+CHP or CHOP for six or eight cycles. Randomization was stratified by histological subtype and international prognostic index score. The primary endpoint of PFS was assessed per blinded independent central review in the primary analysis and per investigator in this updated analysis. Key secondary endpoints were OS, PFS in sALCL, complete remission (CR) rate, and objective response rate (ORR). Subsequent therapies, including BV or BV-containing regimens, were permitted. Results A total of 452 pts were enrolled and randomized 1:1 with 226 pts in each arm. The study included pts with advanced disease (Stage III [27%] and Stage IV [53%]; IPI ≥2 [78%]); given target enrollment, most pts (316 [70%]) had sALCL (218 [48%] anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK]-negative and 98 pts [22%] ALK-positive). With additional follow-up, the HRs for PFS per investigator (0.70 [95% CI: 0.53, 0.91], P=0.0075) (Figure 1) and OS (0.74 [95% CI: 0.54, 1.02], P=0.0688) continue to favor A+CHP over CHOP. The median PFS was 63.5 months (95% CI: 42.0, not evaluable) versus 23.8 months (95% CI: 13.6, 55.9) for A+CHP and CHOP, respectively. The estimated 5-year PFS was 50.9% (95% CI: 42.1, 59.1) for the A+CHP arm versus 42.7% (95% CI: 35.3, 49.8) for the CHOP arm. Median OS was not reached for either arm. The estimated 5-year OS was 68.7% (95% CI: 61.3, 75.0) for the A+CHP arm versus 60.3% (95% CI: 52.8, 67.0) for the CHOP arm. The PFS analyses for key prespecified subgroups were generally consistent with the overall study results (Figure 2). In the subset of pts with sALCL, the HR for PFS (0.55 [95% CI: 0.39, 0.78]) also favors A+CHP over CHOP, with an estimated 5-year PFS of 59.8% (95% CI: 48.0, 69.7) for the A+CHP arm versus 48.1% (95% CI: 39.1, 56.6) for the CHOP arm. A total of 23 pts (10%) in the A+CHP arm (16 pts with sALCL, 4 pts with PTCL not otherwise specified, and 3 pts with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma) and 51 pts (23%) in the CHOP arm received subsequent systemic therapy with BV. In the A+CHP arm, the median time to retreatment was 12.3 months (range, 3, 51); 15 pts (ORR: 65%) had CR (9 pts) or partial remission (6 pts) after retreatment with BV monotherapy (21 pts) or BV-containing regimen (2 pts). With additional follow-up in pts with treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN) (117 pts A+CHP and 124 pts CHOP), 68% of pts in the A+CHP arm had either resolution or improvement of these events compared with 77% of pts in the CHOP arm. Of the pts with ongoing PN events at last follow-up, 73% in A+CHP arm and 74% in the CHOP arm had grade 1 events, 25% and 23% of pts, respectively, had grade 2 events, and 2% of pts in each arm had grade 3 events. Conclusions At 5 years, frontline treatment with A+CHP continues to provide clinically meaningful improvement in PFS and OS versus CHOP, including ongoing remission in ~60% of pts with sALCL, with a manageable safety profile, including continued resolution or improvement of PN. Additional 5-year results, including data from prespecified subgroups, will be presented. Disclosures Horwitz: C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Affirmed: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASTEX: Consultancy; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Corvus: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pro:Verastem Oncology: Research Funding. Illidge:Takeda: Current Employment, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Iyer:Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Rhizen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; CRISPR: Research Funding; Curio Biosciences: Honoraria; Trillium: Research Funding; Target Oncology: Honoraria; Afffimed: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Advani:Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Bartlett:BTG: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Christensen:Odense University Hospital: Current Employment; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Morschhauser:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Consultancy. Domingo-Domenech:Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accomodations and expenses , Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, accomodations and expenses ; Janssen: Other: Travel, accomodations and expenses ; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Rossi:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kim:Donga: Research Funding; Joihnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Rhizen: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Viracta: Research Funding. Menne:Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Travel expenses; Pfizer: Honoraria, Other; Roche: Honoraria; Bayer: Other: Travel expenses; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Takeda: Honoraria; Atara: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Belada:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Illés:Celgene, Janssen, Novartis,Roche, Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche;: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Novartis Pharma SAS, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Israel, Roche;: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Tobinai:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Ono Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Solasia: Honoraria; SymBio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience: Consultancy, Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria; Yakult: Consultancy, Honoraria; Zenyaku Kogyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Chugai Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tsukasaki:Ono Pharma: Consultancy; Mundy Pharma: Honoraria; HUYA: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Chugai Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Eizai: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Yeh:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustov:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Hüttmann:Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany: Current Employment. Savage:Verastem: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zinzani:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Miao:Takeda: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bunn:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Current Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Puhlmann:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Truemper:Janssen: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda Europe: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Lack of consensus for first-line marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) treatment and toxicities associated with currently available systemic therapies have inspired evaluation of immunotherapeutic agents yielding robust outcomes with improved tolerability. We previously reported durable efficacy with first-line lenalidomide and rituximab (R2 ) in follicular lymphoma, MZL and small lymphocytic lymphoma with a subsequent long-term follow-up shown here in MZL patients. This phase 2 investigator-initiated study included previously untreated, stage III/IV MZL patients treated with lenalidomide 20 mg/day on days 1-21 and rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1 of each 28-day cycle, continuing in responders for ≥6-12 cycles. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were complete and partial response (CR, PR), safety, and progression-free survival (PFS). The ORR was 93% with 70% attaining CR/CR unconfirmed. At median follow-up of 75·1 months, median PFS was 59·8 months and 5-year OS was 96%. Most non-haematological adverse events (AE) were grade 1/2. Grade 3 haematological AEs were neutropenia (33%) and leucopenia (7%), and grade 4 were leucopenia (3%) and thrombocytopenia (3%). Two patients died of secondary malignancies; no treatment-related fatalities occurred. With extended follow-up, outcomes for MZL patients receiving R2 were robust with no unexpected late or delayed toxicities.

Summary Background MYC gene rearrangement is present in approximately 10% of aggressive B-cell lymphomas, with half also harbouring a BCL2 gene rearrangement. Multiple retrospective studies of R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone or prednisolone) have shown a worse outcome in patients with MYC rearrangement (alone or with rearrangement of BCL2 or BCL6, or both) than in patients without MYC rearrangement, and suggest improved outcomes after more intensive treatment. We aimed to determine the outcome of dose-adjusted EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab; DA-EPOCH-R), an intensive infusional treatment regimen, in untreated aggressive B-cell lymphoma with MYC rearrangement. Methods We present the final analysis of a prospective, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study of DA-EPOCH-R in patients with untreated aggressive B-cell lymphoma with MYC rearrangement. DA-EPOCH-R was scheduled to be administered with CNS prophylaxis for six cycles. Primary endpoints included event-free and overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01092182 ). Findings 53 patients were enrolled, with median age of 61 years (range 29–80; IQR 50–70); 43 (81%) patients had stage III–IV disease and 26 (49%) had high-intermediate or high international prognostic index (IPI) scores. 19 patients had confirmed MYC rearrangement alone (single-hit) and 24 also had rearrangement of BCL2, BCL6, or both (double-hit), with similar characteristics between these two groups. After a median follow-up of 55·6 months (IQR 50·5–61·1), 48-month event-free survival was 71·0% (95% CI 56·5–81·4) and 48-month overall survival was 76·7% (95% CI 62·6–86·1) for all patients. Toxicity included grade 4 neutropenia in 160 (53%) of 301 cycles, grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 40 (13%) cycles, and any grade of fever with neutropenia in 56 (19%) cycles. There were three treatment-related deaths (all infections). Interpretation In this study, DA-EPOCH-R produced durable remission in patients with MYC-rearranged aggressive B-cell lymphomas and should be considered for the treatment of these diseases. Funding Cancer Trials Support Unit and Center for Cancer Research of the National Cancer Institute and Genentech.

Context R/R PMBL has limited treatment options. CheckMate 436 (NCT02581631), an open-label phase 1/2 study, assessed combination nivolumab (anti–PD-1) and brentuximab vedotin (anti-CD30) in patients with R/R PMBL; the primary analysis (median follow-up 11.1 months) showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 73% and complete remission (CR) rate of 37%. Objective Report extended follow-up data from CheckMate 436. Patients Cohort of patients with R/R PMBL after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) or ≥2 prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens if ineligible for auto-HCT. Interventions Nivolumab (240 mg IV) + BV (1.8 mg/kg IV) every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Outcome Measure(s) Primary: investigator-assessed ORR (Lugano 2014) and safety. Secondary: duration of response (DOR), CR rate and duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results Among 30 patients with a median follow-up of 33.7 months, ORR was 73% (95% CI, 54–88; CR, 37%). Median DOR was 31.6 months (95% CI, 23.3–not estimable [NE]), and median duration of CR was not reached. Estimated median PFS was 26.0 months (95% CI, 2.6–NE). Among patients censored in the PFS analysis, 13/17 received consolidation therapy, including auto-HCT (n=6) or allogeneic HCT (n=6) +/- radiotherapy, and radiotherapy alone (n=1). Four patients remained progression free in follow-up for 5+, 9+, 12+, and 20+ months after discontinuation of nivolumab + BV (maximum clinical benefit, n=3; study drug toxicity, n=1) without subsequent therapy. OS was 79% (95% CI, 59–90) at 12 months and 76% (95% CI, 55–88) at 24 months; median OS was not reached. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 83% of patients, most frequently neutropenia (30%; all grade 3/4) and peripheral neuropathy (27%; 10% grade 3/4). Six patients discontinued due to TRAEs. Eight patients died, 5 due to disease progression, and none was considered related to treatment. Conclusions Nivolumab + BV demonstrated durable responses and long-term survival benefits; 4 patients remained progression-free without consolidation after nivolumab + BV. Safety was consistent with prior findings. These results further support nivolumab + BV as a treatment option for patients with R/R PMBL. Funding BMS. Previous Presentation: ICML 2021

Summary Background Despite advances in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma with the introduction of PET-adapted regimens, practical challenges prevent more widespread use of these approaches. The ECHELON-1 study assessed the safety and efficacy of front-line A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) versus ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) in patients with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. The primary analysis showed improved modified progression-free survival with A+AVD. We present an updated analysis of ECHELON-1 at 5 years, an important landmark for this patient population. Methods ECHELON-1 was an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 218 clinical sites, including hospitals, cancer centres, and community clinics, in 21 countries. Previously untreated patients (≥18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤2) with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, 1·2 mg/kg of bodyweight, doxorubicin 25 mg/m2 of body surface area, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and dacarbazine 375 mg/m2) or ABVD (doxorubicin 25 mg/m2, bleomycin 10 U/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and dacarbazine 375 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to six cycles. Stratification factors included region (Americas vs Europe vs Asia) and International Prognostic Score risk group (low, intermediate, or high risk). The primary endpoint was modified progression-free survival; this 5-year update includes analysis of progression-free survival as per investigator assessment in the intention-to-treat population, which was an exploratory endpoint, although the 5-year analysis was not prespecified in the protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01712490 ) and EudraCT (2011-005450-60), and is ongoing. Findings Between Nov 19, 2012, and Jan 13, 2016, 1334 patients were randomly assigned to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670). At a median follow-up of 60·9 months (IQR 52·2–67·3), 5-year progression-free survival was 82·2% (95% CI 79·0–85·0) with A+AVD and 75·3% (71·7–78·5) with ABVD (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·53–0·87]; p=0·0017). Among PET-2-negative patients, 5-year progression-free survival was higher with A+AVD than with ABVD (84·9% [95% CI 81·7–87·6] vs 78·9% [75·2–82·1]; HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·50–0·88]; p=0·0035). 5-year progression-free survival for PET-2-positive patients was 60·6% (95% CI 45·0–73·1) with A+AVD versus 45·9% (32·7–58·2) with ABVD (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·39–1·26]; p=0·23). Peripheral neuropathy continued to improve or resolve over time with both A+AVD (375 [85%] of 443 patients) and ABVD (245 [86%] of 286 patients); more patients had ongoing peripheral neuropathy in the A+AVD group (127 [19%] of 662) than in the ABVD group (59 [9%] of 659). Fewer secondary malignancies were reported with A+AVD (19 [3%] of 662) than with ABVD (29 [4%] of 659). More livebirths were reported in the A+AVD group (n=75) than in the ABVD group (n=50). Interpretation With 5 years of follow-up, A+AVD showed robust and durable improvement in progression-free survival versus ABVD, regardless of PET-2 status, and a consistent safety profile. On the basis of these findings, A+AVD should be preferred over ABVD for patients with previously untreated stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Funding Millennium Pharmaceuticals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company), and Seagen.

Purpose: Preclinical and early clinical data suggested that combining histone deacetylase (HDAC) and mTOR inhibitors can synergistically inhibit Hodgkin lymphoma. Patients and Methods: During the dose-escalation study (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01087554) with the HDAC inhibitor vorinostat and the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus (V+S), a patient with Hodgkin lymphoma refractory to nine prior therapies demonstrated a partial response (PR) lasting for 18.5 months, which promoted additional enrollment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma as well as exploration of an alternative combination of vorinostat and mTOR inhibitor everolimus (V+E). Results: A total of 40 patients with refractory Hodgkin lymphoma received V+S (n = 22) or V+E (n = 18). Patients received a median of five prior therapies, including brentuximab (n = 39), autologous stem cell transplantation (n = 26), and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (n = 12). The most frequent grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event was thrombocytopenia in 55% and 67% of patients treated with V+S and V+E, respectively. Complete response was reported in 6 (27%) patients treated with V+S and 2 (11%) patients treated with V+E, and PR was reported in 6 patients (27%) treated with V+S and 4 (22%) patients treated with V+E (objective response rate of 55% and 33%, respectively). In summary, combined HDAC and mTOR inhibition had encouraging activity in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma and warrants further investigation. Conclusions: Combined HDAC and mTOR inhibition has salutary activity in patients with relapsed refractory Hodgkin lymphoma and warrants further investigation.

Background: Involvement of the central nervous system (CNS) by mycosis fungoides (MF) is rare; however, it portends a poor prognosis. While aggressive multimodality therapy may improve outcomes, the role of radiation therapy (RT) is not well defined. Objectives: We sought to explore the efficacy of RT in the management of CNS involvement by MF. Method: We retrospectively identified five patients with MF and CNS involvement who received cranial or craniospinal RT at a single institution. Patient characteristics, disease features, radiographic findings, treatments delivered, and outcome data were extracted from the electronic medical record. Results: All 5 patients had neurologic deficits at RT initiation, and 4 experienced at least a partial improvement. Of 4 patients evaluated by MRI after RT completion, 3 had complete resolution of CNS disease within the irradiated field. At the time of last follow-up, all patients had died of MF. The median time to death was 7.4 months (range 1.0–21 months) from their diagnosis with CNS involvement and 1.2 months (range 0.4–7.1 months) from the end of RT treatment. Conclusions: We observed high rates of radiographic response and palliation of neurological symptoms. Nonetheless, all patients succumbed to their disease shortly after treatment, confirming the poor prognosis of this condition. Our findings suggest that RT may play a valuable palliative role for these patients.

Purpose To improve the curability of older patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma. Patients and Methods We conducted a multicenter phase II study that administered brentuximab vedotin (Bv) sequentially before and after standard doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) for untreated patients with Hodgkin lymphoma age 60 years or older. After two lead-in doses of single-agent Bv (1.8 mg/kg once every 3 weeks), patients received six cycles of AVD chemotherapy followed by four consolidative doses of Bv in responding patients. Results Patient characteristics included median age of 69 years (range, 60 to 88 years), 63% male, median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1, 81% stage III to IV disease, 60% International Prognostic Score 3 to 7, median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric comorbidity score of 7 (52% grade 3 to 4); and 12% had loss of instrumental activities of daily living at diagnosis. Thirty-seven (77%) of 48 patients completed six cycles of AVD, and 35 patients (73%) received at least one Bv consolidation. Overall response and complete remission rates after initial Bv lead-in dose were 18 (82%) of 22 and 8 (36%) of 22, respectively, and 40 (95%) of 42 and 34 (90%) of 42, respectively, after six cycles of AVD among 42 response-evaluable patients. Twenty (42%) of 48 patients experienced a grade 3 to 4 adverse event, most commonly neutropenia (44%), febrile neutropenia and pneumonia (8%), or diarrhea (6%); 33% had grade 2 peripheral neuropathy, which was reversible in a majority of patients. By intent-to-treat, the 2-year event-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival rates were 80%, 84%, and 93%, respectively. Furthermore, 2-year progression-free survival rates for patients with a Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric comorbidity score of ≥ 10 versus < 10 were 45% versus 100%, respectively ( P < .001), and with baseline loss versus no loss of instrumental activities of daily living were 25% versus 94% ( P < .001), respectively, the latter persisting on multivariable analyses. Conclusion Altogether, sequential Bv-AVD was well tolerated and was associated with robust outcomes. Furthermore, geriatric-based measures were strongly associated with patient survival.

Background For patients with primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the central nervous system (PCNSL), whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) to doses of ≥45 Gy are often given after a partial response (PR) to methotrexate-based induction chemotherapy. We conducted an exploratory analysis to determine whether lower-dose WBRT, given with a boost to sites of persistent disease, might be a reasonable alternative. Methods and materials We retrospectively reviewed the records of 22 patients with PCNSL who received WBRT, with or without a boost, after methotrexate-based induction chemotherapy. Outcomes were compared among patients according to response to chemotherapy using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Median follow-up was 52 months. All patients with a complete response (CR) (n = 5) received WBRT to 23.4 Gy. One CR patient died after an in-field relapse. Patients with partial response (PR) (n = 10) received a median whole-brain dose of 23.4 Gy with (n = 8) or without (n = 2) a boost; there were 2 relapses within the central nervous system (CNS). All PR patients were alive at the time of analysis. The overall survival ( P = .127) and freedom from relapse within the CNS ( P = .967) were not different for patients with CR versus PR. Baseline and follow-up neurocognitive evaluations were available for 4 PR patients, and there were no significant differences between pre- and post-treatment evaluations ( P > .05 for language, memory, visual-spatial, attention, or motor functions). All patients who progressed or did not respond to chemotherapy and then received WBRT had died at a median time of 3.4 months. Patients who progressed or did not respond to chemotherapy had worse overall survival ( P = .001) and freedom from CNS relapse ( P = .005) compared with CR patients. Conclusions Among patients with a PR to induction chemotherapy, reduced-dose WBRT with a boost to residual PCNSL may be a viable treatment approach that merits further investigation.

Purpose: To identify predictors of hypothyroidism after chemoradiation therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and to compare outcomes after intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with those after 3-dimensional (3D) conformal radiation therapy (CRT). Methods and Materials: Ninety patients who underwent involved-site IMRT in 2009 through 2014 were evaluated for treatment-induced hypothyroidism, defined as elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone or decreased free thyroxine levels (or both). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified individuals at low versus high risk based on dosimetric variables. Dosimetric cutoff points were verified with an external data set of 50 patients who underwent 3D-CRT. Results: In the IMRT group, most patients (75 [83%]) had stage II HL, and the median prescribed dose was 30.6 Gy; in the 3D-CRT group, 32 patients (64%) had stage II HL, and the median prescribed dose was 32.0 Gy. No differences were found in the proportions of patients with bilateral (P =.982) or unilateral (P =.074) neck involvement between the 2 groups. Hypothyroidism rates were marginally higher in the IMRT group, with estimated 3-year rates of freedom from hypothyroidism of 56.1% in the 3D-CRT group and 40% in the IMRT group (P =.057). Univariate analysis showed that smaller thyroid volume and higher thyroid dose were associated with hypothyroidism in both groups (P =25 Gy (V25) and the absolute volume of the thyroid gland spared from 25 Gy (VS25Gy) were the strongest predictors of hypothyroidism (P =.001 and P

Purpose: We identified lung dosimetric constraints to assist in predicting the radiation pneumonitis (RP) risk in patients with mediastinal lymphoma and then identified the clinical prognostic factors that were associated with the achievement of key dosimetric constraints. Methods and Materials: In 190 patients who received mediastinal intensity modulated radiation therapy, we used univariate χ2 and multivariate logistic models to identify the predictors of RP and achievement of lung dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints and build a predictive nomogram for RP. Results: An increased risk of RP was strongly associated with mean lung dose (MLD) > 13.5 Gy (odds ratio [OR]: 8.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.01-21.93; P 55% (OR: 7.01; 95% CI, 2.94-16.72; P

Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare and aggressive extranodal presentation of lymphoma; however, the data for outcomes of patients with subtypes other than diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are limited. Therefore, we analyzed overall survival (OS) of adult patients diagnosed with PCNSL by histologic subtype between 1998 and 2014 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results. A total of 4375 patients were identified. The median age of the patients was 64 years (range: 18-96). DLBCL was the most common histology (N=3,091), followed by follicular lymphoma (FL, N=83), peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL, N=64), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL, N=63), Burkitt lymphoma (BL, N=27), small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL, N=22), Hodgkin lymphoma (HL, N=13) and others (N=1,012). The 5-year OS rates were 30% in DLBCL, 66% in FL, 33% in PTCL, 79% in MZL, 42% in BL, 38% in SLL and 45% in HL. Radiation alone showed similar OS compared to no treatment in DLBCL, BL and PTCL, while radiation alone was associated with similar OS to chemotherapy or chemo-radiation in FL and MZL. The outcomes of patients with PCNSL are unfavorable; with the exception of FL and MZL which can potentially show prolonged survival with surgical resection or radiation monotherapy.

Dose-adjusted rituximab plus etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin (DA-R-EPOCH) has produced good outcomes in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), but predictors of resistance to this treatment are unclear. We investigated whether [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) findings could identify patients with PMBCL who would not respond completely to DA-R-EPOCH. We performed a retrospective analysis of 65 patients with newly diagnosed stage I to IV PMBCL treated at 2 tertiary cancer centers who had PET-CT scans available before and after frontline therapy with DA-R-EPOCH. Pretreatment variables assessed included metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG). Optimal cutoff points for progression-free survival (PFS) were determined by a machine learning approach. Univariate and multivariable models were constructed to assess associations between radiographic variables and PFS. At a median follow-up of 36.6 months (95% confidence interval, 28.1-45.1), 2-year PFS and overall survival rates for the 65 patients were 81.4% and 98.4%, respectively. Machine learning-derived thresholds for baseline MTV and TLG were associated with inferior PFS (elevated MTV: hazard ratio [HR], 11.5; P = .019; elevated TLG: HR, 8.99; P = .005); other pretreatment clinical factors, including International Prognostic Index and bulky (>10 cm) disease, were not. On multivariable analysis, only TLG retained statistical significance (P = .049). Univariate analysis of posttreatment variables revealed that residual CT tumor volume, maximum standardized uptake value, and Deauville score were associated with PFS; a Deauville score of 5 remained significant on multivariable analysis (P = .006). A model combining baseline TLG and end-of-therapy Deauville score identified patients at increased risk of progression.

This phase 1 study evaluated frontline brentuximab vedotin in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (BV+CHP; 6 cycles, then up to 10 cycles of brentuximab vedotin monotherapy) in 26 patients with CD30+ peripheral T-cell lymphoma, including 19 with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma. All patients (100%) achieved an objective response, with a complete remission (CR) rate of 92%; none received a consolidative stem cell transplant. After a median observation period of 59.6 months (range, 4.6-66.0) from first dose, neither the median progression-free survival (PFS) nor the median overall survival (OS) was reached. No progression or death was observed beyond 35 months. The estimated 5-year PFS and OS rates were 52% and 80%, respectively. Eighteen of 19 patients (95%) with treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN) reported resolution or improvement of symptoms. Thirteen patients (50%) remained in remission at the end of the study, with PFS ranging from 37.8+ to 66.0+ months. Eight of these 13 patients received the maximum 16 cycles of study treatment. These final results demonstrate durable remissions in 50% of patients treated with frontline BV+CHP, suggesting a potentially curative treatment option for some patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01309789.

Background Although the outcomes of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have improved, there is still no cure. Bortezomib has a 33% response rate in relapsed/refractory MCL and has shown additive and/or synergistic effects in preclinical trials with known effective agents. Methods This is a report of a prospective phase 2 trial of bortezomib added to rituximab plus hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (BzR-hyperCVAD)/rituximab, high-dose methotrexate, and high-dose cytarabine (BzR-MA) for 95 patients with newly diagnosed MCL. Results The overall and complete response rates were 100% and 82%, respectively. Hematologic toxicity was high but expected and did not lead to an increased incidence of neutropenic fever or dose reductions in comparison with a similar reported regimen without bortezomib. After a median follow-up of 44 months, the median overall survival had not been reached, and the time to treatment failure (TTF) was 55 months, which is not different from that of historical controls. Conclusions BzR-hyperCVAD/BzR-MA at the dose and schedule studied produced high rates of response and a TTF similar to that of historical reports without bortezomib. Cancer 2018;124:2561-9. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Immune-based treatment strategies, such as checkpoint inhibition and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, have started a new frontier for treatment in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Checkpoint inhibition has been most successful in Hodgkin lymphoma, where higher expression of PD-L1 is correlated with better overall response rate. Combinations of checkpoint inhibition with various chemotherapy or biologics are in clinical trials, with initially promising results and manageable safety profiles. CAR T-cell therapies that target CD19 are a promising and attractive therapy for B-cell NHLs, with a product approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017. Changes in the target, hinge, or costimulatory domain can dramatically alter the persistence and efficacy of the CAR T cells. The ZUMA trials from Kite used CD19-(CD28z) CAR T cells, whereas the TRANSCEND studies from Juno and the JULIET studies from Novartis used CD19-(4-1BBz) CARs. Despite the recent successes with CAR T-cell clinical trials, major concerns associated with this therapy include cytokine release syndrome, potential neurotoxicities, B-cell aplasia, loss of tumor antigen leading to relapse, and cost and accessibility of the treatment. Although first-generation CAR T-cell therapies have failed in solid malignancies, newer second- and third-generation CAR T cells that target antigens other than CD19 (such as mesothelin or B-cell maturation antigen) are being studied in clinical trials for treatment of lung cancer or multiple myeloma. Overall, immune-based treatment strategies have given oncologists and patients hope when there used to be none, as well as a new basket of tools yet to come with further research and development.

Cardiophrenic lymph nodes (CPLNs) are occasionally involved in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). We characterized the incidence of CPLN involvement among 169 HL patients and evaluated outcomes after treatment with omission of the CPLN region from the involved-site radiation therapy (ISRT) field. Three types of RT fields were used: standard (S)-ISRT, reduced-dose (RD)-ISRT (lower dose to CPLNs, standard to other sites), or modified (M)-ISRT (omission of CPLNs). CPLNs were involved at diagnosis in 29 patients (17%). Of the 20 patients who received RT after complete response to chemotherapy, 4(20%) received S-ISRT, 8(40%) RD-ISRT, and 8(40%) M-ISRT. The four-year progression-free survival was 94.7%. One relapse occurred at a non-CPLN site after RD-ISRT. The mean heart dose and volume of the heart that received 25 Gy was higher for S-ISRT patients compared to M-ISRT (p = .043 and p = .025, respectively). Re-planning the M-ISRT cases as S-ISRT resulted in significant increase in cardiac doses.

Preclinical data suggest that combining a checkpoint inhibition with immunomodulatory derivative can increase anticancer response. We designed a dose-escalation study using a 3 + 3 design to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase II dose (R2PD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of the anti–CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab (1.5–3 mg/kg intravenously every 28 days × 4) and lenalidomide (10–25 mg orally daily for 21 of 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity) in advanced cancers. Total of 36 patients (Hodgkin lymphoma, 7; melanoma, 5; leiomyosarcoma, 4; renal cancer, 3; thyroid cancer, 3; other cancers, 14; median of 3 prior therapies) were enrolled. The MTD has not been reached and ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and lenalidomide 25 mg have been declared as R2PD. DLT were grade (G) 3 rash (3 patients) and G3 pancreatitis (1 patient). G3/4 drug-related toxicities other than DLT were G3 anemia (5 patients), G3 thromboembolism (2 patients), G3 thrombocytopenia, G3 rash, G3 hypopituitarism, G3 pneumonitis, G3 transaminitis, and G4 hypopituitarism (all in 1 patient). Eight patients had tumor shrinkage per immune-related response criteria (−79% to −2%) including a PR (−79% for 7.2+ months) in a refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Using comprehensive genomic profiling, a total mutation burden (mutations/Mb) was evaluated in 17 patients, with one of the patients achieving a PR demonstrated intermediate mutation burden. In conclusion, combination of ipilimumab and lenalidomide is well tolerated and demonstrated preliminary signals of activity in patients with refractory Hodgkin lymphoma and other advanced cancers. Mol Cancer Ther; 17(3); 671–6. ©2017 AACR.

Introduction The phase 3 ECHELON-2 study (NCT01777152) compared frontline treatment with brentuximab vedotin plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A+CHP) to cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) for patients (pts) with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30+ peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL). At 5 years, A+CHP continues to provide clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.53, 0.91], P=0.0077) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.72 [95% CI: 0.53, 0.99], P=0.0424) vs CHOP. Ongoing remission was observed in ~60% of pts with sALCL, with a manageable safety profile, including continued resolution or improvement of peripheral neuropathy (Horwitz S, et al. ASH 2020). Due to the rarity of this disease and lack of data on prospective, uniformly treated pts, ECHELON-2 provides a large and unique prospective data set with potential utility in informing future studies of PTCL. Herein, we report a series of exploratory analyses in prespecified subgroups based on age, gender, and histology to supplement the data from the full 5-year analysis. Methods ECHELON-2 (N=452) is a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Eligible pts with previously untreated CD30+ PTCL were randomized 1:1 to A+CHP or CHOP for 6 or 8 cycles. Randomization was stratified by histological subtype and international prognostic index (IPI) score. The primary endpoint of PFS was assessed per blinded independent central review in the primary analysis and per investigator in this exploratory subgroup analysis. Outcomes by age Results Among all pts The potential association of gender with PFS outcomes varied within each treatment arm: males on the CHOP arm had higher PFS than females while females had higher PFS than males on the A+CHP arm (Table 2). In addition, the OS benefit of A+CHP vs CHOP was consistent for both genders (female, HR 0.68 [95% CI: 0.40, 1.16], P=0.1597; male, HR 0.73 [95% CI: 0.49, 1.08], P=0.1148). Females and males had similar OS within each arm (A+CHP, female vs male: HR 1.00 [95% CI: 0.61, 1.64], P=0.9966; CHOP, female vs male: HR 1.03 [95% CI: 0.66, 1.60], P=0. 9054). Among all pts with PTCL-NOS, the median PFS and OS were 13.57 months and 46.4 months. When assessing by treatment arm, the PFS (Table 1) and OS (HR 0.75 [95% CI: 0.37, 1.48], P=0.4003) HRs were similar to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Among all pts with AITL, the median PFS was 23.75 months and the median OS was not reached. When assessing by treatment arm, the PFS (Table 1) favored CHOP and OS was similar (HR 1.01 [95% CI: 0.40, 2.55], P=0.9855). In the sALCL subgroup, PFS was superior in those treated with A+CHP overall and across IPI subgroups: 0-1, 2-3, 4-5 (Table 1). OS was also longer in the A+CHP arm (HR 0.66 [95% CI: 0.43, 1.01], P=0.0529) overall and across IPI subgroups: 0-1 (HR 0.73 [95% CI: 0.20, 2.73], P=0.6411), 2-3 (HR 0.57 [95% CI: 0.32, 1.01], P=0.0496), and 4-5 (HR 0.89 [95% CI: 0.42, 1.89], P=0.7606). Conclusions ECHELON-2 results at 5 years demonstrate a generally consistent benefit of A+CHP over CHOP across subgroups and for the ITT population. Furthermore, this large prospective dataset of pts with PTCL has redefined efficacy outcomes for this population and provides important benchmark data to inform future studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Horwitz: Affimed: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma, Affimed, ADC Therapeutics, Astex, Merck, Portola Pharma, C4 Therapeutics, Celgene, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Myeloid Therapeutics, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Shoreline Biosciences, Inc, Takeda, Trillium Th: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics, Affimed, Aileron, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Forty Seven, Inc., Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium /Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trillium Therapeutics, and Verastem/SecuraBio.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Crispr Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tubulis: Consultancy; Verastem/Securabio: Research Funding. Savage: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Illidge: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Advani: Astellas/Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty Seven: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genetech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shustov: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Bartlett: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jacobsen: Takeda: Consultancy; Syros: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Koch: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Eva: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Fanale: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fenton: Seagen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Campana: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Dong: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Truemper: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding.

Objectives Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are a rare and aggressive type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) associated with a poor prognosis. Common frontline (1L) regimens include brentuximab vedotin plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A+CHP), and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with or without the addition of etoposide (CHOP and CHOEP, respectively). Based on the 5-year update of the ECHELON-2 trial, patients with previously untreated CD30-expressing PTCL on A+CHP continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with CHOP. Our objective was to estimate the future number of patients alive and progression free with A+CHP over 10-years, based on the 5-year follow-up results from ECHELON-2. Methods An oncology simulation model, from the United States perspective, was developed with a 1-month cycle length that estimates population-level outcomes of PTCL patients based on disease incidence, treatment patterns, PFS, and OS of commonly used regimens for PTCL. Incidence of PTCL, 19.26 cases per 100,000 persons, was derived using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) estimates for NHL in 2020 and the estimated proportion of PTCL cases (~4%) within the NHL category, provided by the Lymphoma Research Foundation. To populate the base case model, treatment patterns following 1L utilization of CHOP (65%) and CHOEP (35%) were varied over time and compared to A+CHP (40%). The model also includes a portion of patients in remission in 1L who are eligible to receive transplant therapy. Additional model inputs were derived from: 1) ECHELON-2, with 5-year PFS rates of 51.4% (95% CI 42.8, 59.4) for A+CHP, 43.0% (95% CI 35.8, 50.0) for CHOP, and OS HR 0.72 (95% 0.53, 0.99); 2) published literature to inform PFS for consolidation and subsequent lines of therapy; and 3) expert clinicians' opinion on commonly used regimens for relapsed/refractory PTCL (included in the model were brentuximab vedotin, romidepsin, pralatrexate, ifosfamide in combination with carboplatin and etoposide [ICE], and gemcitabine-based regimens). Annual prevalence of patients living progression-free with PTCL in the 1L setting with each prescribed scenario was estimated for 10 years (year 2031) with and without the availability of A+CHP. Results The cumulative number of patients with newly diagnosed PTCL between 2026 and 2031 was estimated at 8,020. The number of patients alive and progression-free based on 1L treatment was estimated at 6,304 in a scenario without A+CHP and 7,414 with A+CHP (Δ+1,110, 17.6% increase) in 2031. It was also estimated that 1,203 patients would progress to second-line treatment with CHOP vs 1,119 patients with 1L A+CHP (Δ-84, 7.0% decrease) in 2031. Conclusions The durable and significant improvements in PFS and OS of A+CHP vs CHOP in the 5-year follow-up data from ECHELON-2 estimated an increase in the number of 1L PTCL patients who remain progression free and alive for greater than 10 years. This improvement in outcomes may translate into an increased prevalence of PTCL patients, reflecting an increased number of patients in remission and options to undergo transplant therapy when necessary. Disclosures Burke: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Yu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bloudek: Seagen, Inc: Consultancy. Liu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Phillips: Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: received travel expenses from Incyte, Research Funding; ADCT, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, Incyte, Karyopharm, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

Objectives Doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) is the most common frontline (1L) regimen for patients with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but about 30% of patients with stage III or IV cHL have refractory or relapsed disease after ABVD treatment. Based on the 5-year update of the ECHELON-1 trial, patients on 1L brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) continued to demonstrate a robust and durable progression-free survival (PFS) improvement vs ABVD with a 32% reduction in the risk of progression or death (HR=0.681, nominal P=0.002). Our objective was to estimate the future number of patients with cHL who are alive and progression-free over 10-years with 1L A+AVD, based on the 5-year follow-up results from ECHELON-1. Methods An oncology simulation model, from the United States perspective, was developed with a 1-month cycle length that estimates population-level outcomes based on annual prevalence of cHL, considering disease incidence, treatment patterns, PFS, and overall survival of commonly used treatment regimens for stage III or IV cHL. Incidence of cHL was derived from the 2019 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, assuming 95% of HL is classical of which 41% is stage III or IV. To populate the base case model, treatment patterns following 1L use of ABVD (64.5%) and positron emission tomography (PET)-adapted therapy (35.5%) were varied over time and compared to A+AVD (24%). For every model cycle, patients who experienced disease progression on 1L therapy discontinued therapy and transitioned to second-line (salvage) therapy. The transition from second-line therapy to transplant is also included in the model based on patient eligibility. Model inputs were informed by 1) real-world treatment utilization; 2) treatment-specific clinical trial data, including ECHELON-1 with 5-year PFS rates of 75.3% for ABVD (95% CI: 70.0, 85.0) and 82.2% for A+AVD (95% CI: 71.7, 78.5); and 3) expert clinicians' opinions. Annual prevalence of patients living progression-free with cHL in the 1L setting with each prescribing scenario was estimated for 10 years (year 2031) with and without the availability of A+AVD. Results The annual number of newly diagnosed patients with stage III or IV cHL at 10 years in 2031 was estimated at 3,586. The number of patients alive and progression-free in the 1L setting was 19,494 without A+AVD and 19,660 with A+AVD (Δ+166, 0.85% increase) in 2031. Overall, for every 100 patients prescribed A+AVD, it was predicted that an additional 6.5 patients per year achieved at least 5 years PFS and 4.2 to 4.7 fewer patients per year required a stem cell transplant (SCT), based on the 70% to 80% of eligible patient proceeding to SCT, respectively. Conclusions The durable PFS improvement of A+AVD vs ABVD in the 5-year follow-up data from ECHELON-1 resulted in increasing the number of patients with stage III or IV cHL who remain progression free for greater than 10 years and reducing future SCTs, based on this oncology simulation model for cHL. The significant improvement in PFS observed in the 5-year ECHELON-1 trial may translate to fewer patients with cHL developing primary refractory or relapsed disease and reduce the need for additional therapies including SCT. Disclosures Phillips: Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: received travel expenses from Incyte, Research Funding; ADCT, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, Incyte, Karyopharm, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Migliaccio-Walle: Seagen, Inc: Consultancy. Yu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bloudek: Seagen, Inc: Consultancy. Liu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Burke: Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Introduction Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) represents ~10% of all lymphomas in the United States (US) with classical HL (cHL) accounting for ~95% of all HL cases. cHL has a bimodal age distribution with peaks at ages 15-39 and ≥75 years. As part of CONNECT, the first real-world survey in cHL to include physicians, patients, and caregivers, patient treatment preferences for those with stage III or IV cHL were explored and differences evaluated between those aged Methods The CONNECT patient survey was a non-interventional patient-centered survey. Participants included were aged ≥18 years at the time of participation (aged ≥12 years at diagnosis), diagnosed with cHL within the past 10 years, and previously or currently being treated for cHL in the US. The CONNECT survey was reviewed and approved by the New England Institutional Review Board and administered from December 30, 2020, to March 1, 2021. Results In CONNECT, 182 participants had stage III or IV cHL (64% female; 77% Caucasian) with 64% aged Cure was ranked as the first or second goal of initial cHL treatment for 86% of participants aged At diagnosis, a significantly higher percentage of participants aged P < 0.001; Figure B). However, 44% of those aged A significantly higher percentage of participants aged When asked about long-term side effects of greatest concern, a significantly higher percentage of participants aged Conclusion Treatment goals differ significantly between participants with stage III or IV cHL based primarily on age, with those aged Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Flora: Seagen, Inc: Research Funding. Parsons: SeaGen: Consultancy. Liu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Seagen, Inc: Consultancy. Byrd: Seagen, Inc: Research Funding.

Background Current NCCN guidelines recommend 1 of 3 first-line (1L) regimens for stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL): ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine), A+AVD (brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine), or escalated BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone); preferred regimens vary by region (e.g., North America vs Europe). The NCCN recommends positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) imaging after cycle 2 (interim PET2) to guide ABVD escalation or de-escalation. We surveyed physicians on their cHL treatment decision-making process and how PET/CT scan access, reimbursement, and comprehension influence their choices as part of CONNECT, the first real-world survey of physicians, patients, and caregivers in cHL. Methods Medical oncologists, hematologist/oncologists, or hematologists who treat cHL were invited to participate in an Institutional Review Board-approved, 30-minute online anonymous survey. Eligible participants had ≥2 years of practice experience in the United States (US) and treated ≥1 adult (aged ≥18 years) with stage III or IV cHL and ≥1 adult with cHL in the 1L setting within the prior 12 months. Surveys were completed from October 19, 2020-November 16, 2020. Results Of 301 participating physicians, 80% were hematologist/oncologists with a median practice duration of 15 years; 62% practiced in community and 38% in academic settings. Participants were located in the US (South, 34%; Northeast, 26%; West, 21%; Midwest, 20%) and spent 90% of their professional time in direct patient care. In the preceding 12 months, participants treated a median (interquartile range) of 16 (7-40) patients with active cHL (stage III [median], 4; stage IV, 5) and 15 (8-40) cHL survivors. When treating cHL, 88% of participants reported giving NCCN guidelines somewhat/significant consideration. Overall, 94% of participants (n=284) reported using a PET/CT combined scan to diagnose/stage cHL, in line with current guideline recommendations. Of these participants, 97% reported typically getting an interim PET/CT scan for stage III or IV cHL with 65% typically getting the scan after cycle 2 (Figure A). Participants reported both escalating and de-escalating treatment based on interim PET/CT results (Figure B) with 61% making decisions after cycle 2. Of participants using a PET/CT scan, 42% reported receiving both a Deauville score and a standardized uptake value (SUV; Figure C) with 62% of participants noting that the Deauville score was the primary system used for reviewing PET/CT results (Figure D). However, 19% of participants reported challenges interpreting PET/CT results. Among participants using a Deauville score (n=209), consensus was limited on what defined a positive scan (≥3, 44%; ≥4, 37%). Challenges obtaining PET/CT scans were reported by 16% of participants using PET/CT scans. However, despite not reporting challenges 55% of participants on average were unable to obtain a PET/CT scan 20% of the time. Of participants using PET/CT scans, 86% reported typically receiving results within 2 business days and 14% within 3-5 business days. Twenty-one percent of participants reported that delays in PET/CT results affected their ability to use a PET-adaptive approach. Forty-nine percent of those using PET/CT scans reported increased difficulty in PET/CT access for stage III or IV cHL due to lack of insurance coverage. In absence of a PET/CT scan, 36% of participants reported using an interim biopsy and 63% an interim CT scan to inform treatment choices. Among all participants, 36% reported increased difficulty in getting patients with cHL access to PET/CT scans due to COVID-19. Conclusions Although participants consider NCCN guidelines when treating cHL, interim PET scans are not universally obtained after cycle 2 for stage III or IV cHL, with 65% of participants who use PET/CT scans obtaining an interim PET scan after cycle 2 for stage III or IV cHL. When PET/CT scans are obtained, Deauville scores are commonly provided; however, there is variability in what is termed a positive or negative Deauville score. Challenges in obtaining PET/CT scans, with increased difficulty during COVID-19, were reported. Also, there are other barriers, such as lack of insurance, that may prohibit the optimal adherence to guidelines on interim PET/CT utilization. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Parsons: SeaGen: Consultancy. Yu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Seagen, Inc: Consultancy. Fanale: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Flora: Seagen, Inc: Research Funding.

Background Mainstay therapies for patients with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) include several multiagent chemotherapy regimens. A combination of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) is commonly administered in the first-line (1L) setting; however, ~30% of patients with stage III or IV cHL will be refractory to or relapse following ABVD treatment. Brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD), a novel targeted therapy in combination with a standard chemotherapy regimen, is another option for 1L treatment of stage III or IV cHL. In the 5-year update of the ECHELON-1 trial (Straus, 2021), patients with stage III or IV cHL randomized to 1L A+AVD compared with ABVD continued to demonstrate progression-free survival (PFS) improvement with a 32% reduction in the risk of progression or death (HR=0.681, nominal P=0.002). To understand the decision-making process when selecting a 1L cHL treatment regimen for stage III or IV cHL, we surveyed physicians to gain insights into their preferred regimens and factors that influence their treatment choices as part of CONNECT, the first real-world observational survey in cHL that includes physicians, patients, and caregivers. Methods Physicians in the United States who treat patients with cHL were recruited to participate in an Institutional Review Board-approved, online anonymous survey from October 19, 2020-November 16, 2020. Eligible participants were medical oncologists, hematologist/oncologists, or hematologists with ≥2 years medical practice experience who, within the past 12 months, had treated ≥1 adult (aged ≥18 years) with stage III or IV cHL and ≥1 adult in the 1L setting. Results Of participating physicians (N=301), 62% were community-based and 80% identified themselves as a hematologist/oncologist, reporting a median of 15 years of experience. Participants saw a median (interquartile range) of 16 (7-40) patients with active, newly diagnosed cHL and 15 (8-40) cHL survivors in the 12 months preceding survey participation. The most important considerations (ranked 1 or 2) for cHL treatments were clinical trial efficacy and safety data (60%) and official guideline recommendations (58%). Specifically, efficacy attributes including overall survival (OS; 91%), long-term PFS (86%), curative potential (85%), and complete response (81%) were rated highest or as having the most essential impact. In contrast, patient personal goals (6%), treatment costs (4%), and patient financial support programs (4%) were endorsed by Conclusions Efficacy attributes, including OS and PFS; quality of life; and patient age were top reasons cited by surveyed participants for selecting a specific 1L treatment regimen in stage III or IV cHL. Treatment preferences for newly diagnosed stage III or IV cHL varied based on patient characteristics including presence of bulky mediastinal disease, disease stage, perceived risk of relapse, age, and comorbidities. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Yu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Seagen, Inc: Consultancy. Fanale: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Flora: Seagen, Inc: Research Funding. Parsons: SeaGen: Consultancy.

Introduction Adults with Burkitt lymphoma (BL) are at risk for both early toxic death and disease progression. Age is associated with a poor prognosis with highly dose-intensive regimens, but it is unclear if this is driven by disease biology or treatment intolerance. We previously reported that survival for adult BL patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R were poorest with CNS, bone marrow (BM) and/or peripheral blood (PB) involvement, but age was not prognostic (Roschewski et al J Clin Oncol 2020). A retrospective study of patients treated with standard regimens outside of clinical trials identified the Burkitt Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (BL-IPI) which stratified patients into risk categories based on 4 variables: age ≥40y, ECOG ≥2, serum LDH >3x ULN, and CNS involvement (Olszewski J Clin Oncol 2021). We analyzed the prognostic utility of BL-IPI to predict time to progression (TTP) and event-free survival (EFS) for adult patients with BL treated on a prospective multicenter study of risk-adapted DA-EPOCH-R. Methods NCI 9177 was a multicenter study that included pts ≥ age 18 with any HIV status. Treatment was risk-adapted based on LDH, ECOG status, stage, and largest tumor lesion. Low-risk patients received 3 cycles of DA-EPOCH-RR and high-risk patients received 6 cycles of DA-EPOCH-R with either IT chemo prophylaxis or extended IT treatment for active CNS disease. Event-free survival (EFS) was calculated from study entry until progression, last documentation of active disease, death, or last follow-up. Time to progression (TTP) was calculated from study entry until date of progression. Kaplan-Meier estimation and log-tank tests were used to determine the prognostic utility of the BL-IPI including individual factors. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to determine the c-index which measures the predictive ability of a survival model. Results 113 patients were enrolled including 31 (27%) low-risk, 55 (49%) intermediate-risk, and 27 (24%) high-risk by BL-IPI. With a median follow up of living patients of 3.3y, the 5-year TTP for pts with high-risk BL-IPI was 78.3% (95% CI: 55-90) compared to 95.2% (95% CI: 88-98)(p=0.022) for pts with low/intermediate IPI (Figure 1A). Pts with high-risk BL-IPI had a lower 5-year EFS of 66.7% (95% CI: 46-81) compared to 94.2% (95% CI: 83-98) for intermediate-risk and 83.6% (95% CI: 65-93) for low-risk, respectively (p=0.004)(Table 1). Pts aged ≥40y had a similar 5-year TTP and EFS of 93.6% (95% CI: 84-98) versus 88.4% (95% CI: 74-95)(p=0.32) and 86.7% (95% CI: 76-93) versus 81.1% (95% CI: 66-90)(p=0.50) compared to pts under 40y. Pts with ECOG PS ≥2 had a worse 5-year TTP and EFS of 76.5% (95% CI: 49-90) versus 94.4% (95% CI: 87-98)(p=0.01) and 61.9% (95% CI: 38-79) versus 89.8% (95% CI: 81-95)(p=0.0004) compared to pts with ECOG PS 3x ULN. Pts with CNS involvement had worse 5-year TTP and EFS of 62.5% (95% CI: 23-86) versus 93.9% (95% CI: 87-97)(p=0.002) and 45.5% (95% CI: 17-71) versus 88.8% (95% CI: 81-94)(p=0.0001) compared to pts without CNS involvement. Nineteen (70%) pts high-risk by BL-IPI had CNS/BM/PB involvement while 8 (30%) had no CNS/BM/PB involvement. Ten (12%) pts with low/intermediate-risk by BL-IPI had CNS/BM/PB involvement and 76 (88%) had no CNS/BM/PB involvement. Pts without involvement of CNS/BM/PB had an excellent prognosis across BL-IPI groups with 5-year TTP of 97.3% (95% CI: 90-99) for low/intermediate-risk by BL-IPI and 100% for high-risk by BL-IPI. Patient with CNS/BM/PB involvement had 5-year TTP of 80.0% (95% CI: 41-95) for low/intermediate-risk by BL-IPI and 66.7% (95% CI: 38-85) for high-risk by BL-IPI (global p=0.006)(Figure 1B). Compared to BL-IPI (C-index 0.62 p=0.13), CNS/BM/PB involvement had better discrimination between prognostic groups (C-index 0.76, p=0.0005). Conclusion Patients with low-or intermediate risk BL-IPI scores had an excellent 5-year TTP and EFS of 95% and 94% in NCI 9177. Age is not prognostic with DA-EPOCH-R but CNS/BM/PB involvement is prognostic across BL-IPI groups. Future studies in adults with BL should focus on high-risk disease including younger patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dunleavy: Gebmab: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Genetech: Honoraria; Idec: Honoraria. Abramson: C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding. Friedberg: Novartis: Other: DSMC ; Acerta: Other: DSMC ; Bayer: Other: DSMC . Kahl: AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy; AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding. Bartlett: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Noy: Epizyme: Consultancy; Rafael Parhma: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction Brentuximab vedotin (BV) and nivolumab are both active and well tolerated in patients (pts) with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) and were previously studied in first salvage (overall response rate [ORR] 85%; complete response [CR] 67%) (Advani 2021) and as firstline therapy in older adults (ORR 95%; CR 79%) (Yasenchak 2019). BV is approved for the treatment of adults with treatment-naïve Stage III or IV cHL in combination with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) (Connors 2017) and targets CD30, a receptor expressed on the Reed-Sternberg cells. Nivolumab is approved for treatment of adults with relapsed/refractory cHL and restores antitumor immunity by blocking the PD-1 receptor on activated T-cells. The combination of BV plus nivolumab demonstrated promising activity that supports this combination when evaluated as a frontline treatment option for pts over 60 years of age with cHL (Friedberg 2018). Additionally, in pts with non-bulky Stage I or II cHL, treatment with BV plus doxorubicin and dacarbazine (AD) resulted in a CR rate of 97% at end of treatment (EOT), as well as a promising 4-year progression-free survival (PFS) estimate of 91%. Importantly, there were no cases of ≥Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy and only 9% were Grade 2 (Abramson 2021). Herein, we present preliminary safety results from Part B of this phase 2 study, where combination treatment with AN+AD (BV, nivolumab, doxorubicin, and dacarbazine) was well tolerated without excessive dose modifications or discontinuations and is consistent with the known safety profiles of the individual components of this treatment regimen. Methods SGN35-027 (NCT03646123) is an open-label, multiple part, multicenter, phase 2 clinical trial. Part B of this study enrolled pts with Ann Arbor Stage I or II cHL with bulky mediastinal disease (defined as ≥ 10 cm) or Stage III or IV cHL. Pts received up to 6 cycles of AN+AD (consisting of BV 1.2 mg/kg, nivolumab 240 mg, doxorubicin 25 mg/m 2, and dacarbazine 375 mg/m 2). All study drugs were administered by IV infusion on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was CR rate at EOT. Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, overall response rate, and PFS. Disease response and progression was assessed by investigators using the Lugano Classification Revised Staging System for nodal non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin Lymphomas (Cheson 2014) and Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria (LYRIC) (Cheson 2016) at Cycle 2 and EOT. Results In Part B, the majority of the 58 pts enrolled were white (86%), not of Hispanic or Latino/a or Spanish origins (79%), and less than 65 years old (95%). Median age was 35 years (range: 19-78 years). Twenty-nine percent of pts had Stage II cHL with bulky mediastinal disease, while the remainder had Stage III (17%) or Stage IV (50%) cHL. Of the 58 pts enrolled, 57 received at least one dose of study treatment. Of the 57 pts who received at least one dose of study treatment, 1 pt discontinued treatment (all study drugs) by the end of Cycle 2 due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). By end of Cycle 2, the majority of TEAEs were Grades 1 and 2; 16% of pts experienced ≥Grade 3 TEAEs. Nausea, fatigue, and alopecia were the most frequently reported treatment-related TEAEs (51%, 33%, and 26% of pts, respectively). No febrile neutropenia was observed, and there were no Grade 5 adverse events. Two pts (4%) experienced treatment-related treatment-emergent serious adverse events; 1 pt (2%) experienced hypophysitis and aseptic meningitis, and discontinued treatment, and 1 pt (2%) experienced pneumonitis. Preliminary efficacy results are anticipated for presentation. Conclusions Preliminary results demonstrate that AN+AD is well-tolerated, and no new safety signals were observed. The omission of bleomycin and vinblastine may have contributed to the absence of certain AEs, such as febrile neutropenia. This study of AN+AD is ongoing, and updated safety and efficacy results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Lee: BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Century Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Guidepoint: Honoraria; Oncternal: Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Flinn: Agios: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Curis: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Loxo: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Merck: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Yingli Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Great Point Partners: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Calithera Biosciences: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Teva: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: All Consultancy and Research Funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; ArQule: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Nurix Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Roche: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Triphase Research & Development Corp.: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Incyte: Other: All research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy and research funding payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Century Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Hutchison MediPharma: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Vincerx Pharma: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Sarah Cannon Research Institute: Current Employment; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Yingli Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Seagen: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: All consultancy payments made to Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Melear: Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Ramchandren: curis: Research Funding; MERCK: Consultancy, Research Funding; pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; seattle genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding. Friedman: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Burke: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Linhares: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Peterson: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Raval: Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Amgen Biotechnology Company: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Beigene Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Meyers Squibb Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Epizyme Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genetech Biotechnology Company: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Incyte Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys Biotech Company: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Seagen Biotechnology Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Chintapatla: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Feldman: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Honoraria, Other: Study investigator. Yimer: Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Texas Oncology: Current Employment. Islas-Ohlmayer: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Dean: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Rana: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Gandhi: GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria. Renshaw: Amgen: Speakers Bureau; SeaGen: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Texas Oncology: Current Employment. Gillespie-Twardy: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding. Ho: Seagen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale: Seagen, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Guo: Seagen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yasenchak: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding.

Objective Historically, nearly all relapses in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) occur within the first 5 years of treatment (Radford et al., BMJ 1997;314:346). In ECHELON-1, brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) significantly improved modified progression-free survival (PFS) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with stage III/IV cHL (Connors et al., NEJM 2018;378:331). We report updated efficacy and safety results; median follow-up was 60.9 months. Design This phase 3, open-label study (NCT01712490) randomized patients with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL to receive 6 cycles of A+AVD or ABVD. Patients underwent an interim positron emission tomography scan after cycle 2 (PET2). An exploratory analysis of PFS per investigator was conducted. Results There were 664 and 670 patients randomized to receive A+AVD and ABVD, respectively. 64%, 62%, and 58% of patients had stage IV disease, extranodal involvement at diagnosis, and B symptoms, respectively. Five-year PFS was 82.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.0–85.0) with A+AVD and 75.3% (95% CI: 71.7–78.5) with ABVD. Overall, PFS favored A+AVD (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.681; 95% CI: 0.534–0.867; P=0.002). PFS benefits were observed regardless of PET2 status and International Prognostic Score. Estimated 5-year PFS with A+AVD versus ABVD was 84.9% versus 78.9% in PET2-negative patients (HR: 0.663; 95% CI: 0.502–0.876; P=0.004), and 60.6% versus 45.9% in PET2-positive patients (HR: 0.702; 95% CI: 0.393–1.255; P=0.229). Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN) resolved or improved in 85% (n=375/443) and 86% (n=245/286) of the patients with PN on A+AVD and ABVD, respectively. Secondary malignancies occurred in 19 and 29 patients with A+AVD and ABVD, respectively. A total of 131 female patients or partners of male patients reported a pregnancy; both arms showed similar proportions of ongoing pregnancies or live births. Conclusions At 5 years, A+AVD still demonstrates clinically meaningful improvement in PFS versus ABVD, independent of PET2 status, with a manageable safety profile, including resolution or improvement of PN. The PFS benefit observed with A+AVD at this important milestone suggests that A+AVD is an attractive treatment option for all patients with previously untreated stage III/IV cHL. Funding Millennium Pharmaceuticals and Seagen

Objective Brentuximab vedotin (BV) plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (A+CHP) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) in patients with systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (sALCL) or other CD30-positive peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) in ECHELON-2 (Horwitz S et al., Lancet 2019). We report updated results; median follow-up was 47.6 months for PFS and 66.8 months for OS. Design This phase 3, double-blind study (NCT01777152) randomized patients aged ≥18 years with previously untreated CD30-positive PTCL (targeting 75% ± 5% with sALCL) to A+CHP or CHOP for 6 or 8 cycles. Primary endpoint of PFS was assessed per investigator in this updated analysis. Key secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in sALCL. BV or BV-containing regimens were permitted as subsequent/retreatment therapies. Results 452 patients were enrolled (226 patients in each arm); 316 (70%) patients had sALCL. Patients with advanced disease were included (stage III [27%] and stage IV [53%]; International Prognostic Index ≥2 [78%]). Data continues to favor A+CHP: HRs were 0.70 (95% CI: 0.53–0.91, P=0.0077) for PFS per investigator and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53–0.99, P=0.0424) for OS. 5-year PFS was 51.4% (95% CI: 42.8–59.4) with A+CHP versus 43.0% (95% CI: 35.8–50.0) with CHOP; median PFS was 62.3 months (95% CI: 42.0–not evaluable) with A+CHP and 23.8 months (95% CI: 13.6–60.8) with CHOP. 5-year OS was 70.1% (95% CI: 63.3–75.9) and 61.0% (95% CI: 54.0–67.3) with A+CHP and CHOP, respectively. Median OS was not reached in either arm. PFS favored A+CHP (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.39–0.79]) in sALCL. 29 (13%) and 54 (24%) patients with A+CHP and CHOP received subsequent BV, respectively. Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (PN), resolved/improved in 72% (n=84/117) and 78% (n=97/124) of patients with PN on A+CHP and CHOP, respectively; 98% and 97% of ongoing PN events were grade 1/2 with A+CHP and CHOP, respectively. Conclusions At this important 5-year milestone, A+CHP still provides clinically meaningful improvement in both PFS and OS versus CHOP, with a manageable safety profile, including continued resolution/improvement of PN. Funded by NIH/NCI Support Grant P30 CA008748.

Background Relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has a poor prognosis. The best outcome is achieved in patients who have a partial or complete response to salvage treatment and proceed to allogeneic stem cell transplant. Patients and Methods Twenty-one patients were given a combination regimen of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab at MD Anderson Cancer Center as part of a single-arm, prospective, open-label phase II clinical trial. The median age was 66 years, with a median number of prior treatments of three. Sixty-seven percent had failed intensive chemoimmunotherapy and 43% were intermediate/high risk according to the MCL international prognostic index score, with a median Ki-67 proliferation index of 45% in those who were tested. Results The rates of overall and complete response achieved were 74% and 42%, respectively, with median progression-free and overall survivals of 9 months and 36.4 months, respectively. The regimen's toxicity profile was acceptable; only 25% of the cycles resulted in grade 3 or 4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia, and only 3% of cycles produced grade 3–4 fatigue. There were no episodes of grade 3–4 neuropathy. Conclusion The combination of bortezomib with cyclophosphamide and rituximab is an effective and well-tolerated regimen in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. Because of its low toxicity, future combinations of this regimen with other promising drugs that have different mechanisms of action offer a realistic possibility that may improve outcomes for patients who have MCL.

Background The purpose of this study was to report the response to and toxicity of ultra-low-dose radiotherapy (RT) for B-cell ocular adnexal lymphoma (OAL). Methods We conducted a retrospective review of patients with indolent B-cell and mantle cell OAL treated with 4 Gy to the orbit(s) in two 2-Gy fractions. Disease response was assessed clinically and/or radiographically at 2 to 4-month intervals after RT. Data collected included rates of overall response, complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and treatment-related toxic effects. Results Twenty-two patients (median age, 65 years) had the following histologic subtypes: mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT; 14 patients; 64%); follicular lymphoma (5 patients; 23%); mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; 2 patients; 9%); and unclassifiable (1 patient, 4%). The overall response rate was 100%; 19 patients (86%) had a CR and 3 patients (14%) had a PR. The only acute toxic effect was grade 1 dry eye syndrome in 1 patient. Conclusion Ultra-low-dose RT in patients with OAL is associated with high response rates and minimal toxic effects, and is much shorter in duration and cost. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 39: 1095-1100, 2017.

Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is one of the most common peripheral T-cell lymphomas, and the incidence is higher in blacks than non-Hispanic whites. ALK-positive and ALK-negative ALCL are distinct subtypes that have different characteristics and clinical outcomes. Breast implant-associated ALCL is a rare lymphoma that has a good survival outcome, and a recent study showed that total capsulectomy is essential for treatment. Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is a standard treatment for relapsed/refractory ALCL. The response rate is high at 80-90%; however, once the disease progresses in patients on BV, survival outcome is very poor, with a median overall survival of less than two months.

Summary We report a single-centre, randomized study evaluating the efficacy and safety of concurrent fludarabine, mitoxantrone, dexamethasone (FND) and rituximab versus sequential FND followed by rituximab in 158 patients with advanced stage, previously untreated indolent lymphoma, enrolled between 1997 and 2002. Patients were randomized to 6–8 cycles of FND followed by 6 monthly doses of rituximab or 6 doses of rituximab given concurrently with FND. All patients who achieved at least a partial response received 12 months of interferon (IFN) maintenance. Median ages were 54 and 55 years. The two groups were comparable with the exception of a higher percentage of females (65% vs. 43%) and baseline anaemia (23% vs. 11%) in the FND followed by rituximab group. Complete response/unconfirmed complete response rates were 89% and 93%. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 toxicity was neutropenia (86% vs. 96%). Neutropenic fever occurred in 21% and 16%. Late toxicity included myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 3) and acute myeloid leukaemia (n = 5). With 12·5 years of follow-up, no significant differences based on treatment schedule were observed. 10-year overall survival estimates were 76% and 73%. 10-year progression-free survival estimates were 52% and 51%. FND with concurrent or sequential rituximab, and IFN maintenance in indolent lymphoma demonstrated high response rates and robust survival.

Introduction: Mediastinal gray zone lymphoma (MGZL) is an extremely rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma with a predominance in young men and with features that are intermediate between nodular sclerosis classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL). Shared features of these tumor types include tumor CD30 expression and the presence of 9p24.1 chromosomal alterations with expression of programmed death 1 (PD-1) ligand. Compared with PMBL, patients (pts) with MGZL have inferior survival outcomes when treated with conventional chemotherapy (Wilson et al. Blood 2014). Nivolumab is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor monoclonal antibody; brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate. In the CheckMate 436 study, the combination of nivolumab and BV demonstrated a high objective response rate (ORR; 73%) and complete response (CR) rate (37%) in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) PMBL (Zinzani et al. J Clin Oncol 2019). A separate study in R/R cHL also showed impressive efficacy (ORR: 82%; CR: 61%), suggesting some complementary action between the two agents (Herrara et al. Blood 2018). A case series highlighted the clinical activity of PD-1 inhibitor monotherapy in R/R MGZL (Melani et al. N Engl J Med 2017). Given the overlapping features of MGZL with PMBL and cHL, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab + BV in a separate MGZL cohort in CheckMate 436. Methods: The expansion cohort of the open-label, phase 1/2 CheckMate 436 (NCT02581631) study enrolled pts ≥ 18 years old with ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, and with confirmed R/R MGZL after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) or, if ineligible for auto-HCT, after ≥ 2 multi-agent chemotherapy regimens. Pts received 240 mg nivolumab (on Day 8 of Cycle 1, then Day 1 of following cycles) and 1.8 mg/kg BV (on Day 1 of each cycle) every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were investigator-assessed ORR per the Lugano 2014 criteria and safety. Key secondary endpoints included CR rate, overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: A total of 10 pts were treated and evaluable. Median age (range) was 35 (25-72) years, with only 1 pt aged > 65 years (72 years). Six pts (60%) were male; all pts had a mediastinal mass. Pts had a median of 2 prior lines of systemic cancer therapy, and none had received prior auto-HCT. At database lock, 8 months after the last pt received the first treatment, all pts had discontinued treatment (5 due to disease progression, 3 due to maximum clinical benefit, 1 due to allogenic [allo]-HCT, and 1 due to auto-HCT). Pts received a median of 7 doses of nivolumab and 7 doses of BV. ORR per investigator was 70% (80% CI, 45-88), with 5 pts (50%) achieving CR (Table). The time to CR was 1.2-1.3 months and the duration of CR was 1.5-3.2 months before pts were censored for subsequent therapy. The 5 pts who achieved CR were bridged to hematopoietic cell transplantation (4 allo- and 1 auto-HCT) and censored (all were alive at database lock). Eight pts (89%) who were evaluable for response had tumor reduction of > 25% (Figure). At a median follow-up of 12.4 (range, 0.1-25.5) months, the 6-month OS rate was 80.0% (95% CI, 40.9-94.6). DOR and PFS could not be estimated due to earlier censoring of pts who received subsequent therapies. Nine pts (90%) experienced any grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); the most common any grade TRAEs were neutropenia (n = 3; 1 grade 1, 1 grade 2, 1 experienced 4 grade 1/2 events and 1 grade 3 event) and paresthesia (n = 3; all grade 1). Three pts (30%) had grade 3-4 TRAEs. Infusion-related reaction occurred in 1 pt (grade 1). One pt had an immune-mediated AE (grade 2 maculo-papular rash, which resolved without systemic steroids). A serious drug-related AE occurred in 1 elderly pt (grade 3 febrile neutropenia). There were 3 deaths, all caused by disease progression. Conclusions: Nivolumab + BV demonstrated a high investigator-assessed ORR of 70%, with a 50% CR rate and a tolerable safety profile in pts with R/R MGZL, similar to findings in PMBL. The regimen represents a potential option for bridging to hematopoietic cell transplantation based on the brisk and frequent responses and a safety profile that compares favorably with historic data using standard chemotherapy regimens. Study support: BMS. Writing support: Jane Cheung, Caudex, funded by BMS. Figure 1 Disclosures Santoro: Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule, Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Takeda, Roche, Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, ArQule, Lilly, Sandoz, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb, SERVIER, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Sanofi, ArQule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Moskowitz:Merck: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Carlo-Stella:Servier, Novartis, Genenta Science srl, ADC Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Karyopharm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics and Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Francis:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sacchi:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment. Savage:Roche (institutional): Research Funding; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Servier: Consultancy; BeiGene: Other: Steering Committee; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Nivolumab was used in combination with brentuximab vedotin (BV) for evaluation of its efficacy and safety in patients with relapsed/refractory mediastinal gray zone lymphoma.

Introduction: Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend one of three frontline (1L) regimens to treat stage III or IV classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL): doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD), brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD), or bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (escalated (e) dose-BEACOPP). PET/CT imaging is important at initial staging and in follow up including after two cycles (interim PET2) to assess and adapt treatment based on response for patients who newly start treatment with ABVD (Johnson et al., 2016). Despite NCCN guidelines, physicians in community oncology practices may face challenges optimizing outcomes for ABVD patients utilizing the interim PET2 adaptive approach. This study evaluated interim PET2 utilization and reported Deauville scores (DS) in patients with stage III or IV cHL treated in the 1L setting. Methods: This retrospective observational study included adult patients diagnosed with stage III or IV cHL and treated with 1L ABVD, A+AVD, or eBEACOPP within the US Oncology Network (USON) between 01 January 2017 and 31 January 2020. Patients enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials or received treatment for another primary cancer diagnosis were excluded. Patient data were sourced from the USON's electronic health records database, iKM™. Demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics were sourced from structured iKM elements. Interim PET2 details, including Deauville scores, were obtained from manual chart review. Descriptive statistics were generated for all patient characteristics. Results: 262 patients with cHL were eligible. The majority of the patients were Conclusions: Findings from this retrospective, observational, community oncology study found that Deauville scores were reported for only 1/3 of interim PET-CT in patients treated with 1L ABVD patients with stage III or IV cHL. Despite this, initial treatment modification of de-escalation from ABVD to AVD was common and escalation to BEACOPP was rarely observed. These results suggest that albeit interim PET-CT is utilized, the Deauville scores to inform escalation or de-escalation of treatment decisions in stage III or IV cHL patients is missing and not universally reported in the community oncology setting. Our findings support a potential opportunity to educate oncologists and radiologists on the importance of consistently reporting PET-CT Deauville scores given the fact that providers may lack the complete information to ensure treatment modifications are optimized for patient outcomes. Additionally, compared with ABVD, A+AVD that does not require treatment adaptation by interim PET/CT Deauville score may be a therapy option. Figure 1 Disclosures Yasenchak: BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Clark:McKesson Life Sciences: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Beeks:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; McKesson: Current Employment. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Robert:McKesson: Current Employment. Yu-Isenberg:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Introduction: In the phase 3 ECHELON-1 study (NCT01712490), treatment with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) significantly improved modified progression-free survival in patients with newly-diagnosed stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD). The results of ECHELON-1 supported the March 2018 US FDA approval of A+AVD for adults with frontline (FL) stage III or IV cHL. To optimize outcomes for patients with stage III or IV cHL receiving ABVD, the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend an interim PET/CT imaging (PET2) at the end of cycle 2 to inform escalation or de-escalation of therapy. In the current study we describe the real-world patient characteristics, supportive care use, and PET2 utilization in A+AVD and ABVD patients outside of the clinical trial setting in the US. Methods: Using medical and pharmacy claims data in the US Symphony Health Solutions database, a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with cHL receiving FL A+AVD or ABVD was conducted to compare treatment and utilization characteristics. Patients ≥18 years with one inpatient or two outpatient ICD-9 or 10 cHL diagnosis codes, newly prescribed A+AVD or ABVD (index date) between March 2018 and January 2020, and with ≥6 months continuous activity before and a minimum of 3 months after the index date were included. To adjust for confounding factors, a 1:1 propensity score matching analysis was performed based on age, gender, baseline comorbidities, geographic region and length of follow-up. Results: A total of 4259 patients met inclusion criteria (1002 A+AVD and 3257 ABVD) with a median follow-up duration of 14 and 15 months, respectively. In unmatched cohorts, median age at index date of A+AVD vs ABVD was 48 and 39 years, with 41% and 52% of patients between the ages of 18-39, and 34% vs 20% age ≥60, respectively. Patients on A+AVD had higher comorbidity burden across all conditions included in the Charlson Comorbidity Index, with 41% vs 33% of ABVD patients reporting 1+ comorbidities, with chronic pulmonary disease (18% vs 14%, p=0.006) being the most prevalent (Table 1). Following propensity score matching, A+AVD patients received significantly higher granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), 90% vs 44%, with 80% and 20% as primary prophylaxis (p Conclusions: In this first real-world evaluation, patients with cHL receiving FL A+AVD were older, had higher burden of comorbidities, utilized recommended G-CSF as primary prophylaxis, and had similar rate of subsequent therapy compared to ECHELON-1 patients. Only about one third of patients underwent interim PET2 restaging, and less than half of the patients who started on ABVD were de-escalated to AVD. Confounding by unmeasured characteristics, such as disease stage and PET/CT results, is a limitation of this and any retrospective study based on claims data. However, this hypothesis-generating analysis suggests the need to: 1) control for patient characteristics (e.g., age, comorbidities) in comparative real-world analyses; 2) understand reasons for the lack of PET/CT use; and 3) evaluate the actual use of the interim PET2 to escalate or de-escalate treatment in patients with cHL. The need to optimize treatment outcomes while maximizing short- and long-term treatment efficacy and safety is paramount. Characteristics and management of this real-world population with cHL differed from those in the ECHELON-1 trial, demonstrating the importance of retrospective studies in assessing the impact of new regimens on clinical practice and in identifying areas for further education of practitioners. Disclosures Phillips: Beigene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy. Yu-Isenberg:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Surinach:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flores:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lisano:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Burke:Verastem: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy.

Background No consensus exists regarding the use of radiotherapy (RT) in conjunction with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDC/ASCT) for patients with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The objectives of the current study were to characterize practice patterns and assess the efficacy and toxicity of RT at 2 major transplantation centers. Methods Eligible patients underwent HDC/ASCT from 2006 through 2015 using the combination of either carmustine (BCNU), etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) or cyclophosphamide, BCNU, and etoposide (CBV). Results For the cohort of 189 patients, the 4-year overall survival rate was 80%, the progression-free survival rate was 67%, and the local control (LC) rate was 68%. RT was used within 4 months of ASCT for 22 patients (12%) and was given more often for disease that was early stage, primary refractory, or [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avid at the time of HDC/ASCT. Disease recurrence occurring after HDC/ASCT was associated with primary refractory disease and FDG-avidity at the time of HDC/ASCT. RT was not found to be associated with LC, progression-free survival, or overall survival on univariate analysis. In a model incorporating primary refractory HL and FDG-avid disease at the time of HDC/ASCT, RT was found to be associated with a decreased risk of local disease recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.3; P = .02). In patients with primary refractory HL and/or FDG-avid disease at the time of HDC/ASCT, the 4-year LC rate was 81% with RT versus 49% without RT (P = .03). There was one case of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥ 3 RT-related toxicity (acute grade 3 pancytopenia). Conclusions In patients undergoing ASCT for relapsed/refractory HL, peritransplantation RT was used more often for disease that was early stage, primary refractory, or FDG-avid after salvage conventional-dose chemotherapy. RT was associated with improved LC of high-risk localized disease and was well tolerated with modern techniques. Cancer 2017;123:1363-1371. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

The survival outcome of patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) who experience relapse or progression following first-line treatment is generally very poor.[1][1] It can improve for patients who are able to receive stem cell transplantation (SCT), particularly if remission prior to

In KEYNOTE-087, pembrolizumab had a 69% overall response rate and acceptable safety in patients with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (rrHL). We assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in KEYNOTE-087. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the EuroQoL Five Dimensions Questionnaire 3-level version (EQ-5D) were administered to 206 patients across three cohorts defined by lymphoma progression after: (1) autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and subsequent brentuximab vedotin (BV) (n = 69); (2) salvage chemotherapy and BV (n = 79); and (3) ASCT without post-transplantation BV (n = 58). Compliance/completion rates were ≥90% at week 12 and ≥70% at week 24. QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL and EQ-5D visual analog scale scores showed mean increases from baseline in overall health at all assessed timepoints. With few exceptions, mean improvements from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 in QLQ-C30 functional and symptom scores occurred in all cohorts.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02453594.

Peripheral T-cell lymphoma are rare neoplasms of the hemopoietic system with predominantly nodal presentation and aggressive behavior. Anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimens represent the first-line treatment of choice, to be complemented with autologous transplantation in responding patients, if their clinical conditions are permissive, to consolidate remission, and to prolong survival. Nevertheless, many patients inadequately respond to chemotherapy or progress at the end of treatment. New molecules have been approved in the United States for relapsed and refractory disease, although response rates and, most of all, response durations are still rather poor when applied as single agents. Allogeneic transplantation may offer an opportunity of long-term disease control in patients with relapsed disease. This chapter reviews the current approach to peripheral T-cell lymphoma in terms of clinical evaluation, diagnosis, staging, and first-line treatment and presents possible treatment options for patients whose disease recurs after chemotherapy or appears refractory.

Summary Background Malignant cells of classical Hodgkin's lymphoma are characterised by genetic alterations at the 9p24.1 locus, leading to overexpression of PD-1 ligands and evasion of immune surveillance. In a phase 1b study, nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, produced a high response in patients with relapsed and refractory classical Hodgkin's lymphoma, with an acceptable safety profile. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma after failure of both autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin. Methods In this ongoing, single-arm phase 2 study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with recurrent classical Hodgkin's lymphoma who had failed to respond to autologous stem-cell transplantation and had either relapsed after or failed to respond to brentuximab vedotin, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, were enrolled from 34 hospitals and academic centres across Europe and North America. Patients were given nivolumab intravenously over 60 min at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from study. The primary endpoint was objective response following a prespecified minimum follow-up period of 6 months, assessed by an independent radiological review committee (IRRC). All patients who received at least one dose of nivolumab were included in the primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02181738. Findings Among 80 treated patients recruited between Aug 26, 2014, and Feb 20, 2015, the median number of previous therapies was four (IQR 4–7). At a median follow-up of 8·9 months (IQR 7·8–9·9), 53 (66·3%, 95% CI 54·8–76·4) of 80 patients achieved an IRRC-assessed objective response. The most common drug-related adverse events (those that occurred in ≥15% of patients) included fatigue (20 [25%] patients), infusion-related reaction (16 [20%]), and rash (13 [16%]). The most common drug-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (four [5%] patients) and increased lipase concentrations (four [5%]). The most common serious adverse event (any grade) was pyrexia (three [4%] patients). Three patients died during the study; none of these deaths were judged to be treatment related. Interpretation Nivolumab resulted in frequent responses with an acceptable safety profile in patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma who progressed after autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin. Therefore, nivolumab might be a new treatment option for a patient population with a high unmet need. Ongoing follow-up will help to assess the durability of response. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Forty patients (median age, 31 years; range, 20 to 63) with Hodgkin lymphoma underwent an allogeneic stem cell transplant with the gemcitabine–fludarabine–melphalan reduced-intensity conditioning regimen. Thirty-one patients (77%) had undergone a prior autologous stem cell transplant, with a median time to progression after transplant of 6 months (range, 1 to 68). Disease status at transplant was complete remission/complete remission, undetermined (n = 23; 57%), partial remission (n = 14; 35%), and other (n = 3; 8%). Twenty-six patients (65%) received brentuximab vedotin before allotransplant. The overall complete response rate before allotransplant was 65% in brentuximab-treated patients versus 42% in brentuximab-naive patients (P = .15). At the latest follow-up (October 2015) 31 patients were alive. The median follow-up was 41 months (range, 5 to 87). Transplant-related mortality rate at 3 years was 17%. Pulmonary, skin toxicities, and nausea were seen in 13 (33%), 11 (28%), and 37 (93%) patients, respectively. At 3 years, estimates for overall and progression-free survival were 75% (95% CI, 57% to 86%) and 54% (95% CI, 36% to 70%). Overall incidence for disease progression was 28% (95% CI, 16% to 50%). We believe the gemcitabine–fludarabine–melphalan regimen allows moderate dose intensification with acceptable morbidity and mortality. The inclusion of gemcitabine affected nausea, pulmonary, and likely skin toxicity. Exposure to brentuximab vedotin allowed more patients to reach allogeneic stem cell transplantation in complete remission. With over 50% of patients progression-free at 3 years, allogeneic stem cell transplantation with reduced-intensity conditioning remains an effective and relevant treatment option for Hodgkin lymphoma in the brentuximab vedotin era.