Search

The utility of dose escalation after positive positron emission tomography following 2 cycles of ABVD (PET2) for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) remains controversial. We describe the United States real-world practice patterns for PET2 positive patients.Data was collected from 15 sites on PET2 positive HL patients after receiving frontline treatment between January, 2015 and June, 2019. Descriptive analyses between those with therapy change and those continuing initial therapy were assessed.A total of 129 patients were identified; 111 (86%) were treated with ABVD therapy and 18 (14%) with an alternate regimen. At PET2 assessment, 74.4% (96/129) had Deauville score (DS) 4 and 25.6% (33/129) had DS 5. Of the 66 limited stage (LS) patients with PET2 DS score of 4/5, 77.3% (51/66) continued initial therapy and 22.7% (15/66) changed to escalated therapy. The 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) for DS 4/5 LS patients was 67.0% (95% CI; 54.9-81.7) for patients without escalation compared with 51.4% (95% CI; 30.8-85.8) for those who escalated. Of the 63 DS 4/5 patients with advanced stage (AS) disease, 76.2% (48/63) continued initial therapy and 23.8% (15/63) changed to escalated therapy. The 12-month PFS for DS 4/5 AS patients was 38.3% (95% CI: 26.3%-55.7%) for patients without escalation compared with 57.1% (95% CI: 36.3-89.9) for those with escalation.A minority of PET2 positive HL patients undergo therapy escalation and outcomes remain overall suboptimal. Improved prognostics markers and better therapeutics are required to improve outcomes for high-risk PET2 positive HL patients.

We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis across 10 US academic medical centers to evaluate treatment patterns and outcomes in patients age ≥60 years with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) from 2010-2018. Among 244 eligible patients, median age was 68, 63% had advanced stage (III/IV), 96% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0-2, and 12% had documented loss of ≥1 activity of daily living (ADL). Medical comorbidities were assessed by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS-G), where n = 44 (18%) had total scores ≥10. Using multivariable Cox models, only ADL loss predicted shorter progression-free (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, P = .007) and overall survival (OS; HR 2.52, P = .02). Most patients (n = 203, 83%) received conventional chemotherapy regimens, including doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD; 56%), AVD (14%), and AVD with brentuximab vedotin (BV; 9%). Compared to alternative therapies, conventional regimens significantly improved PFS (HR 0.46, P = .0007) and OS (HR 0.31, P = .0003). Survival was similar following conventional chemotherapy in those ages 60-69 vs ≥70: PFS HR 0.88, P = .63; OS HR 0.73, P = .55. Early treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was more common with CIRS-G ≥10 (28% vs 12%, P = .016) or documented geriatric syndrome (28% vs 13%, P = .02). A competing risk analysis demonstrated improved disease-related survival with conventional therapy (HR 0.29, P = .02) and higher mortality from causes other than disease or treatment with high CIRS-G or geriatric syndromes. This study suggests conventional chemotherapy regimens remain a standard of care in fit older patients with cHL, and highlights the importance of geriatric assessments in defining fitness for cHL therapy going forward.

Background: BL is associated with a high risk of primary or secondary CNS involvement, warranting intrathecal (IT) and/or systemic therapy that penetrates the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The lower-intensity DA-EPOCH-R regimen has recently shown high survival rates in BL (Dunleavy, NEJM 2013), but it omits drugs traditionally used for CNS prophylaxis (like high-dose methotrexate [HDMTX]). The objective of this multi-institutional retrospective study was to examine treatments, risk factors, and CNS-related outcomes among patients (pts) with BL. Methods: We collected data from 26 US centers on adult BL pts diagnosed (dx) in 6/2009-6/2018. Using institutional expert pathology review and 2016 WHO criteria, we excluded other high-grade lymphomas (including BL-like/unclassifiable), or cases with inadequate clinicopathologic data. We studied factors associated with baseline CNS involvement (CNSinv) using logistic regression reporting odds ratios (OR). Progression-free (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence function of CNS recurrence (in a competing risk analysis) were examined in Cox or Fine-Gray models reporting hazard (HR) or subhazard ratios (SHR), respectively. All estimates report 95% confidence intervals (in square brackets). Results: Among 557 BL pts (median age, 47 years [yr], 24% women, 23% HIV+), 107 (19%) had CNSinv at dx, including 89 (16%) with leptomeningeal, and 15 (3%) with parenchymal CNS disease. In a multivariable model, factors significantly associated with CNSinv at dx included stage 3/4 (OR, 11.2 [1.47-85.9]), poor performance status (PS; OR, 2.12 [1.22-3.69]), ≥2 extranodal sites (OR, 3.77 [2.02-7.03]), or marrow involvement (OR, 2.44 [1.35-4.39]), whereas intestinal involvement conferred low risk of CNSinv (OR, 0.27 [0.11-0.65]). CNSinv at dx was not significantly associated with use of specific chemotherapy regimens (Fig. A,P=.75) or receipt of IT chemotherapy (91% vs 84%, P=.065). Pts with CNSinv were less likely to achieve a complete response (62% vs 76%, P=.005), had worse 3 yr PFS (47% vs 69%; P3x upper limit of normal [LDH>3x]; see Evens AM et al, ASH 2019 for further details). With median follow up of 3.6 yrs, 33 pts (6%) experienced a CNS recurrence (82% within 1 yr from dx; 79% purely in CNS, and 21% with concurrent systemic BL). The cumulative risk of CNS recurrence was 6% [4-8%] at 3y (Fig. D). Univariate significant predictors of CNS recurrence included baseline CNSinv, HIV+ status, stage 3/4, poor PS, LDH>3x, involvement of ≥2 extranodal sites, marrow, or testis. However, in a multivariate model only baseline CNSinv (SHR, 3.35 [1.53-7.31]) and poor PS (SHR, 2.24 [1.03-4.90]) retained significance. The 3 yr risk of CNS recurrence varied from 3% for pts with no risk factor, to 10% with one, and 17% with both factors (Fig. E). In addition, the risk of CNS recurrence differed according to chemotherapy regimen, and was significantly higher for pts treated with DA-EPOCH (12% at 3y [8-18%]; Fig. F) compared with CODOX-M/IVAC (4% [2-8%]) or hyperCVAD/MA (3% [1-6%]; SHR for DA-EPOCH vs. others, 3.50 [1.69-7.22]). All pts recurring after DA-EPOCH had received IT chemotherapy. Higher risk of CNS recurrence persisted with DA-EPOCH regardless of baseline CNSinv (Pinteraction=.70), poor PS (Pint=.14), or HIV status (Pint=.89). Baseline CNSinv was the strongest factor associated with CNS recurrence after DA-EPOCH (3 yr risk, 30% vs 8%, P Conclusions: In adult BL, baseline CNSinv and poor PS predicted subsequent CNS recurrence, an outcome that is associated with a dismal prognosis. Furthermore, treatment with DA-EPOCH was associated with a significantly increased risk of CNS recurrence in this real-world analysis. For BL pts with baseline CNSinv treated in routine clinical practice, regimens with highly BBB-penetrant drugs (e.g. CODOX-M/IVAC, hyperCVAD/MA) may be preferred. Studies should delineate ways to mitigate the risk of CNS recurrence with lower-intensity programs. Disclosures Evens: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Affimed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: DMC; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Smith:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding. Naik:Celgene: Other: Advisory board. Reddy:KITE Pharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Khan:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Other: Educational Content/Symposium; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers: Other: Research Funds. Alderuccio:Puma Biotechnology: Other: Immediate family member; Agios: Other: Immediate family member; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncLive: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Other: Immediate family member. Yazdy:Bayer: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Karmali:Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Martin:Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy. Magarelli:Tevan Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; University of Colorado: Employment. Portell:Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding. Olszewski:Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Introduction: A positive interim PET scan (PET2) following 2 cycles of ABVD for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is associated with a poor prognosis; several studies in advanced stage demonstrate benefit from escalating therapy. Definition of positivity (Deauville 3 (D3) vs Deauville 4/5 (D4/5)), initial treatment and response adaptive decisions may vary among clinicians. Data examining practice patterns in managing positive PET2 scans is lacking. We report practice patterns and outcomes for patients (pts) with positive PET2 results including D3 and D4/5 outcomes. Methods: Adult pts with classical HL and PET2 findings of D3, D4, and D5 after initial therapy between 01/01/2015 and 07/01/2019 were identified. Pts enrolled in clinical studies were excluded. Retrospective demographic, clinical, and treatment data were obtained and described from 14 academic and community sites across North America (NA). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were summarized by Kaplan-Meier curves and compared by log-rank test. Results: 166 PET2 positive pts were identified. Clinical characteristics included 54% (89/166) with advanced stage (III/IV) and 46% (77/166) with early stage (IA-IIB) disease. 152 pts (92%) were treated with initial ABVD like therapy and 14 pts (8%) with an alternate regimen (Table 1). After initial treatment, 163 pts demonstrated PET2 scores of D3 (n=33), D4 (n=99) and D5 (n=31). Of the 130 D4/5 pts; 23% (30/130) underwent therapeutic escalation and 77% (100/130) did not escalate. The complete response rate (CR) at end of treatment (EOT) for all D4/5 patients receiving escalation was 37% (11/30) compared to 45% (45/100) without escalation (p=0.43). (Table 2) The 12 month PFS was 54% (38.2-76.3) versus (vs) 69.2% (60.4-79.2) for escalation and no escalation respectively. Of the 66 D4/5 pts with advanced stage disease; 21% (14/66) had therapeutic escalation and 79% (52/66) did not escalate. CR at EOT was noted in 29% (4/14) with escalation vs 31% (16/52) without escalation (p=0.88). (Table 2) The 12 month PFS was 54.2% (32.9-89.3) vs 57.5% (44.9-73.7) for escalation and no escalation respectively. (Figure 1; Log Rank p=0.38). Of the 64 D4/5 pts with early stage disease; 75% (48/64) did not undergo escalation and 25% (16/64) had escalation. CR at EOT was noted in 44% (7/16) with escalation vs 60% (29/48) without escalation (p=0.26). (Table 2) The 12 month PFS was 54.7% (34.5-86.7) vs 80.8% (70.2-92.9) for escalation and no escalation respectively. Of the 33 D3 pts; 52% (17/33) de-escalated with the remainder (16/33) continuing on initial therapy. No D3 pt underwent escalation. In the 12 D3 pts with early stage disease, 50% (6/12) de-escalated. Of the 21 D3 pts with advanced stage disease; 52% (11/21) had de-escalation and 48% (10/21) did not de-escalate. CR at EOT was noted in 71% (12/17) with de-escalation vs 81% (13/16) without de-escalation (p=0.50). (Table 2) Progression was noted in 29% (5/17) of patients who underwent de-escalation compared to 38% (6/16) without de-escalation. The 12 month PFS was 76.5% (85.8-99.6) vs 72.1% (52.2-99.7) for de-escalation and no de-escalation respectively. Conclusion: This is the first study evaluating clinical practice patterns and outcomes of PET adaptive therapy in NA. In this retrospective study, less than a quarter of advanced stage ABVD-treated D4/5 pts had therapy escalation despite prior studies reporting benefit. Our data suggest that outcomes for advanced stage PET positive pts are suboptimal irrespective of therapeutic escalation. In addition, pts with D3 findings represent a heterogeneous population and demonstrate favorable outcomes compared to D4/5 pts. Longer follow up time and further studies with larger numbers of pts are essential for confirming the reported findings. Disclosures Rutherford: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Heron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bartlett:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genenetech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Maddocks:Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Feldman:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Magarelli:Tevan Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Advani:Merck: Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stephens:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Patel:Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Tees:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau. Karmali:Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau. Cheson:Portola: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Symbios: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trillium: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Yazdy:Bayer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Pagel:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Sandoz-Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an Abbvie company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Introduction Approximately 20% of patients (pts) with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) are age ≥ 60 years (yrs) at diagnosis (dx). Standard anthracycline-based therapies (ABTx) have historically shown lower efficacy and greater toxicity in this older population compared with younger pts, especially for unfit or frail pts. However, prior analyses have pre-dated the use of brentuximab vedotin (BV) and other novel targeted agents in the front-line setting and there remains no clearly defined or unified standard of care for this pt population. Studies in older lymphoma pts have also defined specific categories of pt fitness that may potentially guide therapy, although continued validation of these definitions in cHL are needed. We performed a large, multicenter retrospective study to identify current practice patterns in the US in older untreated cHL pts with specific attention to pt fitness using established definitions and to outcomes with ABTx versus non-ABTx. Methods Following IRB approval at each site, detailed pathologic and clinical data, including geriatric assessments (GAs) for the latter, were collected across 10 US academic medical centers. Eligible pts included: cHL dx on or after 1/1/2010, age ≥ 60 yrs at dx, and no preceding hematologic malignancy. Subjects with inadequate clinicopathologic and outcomes data or with dx other than cHL were excluded. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was developed to study the association of PFS and OS with various factors of interest, and survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier using SPSS. Associations were considered significant for two-sided P values ≤ 0.05. Results Among 254 eligible older cHL pts with newly diagnosed disease, clinical features included: median age 67 yrs (range 60-90+), 54% male, 64% stage III/IV, 46% B symptoms, and 86.1% ECOG PS 0-1. 68.9% had nodular sclerosis, 18.9% mixed cellularity, and 12.2% other subtypes; EBV was detectable by IHC or peripheral blood in 39.3% of evaluable cases (n=98). In terms of geriatric measures, 31 pts (12.2%) had loss of at least one ADL; 40 (15.8%) had a geriatric syndrome; and 16 (6.3%) had both. Of note, only one pt underwent a comprehensive GA prior to treatment. Using established fitness definitions in lymphoma (Tucci et al, 2015), pts were classified as "Fit" (n=129; 50.8%), "Unfit" (n=8; 3.2%), or "Frail" (n=112 (44.1%); 5 (2%) were unclassifiable due to incomplete data (Table 1). Front-line regimens included ABVD (n=145; 57.1%), AVD (n=33; 13.0%), and CHOP (n=18; 7.1%). 6 pts (2.4%) received BV monotherapy; 21 (8.3%) received BV with AVD, the latter either concurrently (N=11) or sequentially (n=10). 11 pts did not receive systemic tx, of whom 9 received radiation alone; 58 pts received radiation with systemic tx. ABVD recipients received an average of 7.4 doses of bleomycin (range 1-14) and 18.4% (n=26) had pulmonary toxicity. In addition, 56.7% (n=130) of pts experienced at least one tx-related toxicity, which was similar across all fitness groups (Table 1). 15.1% (n=38) of pts stopped tx due to toxicity, which was noted more often in "frail" pts though it was relatively uncommon. 11 pts (4.3%) experienced treatment-related mortality (TRM). Compared with pts receiving non-ABTx, ABTx was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR 0.391, P=0.008) and OS (HR 0.195, P=0.0004). ECOG PS >1 was associated with inferior PFS (HR=1.96, P=0.017) and OS (HR=3.09, P=0.002). Pts defined as "frail" had no apparent difference in PFS compared with fit pts (Figure 1A;P=0.169), although decreased OS was seen (Figure 1B; P=0.01). Discussion To the best of our knowledge, these data represent one of the largest analyses of older cHL pts in the modern era. Our real-world analysis shows that in those who are able to receive them, anthracyclines provide meaningful survival benefit in this older cHL patient population and can be well-tolerated for many pts. The impact of dose intensity and backbone regimen are not yet known. In addition, current definitions of "fitness" incompletely identified pts at risk for poor outcomes or greater toxicity. Further studies are planned to better delineate fitness in this population. Disclosures Bartlett: Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genenetech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Bennani:Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board. Hill:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Advani:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Agensys: Research Funding; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Magarelli:Tevan Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding. Cohen:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Evens:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Tesaro: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Portell:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding.

Made available in DSpace on 2013-08-12T19:26:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-01-01 Made available in DSpace on 2013-09-30T18:44:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-01-01 Submitted by Vitor Silverio Rodrigues (vitorsrodrigues@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2014-05-20T14:03:11Z No. of bitstreams: 0 Made available in DSpace on 2014-05-20T14:03:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-01-01 Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) Despite the low level of industrial activity and human density, Hg concentration in the Negro River basin is relatively high. Soil enriched with naturally high Hg concentrations and atmospheric deposition are the main sources of the metal in this watershed. Differences between invasive and evasive fluxes at the water/air and soil/air interfaces indicate Hg accumulation in the basin at a rate of 39.9 t y(-1). The type of soil, which is the main source of mercury for the water bodies, the hydrological cycle with floods and dry periods, act markedly on the water redox chemistry. A complex interaction between many seasonable variables such as solar intensity, water pH, age of the naturally occurring organic matter and the hydrological cycle alter the redox characteristics of these black water bodies, thus markedly affecting the consumption of Hg-0 and the degradation of methylmercury present in the water. Although methylation is favored in black waters, photodegradation counterpoints this formation, thus regulating the methylmercury burden in the water column. Univ Estadual Campinas, Inst Quim, BR-13083970 Campinas, SP, Brazil Inst Fed Educ Ciência & Tecnol Maranhao, Dept Acad Quim, BR-65025000 Sao Luis, MA, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Inst Biociencias Letras & Ciencias Exatas, BR-15054000 Sao Jose do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar), Dept Quim, BR-13565905 São Carlos, SP, Brazil Nucleo Seguranca Biol, BR-70770900 Brasilia, DF, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Inst Biociencias Letras & Ciencias Exatas, BR-15054000 Sao Jose do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil FAPESP: 02/03395-1 FAPESP: 00/13517-1