Search

Interim 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (Interim- 18F-FDG-PET,hereafter I-PET) has the potential to guide treatment of patients with diffuse large B-celllymphoma (DLBCL) if the prognostic value is known. The aim of this study was to determinethe optimal timing and response criteria for evaluating prognosis with I-PET in DLBCL.Individual patient data from 1692 patients with de novo DLBCL were combined and scans were harmonized. I-PET was performed at various time points during treatment with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy. Scans were interpreted using the Deauville score (DS) and change in maximum standardized uptake value (DSUVmax ). Multilevel Cox proportional hazards models corrected for International Prognostic Index (IPI) score were used to study the effects oftiming and response criteria on 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). I-PET after 2 cycles (I-PET2) and I-PET4 significantly discriminated good responders from poor responders, with the highest hazard ratios (HRs) for I-PET4. Multivariable HRs for a PET-positive result at I-PET2 and I-PET4 were 1.71 and 2.95 using DS4-5, 4.91 and 6.20 using DS5, and 2.93 and 4.65 using DSUVmax , respectively. DSUVmax identified a larger proportion of poor respondersthan DS5 did. For all criteria, the negative predictive value was >80%, and positivepredictive values ranged from 30% to 70% at I-PET2 and I-PET4. Unlike I-PET1, I-PET3discriminated good responders from poor responders using DS4-5 and DS5 thresholds (HRs,2.94 and 4.67, respectively). I-PET2 and I-PET4 predict good response equally during R-CHOPtherapy in DLBCL. Optimal timing and response criteria depend on the clinical context. Goodresponse at I-PET2 is suggested for de-escalation trials, and poor response using DSUVmax atI-PET4 is suggested for randomized trials that are evaluating new therapies

Introduction The antibody-drug conjugate polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) has recently been approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR) for patients with r/r diffuse LBCL (DLBCL). Methods To characterize the efficacy of Pola-BR in a real-world setting, we retrospectively analyzed data from 97 patients with r/r LBCL who were treated with Pola in 24 German centers within the national CUP. Clinical baseline and follow-up (FU) data were collected by chart review and summarized descriptively. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical factors between groups of patients. Results 97 patients with LBCL (DLBCL n=90, High-grade B-cell lymphoma n=6, Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma n=1) were included as of July 22nd, 2020. 49 patients were treated with Pola as bridging concept to immunotherapies (bridging cohort: chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CART) n=39, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) n=9, bispecific antibodies n=1), and 48 patients were treated with Pola in palliative intention (palliative cohort). Within the bridging cohort the median age was 61 years (range: 22-82). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 treatment lines (range: 2-6). 84% (41/49 patients) had been refractory to their last treatment line, and 31% had failed an autologous stem cell transplantation. Notably, 14% and 10% of patients had failed prior CART and alloSCT, respectively, and were planned for the alternate cellular immunotherapy. Based on an individual decision, patients were treated with Pola-Rituximab (Pola-R, n=20), Pola-chemotherapy (Pola-chemo, BR n=25; R-CHP n=1) or Pola-monotherapy (Pola-mono, n=3). With a median of 2 Pola cycles (range 1-6), overall response rate (ORR) of all evaluable patients was 33% (15/46 patients) including patients with complete response (CR n=1), partial response (PR n=9) and clinical response (n=5). Although not significant, ORR tended to be better in patients treated with Pola-chemo versus Pola-R/Pola-mono (ORR: 42% versus 20%, Fishers test p=0.1). 11 of these 15 responders (24% of the entire bridging cohort) proceeded to CART or alloSCT, while 4 responders (8% of entire bridging cohort) experienced fast progression after their initial response and were referred to best supportive care. 15 of 31 non-responders (33% of entire bridging cohort) underwent immunotherapy with either stable disease (n=6), mixed response (n=2), or progression on Pola (n=7). The remaining 16 patients (35% of entire bridging cohort) were all refractory to Pola and either received alternative salvage treatments which enabled 8 further patients to proceed to the intended immunotherapy, or best supportive care. Taking the effects of CART or alloSCT into account, median OS from initiation of Pola treatment was 8.2 months (median FU 7.2 months, Fig. 1A). The palliative cohort tended to be older than the bridging cohort with a median age of 73.5 years (range: 37-86, p Conclusion Pola permits effective bridging to CART and alloSCT in r/r LBCL. In the palliative setting, Pola represents an effective salvage option for patients with transplantation-ineligible r/r LBCL. Compared to the approval study, the inferior outcome of the patients of this real-world analysis might be explained by their more advanced disease course. Disclosures Duell: Morphosys: Research Funding. Kerkhoff:BMS: Honoraria. Leng:Roche: Other: lecture fee; Celgene: Other: traveling expenses and congress attendance fee. Holtick:Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Honoraria. Mayer:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Abbvie: Other: travel grants; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hüttmann: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; Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy. Brunnberg:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hexal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants; Amgen: Other: Travel grants. Bullinger:Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hexal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: 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. Hess:Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mueller-Tidow:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; BMBF: Research Funding; Wilhelm-Sander-Stiftung: Research Funding; Jose-Carreras-Siftung: Research Funding; Bayer AG: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; BiolineRx: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag Gmbh: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: Research Funding. Lenz:Verastem: Research Funding; AQUINOX: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dreger:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dietrich:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a distinct subtype of lymphoma and is characterized by an aggressive clinical course in the majority of cases. In older patients, commonly used induction regimens are either anthracycline-containing CHOP-like regimens or bendamustine, both in combination with rituximab, followed by rituximab maintenance [Dreyling, 2017]. Data on efficacy and safety of rituximab in MCL are mainly derived from the randomized GLSG2000 trial, showing higher remission rates and longer FFS with R-CHOP vs. CHOP, but no significant differences in PFS in remission and OS due to limited statistical power [Lenz, 2005]. We now performed a long-term ITT analysis of CHOP vs. R-CHOP from all GLSG2000 patients pooled with the CHOP patients of the preceding GLSG1996 trial. METHODS: Of GLSG2000 and GLSG1996 trials, patients with advanced stage, previously untreated MCL, prospectively assigned to chemotherapy only (CHOP) or the combination with rituximab (R-CHOP), were included in this pooled analysis. Primary endpoints of this evaluation were FFS and OS, tested hierarchically. Secondary endpoints included PFS in first remission, OS after first treatment failure and rate of secondary malignancies. Exploratory subgroup analyses for FFS and OS were performed according to sex (female, male), MIPI (low, intermediate, high), Ki-67 ( RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2006, 385 MCL patients were included to receive either CHOP (n=201) or R-CHOP (n=184). Key patient characteristics were well balanced: Median age was 61 (37-86) versus 62 (35-84) years, 72 and 79% were male, median MIPI score was 5.78 (4.52-9.18, n=197) versus 5.80 (4.59-8.60 n=175), Ki67 ≥ 30% was seen in 17% (n=115) versus 17% (n=96) and blastoid morphology was seen in 8% (n=61) versus 8% (n=60) of patients treated with CHOP and R-CHOP, respectively. ASCT consolidation was done in 15% (n=31) and 21% (n=39) of CHOP and R-CHOP patients, respectively (p=0.15). Median FFS was 1.36 (95% CI: 1.18 - 1.66) vs. 2.07 (1.78 - 2.65) years, adjusted HR 0.62 (0.50 - 0.77), p Regarding long term toxicity, the rate of secondary malignancies after 10 years was 0,5 and 3,9% for hematological and 7 and 8% for non-hematological malignancies for CHOP and R-CHOP, respectively. In subgroup analyses, an efficacy of rituximab was seen across all MCL risk groups: HRs for FFS were 0.58 (95 % CI: 0.36 - 0.94) for MIPI high, 0.59 (0.41 - 0.84) for MIPI intermediate and 0.69 (0.49 - 0.97) for MIPI low (interaction p=0.80 for MIPI high vs. low; interaction p=0.50 for MIPI intermediate vs. low); aHRs for Ki67 ≥ 30% vs < 30% were 0.51 (0.25 - 1.05) vs. 0.73 (0.53 - 0.99; interaction p=0.056) and for blastoid vs. non-blastoid morphology 0.19 (0.04 - 1.03) vs. 0.77 (0.52 - 1.14; interaction p=0.19), respectively. CONCLUSION: We present mature results of a pooled MCL cohort, now demonstrating a statistically significantly prolonged OS for the combined immuno-chemotherapy confirming the current standard of care in first line treatment of MCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bittenbring: Gilead: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hübel: Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Schmidt: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Travel support. Glass: Kite: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment; BMS: Consultancy. Hüttmann: Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Klapper: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Hiddemann: Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Unterhalt: Roche: Research Funding. Dreyling: Genmab: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Background: Immune-checkpoint inhibition with antibodies targeting programmed death protein 1 (PD1) was well tolerable and highly effective in pivotal phase II and III trials in relapsed or refractory (r/r) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). We aimed to evaluate emerging therapeutic sequences and the safety and efficacy of anti-PD1 antibodies in the rapidly changing routine care of r/r cHL. Methods: GHSG-affiliated hemato-oncology departments and practices in Germany were invited to participate in this retrospective study. Patients ≥18 years of age receiving anti-PD1 antibodies for r/r cHL in routine care were eligible. Patient, disease and treatment characteristics were documented by the treating physicians with standardized case report forms. Locally assessed response rates were reported as complete (CR) or partial (PR) remission, stable (SD) or progressive (PD) disease and summarized as objective response rate (ORR: CR + PR). Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed according to Kaplan-Meier from the start of anti-PD1 treatment in routine care to PD (PFS) or death from any cause (PFS + OS). All analyses were done descriptively and conducted in SAS V9.4. Results: A total of 58 r/r cHL patients (pts.) with a median age of 48 years (range 19-89 years) and male predominance (57%) initiated anti-PD1 treatment between 11/2014 and 01/2021 at 15 sites. Median time from 1 st-line to anti-PD1 treatment was 5.5 years (0.8-26.0). The majority had received prior brentuximab vedotin (BV, 86%) or an autologous stem-cell transplantation (autoSCT, 62%) and 16% undergone prior alloSCT. Relevant co-morbidities including HIV, pre-existing autoimmune conditions, cardiovascular diseases and dialysis-dependent kidney failure were documented in 49% of patients. An impaired ECOG performance status of ≥1 was present in 57% of patients (ECOG 2: 12%, ECOG 3: 4%). At initiation of anti-PD1 treatment, 74% of patients presented with stage III/IV disease and 35% did not achieve a response to their latest prior therapy. The median duration of anti-PD1 treatment was 18.1 (0.5-79.3) months and 50% of patients still received an anti-PD1 antibody at data collection. One third (31.6%) of patients experienced grade III/IV treatment-related toxicities and a treatment delay of >6 weeks due to toxicity occurred in 15.5% of patients. Investigator-assessed ORR was 66.7% with 20.4% of patients achieving a CR and 46.3% a PR as best response (Figure 1A). With a median follow-up of 19.1 (0-74.7) months and 26.7 (0-74.7) for PFS and OS, respectively, median PFS (mPFS) and OS were 12.3 months and 32 months, respectively (Figure 1B+C). Corresponding 2-year PFS and OS estimates were 38.3% (95%CI 24.4-52.2) and 78.5% (95%CI 67.2-89.8). Median PFS was more favorable in patients achieving either a CR (30.1 months) or PR (24.9 months) compared to SD (9.3) or PD (3.4, Figure 1D), with similar trends also observed for OS. Two thirds (67%) of the 29 patients eventually experiencing PD, continued anti-PD1 treatment beyond progression at least once, with a median duration of 9.9 (3.0-25.8) until 2 nd PD. Overall, 28% patients received concomitant add-on treatments with radiotherapy (62.5%) and chemotherapy (25%) administered simultaneously most commonly. Best response to combination treatment was PR in 84.6% and SD in 15.4% of patients, and 75% of patients receiving add-on treatments achieved their best response only thereafter. Most common consecutive treatments were allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (N=5), BV-based therapy (N=5), Gemcitabine-based regimens (N=4) radiotherapy (N=4) and N=13 patients did not receive further treatment after anti-PD1 failure. Most common cause of death was cHL (58% of deaths reported), followed by non-anti-PD1 treatment-related causes (16%), infections and cardiac diseases (11% each) and second neoplasms (5%). Conclusions: In this multicenter cohort of older and frailer r/r cHL patients receiving anti-PD1 antibodies in routine care, safety and efficacy data including ORR, mPFS and mOS was similar to data reported from pivotal phase II trials. Anti-PD1 treatment for r/r cHL thereby appears feasible and able to induce meaningful clinical benefit in a broad range of patients. Despite various concomitant and subsequent treatments administered, however, cHL or subsequent treatments are by far the leading cause of death. Failure of anti-PD1 in r/r cHL hence constitutes an unmet need. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Trautmann-Grill: GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kobbe: Celgene: Research Funding. Heinrich: Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Astra: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Schmidt: Incyte: Honoraria; Biotest: Honoraria; Alexion: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Sanofi-Aventis: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Hüttmann: Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fuchs: Lukon: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. von Tresckow: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: congress and travel support. Borchmann: Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotech: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Engert: MSD: Honoraria; Hexal: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bröckelmann: BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding.

Introduction Genetic abnormalities, such as MYC oncogene rearrangements, contribute to the outcome heterogeneity in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. These rearrangements occur in 10-15% of DLBCL patients and have been associated with a poor prognosis. Recently, radiomics features extracted from PET/CT scans have shown to be predictive of outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate if the ability to predict outcome in DLBCL can be improved by combining different clinical, radiomics and genetic features. Methods 323 DLBCL patients from the HOVON-84, HOVON-130, and PETAL trials with a baseline PET/CT scan and a minimum follow-up of two years were included. MYC status was assessed using Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). 245 patients were MYC negative, whereas 25 patients had a MYC rearrangement and 57 patients had MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements. Lesions were delineated using a semi-automated preselection of 18F-FDG avid structures defined by a SUV4.0 threshold using the ACCURATE tool. Next, 5 conventional PET features (maximum standardized uptake value (SUV max), SUV peak, SUV mean, metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis and 18 dissemination features were extracted. Dissemination features were pertaining to distance between lesions, differences in uptake between lesions and differences in volume between lesions. Logistic regression with backward feature selection was used to predict 2-year time to progression, defined as time from baseline PET/CT to progression. We tested the predictive value of 4 models. 1) a clinical model using individual components of the international prognostic index (IPI): Ann Arbor stage (categorical), WHO performance status (categorical), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (dichotomous) and age (continuous), 2) a model that included clinical and genetic predictors: MYC status (categorical) and IPI components, 3) a model that included radiomics features: 5 conventional PET and 18 dissemination features and 4) a model that combined clinical and genetic predictors with radiomics features. Model performance was assessed using repeated cross-validation (5-fold, 1000 repeats) yielding the cross-validated area under the curve of the receiver-operator-characteristics curve (CV-AUC). To match prevalence of MYC-positive patients with real-world prevalence (Rosenwald et al, JCO 2019) all 245 MYC-negative patients were used for each repeat, and 10 MYC-FISH_positive DLBCL patients and 20 patients with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements were selected using random stratified sampling. Regression coefficients were averaged over all folds to calculate the probability of progression for all patients. High- and low-risk groups were defined based on prevalence of events and the diagnostic performance was assessed using positive- and negative predictive values. Results The highest model performance for the clinical model was observed when combining Ann Arbor stage, LDH and extranodal involvement and yielded in a CV-AUC of 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.83). MYC status combined with WHO performance status, LDH and extranodal involvement yielded an improved CV-AUC of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.52-0.86). The highest model performance for the radiomics model was observed for MTV combined with the maximum distance between the largest lesion and any other lesions (Dmax bulk), the maximum difference in SUV peak between two lesions (DSUVpeak patient) and the maximum difference in volume between two lesions (DVol patient) yielding a CV-AUC of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62-0.90). The optimal combined model included MYC status, WHO performance status, LDH, MTV, Dmax patient, DSUVpeak patient and DVol patient after backward feature selection and yielded a CV-AUC of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.60 - 0.90). The positive predictive value was highest for the combined model (53.0%) and increased by 20% compared to the optimal clinical model (33.1%). Negative predictive values were comparable between models and ranged between 85.8-88.1%. Conclusions Prediction models using 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomics features at baseline aids in identifying DLBCL patients at high risk for relapse. The positive predictive value increased when radiomics features were added to the clinical and genetic parameters. Therefore, radiomics features can increase the efficiency of clinical trials by only selecting poor prognosis patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chamuleau: Gilead: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Lugtenburg: Incyte: Honoraria; Regeneron: Honoraria; Genmab: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Non-financial support; Travel support; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dührsen: CPT Cellex Patient Treatment: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hüttmann: Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richter: HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Inc.: Current Employment, Research Funding. Klapper: Regeneron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zijlstra: Takeda: Research Funding.

Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) is an aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is typically associated with a poor prognosis. Romidepsin is a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with PTCL who have received at least 1 prior therapy (J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:631). Presented here is the final analysis of a phase III randomized study comparing romidepsin + cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (Ro-CHOP) with CHOP in patients with previously untreated PTCL. Methods: Ro-CHOP (NCT01796002) is a randomized multicenter phase III study in adult patients with previously untreated PTCL (i.e. nodal or extranodal entities including primary cutaneous non epidermotropic TCL, with the exclusion of ALK-positive anaplastic large cell lymphomas and EBV-positive extranodal NK/T-cell lymphomas). Diagnostic biopsies were centrally reviewed (94%), and patients were randomized based on International Prognostic Index (IPI) score at baseline (< 2 vs ≥ 2), age (≤ 60 vs > 60 y), and histology type (nodal vs extranodal) to receive either Ro-CHOP or CHOP. Two-sided P-value from log-rank test stratified by all 3 stratification factors was used. All patients received CHOP in 3-week cycles for 6 cycles. Romidepsin, 12 mg/m2, was administered intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle for 6 cycles (Lancet Haematol. 2015;2:e160), with dose reductions to 10 and 8 mg/m2 based on toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Adjudication Committee assessment according to International Working Group 1999 criteria. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) + CR unconfirmed (CRu), and safety. Results: As of the December 13, 2019 cutoff date, 421 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population (Ro-CHOP, n = 211; and CHOP, n =210). Median age was 65 y (range, 25-81); 76 patients (18%) had ECOG PS of 2-3; 267 (63%) had Ann Arbor stage IV disease; and 342 (81%) had IPI score ≥ 2. At a median follow-up of 27.5 mo, the study did not meet its primary end point because Ro-CHOP did not show a statistically significant PFS improvement vs CHOP alone. Median PFS for Ro-CHOP vs CHOP was 12.0 mo (95% CI, 9.0-25.8) vs 10.2 mo (95% CI, 7.4-13.2), with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63-1.04; P = 0.096). Median OS for Ro-CHOP vs CHOP was 51.8 mo (95% CI, 35.7-72.6) vs 42.9 mo (95% CI, 29.9-not evaluable). ORR of Ro-CHOP vs CHOP was 63% vs 60% with CR + CRu rates of 41% vs 37%. In the safety population (Ro-CHOP, n = 210; CHOP, n = 208), any-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that occurred ≥ 40% in the Ro-CHOP or CHOP arms, respectively, included anemia (67% vs 38%), nausea (55% vs 31%), thrombocytopenia (52% vs 17%), neutropenia (51% vs 37%), and vomiting (40% vs 10%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs that occurred in ≥ 30% of patients in the Ro-CHOP or CHOP arm, respectively, included thrombocytopenia (50% vs 10%), neutropenia (49% vs 33%), anemia (47% vs 17%), and leukopenia (32% vs 20%). One grade 5 TEAE occurred in the Ro-CHOP arm (E. coli sepsis), and 2 occurred in the CHOP arm (colitis and acute cholecystitis). In the Ro-CHOP vs CHOP arms, TEAEs led to CHOP dose interruption in 75 (36%) vs 42 (20%) patients, reduction in 54 (26%) vs 31 (15%) patients, and discontinuation in 7 (3%) and 6 (3%) patients, respectively. In the Ro-CHOP arm, TEAEs led to romidepsin interruption, reduction, and discontinuation in 132 (63%), 77 (37%), and 17 (8%) patients, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of romidepsin to CHOP did not improve PFS, the primary endpoint of the study, and response rates and OS appeared similar with the combination. The toxicity profile of Ro-CHOP was consistent with its phase Ib/II data, with no unexpected findings. The high rates of TEAEs with the addition of romidepsin hampered the ability to adequately administer 6 cycles of CHOP. Additional exploratory analyses to compare Ro-CHOP outcomes in specific patient subgroups are ongoing. The combination of CHOP plus romidepsin does not represent an advance in the standard of care for patients with previously untreated PTCL. Figure Disclosures Bachy: Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Gilead: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Roche, Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Gilead, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria. Camus:PFIZER: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); ROCHE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); JANSSEN: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria. Thieblemont:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Hospira: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support; Bayer: Honoraria. Casasnovas:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accomodations, expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ysebaert:Roche: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Guidez:BMS: Honoraria; CELGENE: Honoraria; TAKEDA: Honoraria; JANSEN: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria; Service Hématologie et Thérapie cellulaire CHU POITIERS: Current Employment. Kim:JJ: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirn: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Lim:National Cancer Centre Singapore: Current Employment. André:Amgen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; CHU UCL Namur, site Godinne, Yvoir, Belgium: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Other, Research Funding; Roche: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Martin Garcia-Sancho:Celgene, Eusa Pharma, Gilead, iQuone, Kyowa Kirin, Roche, Morphosys: Consultancy; Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Servier, Gilead: Honoraria. Penarrubia Ponce:Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Roche: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Servier: Honoraria; HOSPITAL CLINICO UNIVERSITARIO DE VALLADOLID: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy. Staber:msd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/ BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trotman:BeiGene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; PCYC: Research Funding. Hüttmann: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; University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany: Current Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Gilead: Honoraria. Gaulard:Roche: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); INNATE PHARMA: Research Funding; TAKEDA: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; CHU Henri Mondor, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris: Current Employment. Delfau-Larue:MUNDIPHARMA: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); ROCHE: Honoraria; GILEAD: Honoraria; AMGEN: Honoraria. De Leval:Lausanne University Hospital & Lausanne University Institute of Pathology: Current Employment; Lunaphore Technologies SA: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche Diagnostics: Honoraria. Meignan:ROCHE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Li:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Morschhauser:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria; 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; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy. Delarue:Celgene International, a BMS company: Current Employment; BMS: Current equity holder in private company. OffLabel Disclosure: Romidepsin is not approved for patients with previously untreated PTCL.

INTRODUCTION: The outcome of patients (pts) with classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) experiencing relapse after high dose chemotherapy, brentuximab vedotin (BV) and anti-PD1 antibody (Ab) treatment is poor and in most patients the duration of the response to this treatment is rather short. Thus, there still is a need for new treatment options. A promising immunotherapeutic approach is the bispecific anti-CD30/CD16A antibody AFM13. METHODS: Pts ≥ 18 years with relapsed or refractory cHL after standard therapy including BV and anti-PD1 Ab were included in this two-stage trial (NCT02321592). In stage I pts were initially assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either Arm A with 1.5 mg/kg AFM13 3x/ week for 8 weeks or Arm B with 1.5 mg/kg AFM13 3x/ week for 2 weeks followed by 1 infusion of 7.0 mg/kg/week for 6 weeks. After an amendment to this trial, all further pts received 7 mg/kg per week, with 1 mg/kg loading dose and 6 mg/kg as continuous infusion for 5 days/ week thereafter (Arm C). If ≥ 2 overall responders were observed in 10 pts, the respective trial arm qualified for stage 2. Primary endpoint was the objective response (complete/partial remission (CR/PR)) after the first cycle. Secondary endpoints included efficacy (Overall survival (OS), Progression free survival (PFS)) and safety analyses. RESULTS: Between June 26, 2015 and May 31, 2019, 25 pts were assigned to arm A (n=5), B (n=12), or C (n=8), respectively, and qualified for statistical analyses. Median age of the study population was 45 (range 21-73) years. 24/25 patients were male. Clinical stages 2, 3 and 4 were diagnosed in 8 (32%), 9 (36%), and 8 (32%) patients, respectively. Patients had received a median of 3 (range 1-11) salvage-therapy lines after first-line therapy. Since the trial was terminated in stage I due to a lack of recruitment, all statistical analyses of primary and secondary endpoints are also of descriptive nature. The central response evaluation panel included 24 of 25 pts: The objective response rate was 16.6% including 1 complete response (CR) and 3 partial responses (PR). Stable disease (SD) was documented in 6 pts and progressive disease (PD) in 14 pts. The responses were distributed as follows to the treatment arms: Two responses were documented in arm C and one response was documented in arm A and B, respectively. Second cycle AFM13 was started in 5 patients. Two patients had PD during or after cycle 2, and one patient each was diagnosed with CR, PR, or SD. During follow-up, there were 22 cases of PD and 9 deaths. With a median observation time for PFS of 5.5 months (95% CI 2.6 - 11.0), the 12-months PFS estimate was 12.6% (95%-CI 3.2 - 28.9) (Fig.1). With a median observation time of 14.5 months (95% CI 12.9-16.8) the 12-months OS estimate was 62% (95% CI 39.6-78.1). In only 5/25 pts serious adverse events due to hospitalization were observed; two events were characterized as serious adverse reaction: one CTC grade 4 and one CTC grade 2 infusion related reaction. All events resolved completely. CONCLUSION: Treatment with AFM13 was well tolerated and showed modest activity in heavily pretreated pts. The responses documented in arm C qualified this arm with continuous AFM13 application over 5 days for further evaluation in trial stage 2 and thus indicated its potential. However, the trial was prematurely stopped due to low recruitment leading to the conclusion that the acceptance of the application schedule is extremely important. Disclosures Hüttmann: Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; 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); Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy; University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany: Current Employment. Grosse-Thie:Abbvie: Other: Travel Grants; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel Grants; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyō: Other: Travel Grants. von Tresckow:Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; MSD Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Fuchs:Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Affimed: Honoraria. Borchmann:Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Engert:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria.

Background The primary analysis of the investigator-sponsored randomized multicenter phase II GHSG NIVAHL trial showed feasibility and excellent short-term efficacy of anti-PD1 based 1st-line treatment of early-stage unfavorable classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Achieving long-term disease control without excessive treatment-related morbidity is of utmost importance when developing innovative 1st-line cHL therapies. Duration of response and development of persisting immune-related toxicities are of concern in the setting of 1st-line anti-PD1 treatment. Methods NIVAHL enrolled treatment naïve early-stage unfavorable cHL patients at 28 German centers and individuals were randomized to either receive fully concomitant 4x Nivo-AVD (group A) or sequential 4xnivolumab, followed by 2x Nivo-AVD and 2x AVD (group B). Both groups received consolidative 30Gy IS-RT and the primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate at end of study treatment. Detailed methods, patient characteristics and the primary endpoint analysis of NIVAHL have been recently published (Bröckelmann PJ et al. JAMA Oncol 2020). Herein we present extended follow-up of the NIVAHL trial to assess efficacy in terms of 2-year progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as well as safety with regards to long-term toxicities or organ impairment documented during the first year of follow-up after treatment. Results A total of 109 patients with cHL confirmed by central pathology review were enrolled between 04/2017 - 10/2018 and followed for a median of 20 and 21 months in groups A (n=55) and B (n=54), respectively, for the present analysis. All of the 7 patients deemed in partial remission (PR) at end of study treatment (EOT) converted into an ongoing CR after end of study without additional treatment during follow-up. With no relapse and no death observed since the primary analysis, the 2-year PFS estimates are 100% and 98% (95%CI 88-100%) in groups A and B, respectively, and the 2-year OS is 100% in both groups. With a median observation time for late-toxicities of 14 months after EOT (range 6-26 months) among 103 patients, any potentially treatment-related AE during follow-up was reported in 65% of patients (A: 74%, B: 56%). The highest documented CTCAE grade of late AEs was °I in 33%, °II in 25% and °III in 7% of patients with no °IV-V AEs observed. A total of 54% had at least one late event related to AVD, 47% to nivolumab and 32% to RT, with multiple relations attributable per event. Mean FEV1 and DLCOc did not decrease from baseline (91.1% -> 96.4% and 86.2% -> 83.3%, respectively). Decreased LVEF after EOT was reported in 2/56 patients with available data (4%). After EOT, 18% of patients required medication for adverse events. Corticosteroid ≥ and < 10mg prednisolone equivalent was required in 3% and 2% of patients, respectively, for a toxicity at any time during follow-up. No patient required corticosteroid treatment at last available follow-up. Most frequent toxicities reported after EOT included fatigue (21%), hypothyroidism (17%), respiratory tract disorders (16%), leukopenia (14%) and nervous system disorders (14%). Hypothyroidism was the event most frequently solely attributed to nivolumab during follow-up. The median time to onset after EOT was 5 months and affected patients nearly exclusively female (15/16 [94%]). After median follow-up of 10 months (range 0-21), hypothyroidism remained unchanged in 10 of 16 affected patients and resolved in 3 patients. Conclusion The excellent disease control of concomitant and sequential nivolumab and AVD in early-stage unfavorable cHL is confirmed with the currently available follow-up. Treatment-related toxicities ongoing or emerging during follow-up are predominantly associated with chemo- and/or RT. The most frequent nivolumab-associated late toxicity is hypothyroidism. No patient currently requires chronic corticosteroid treatment. Disclosures Bröckelmann: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD Sharp & Dohme: Research Funding. Keller:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau. Meissner:Celgene: Other: Travel support; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Other: Travel support; Hexal: Other: Travel support. Trautmann:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Kerkhoff:BMS: Honoraria. Hüttmann:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany: Current Employment; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; 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). Zimmermann:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel Expenses; MSD: Other: Travel Expenses; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses. Fuchs:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Affimed: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. von Tresckow:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; MSD Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Borchmann:Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Engert:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Nivolumab 240mg Q2W alone or in combination with AVD for 1st-line treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

MRD in ALL is defined as the detection of leukemic cells in bone marrow below the microscopic threshold in complete remission (CR). Patients (pts) with molecular failure (MolFail) or molecular relapse (MolRel) after induction/consolidation therapy are at a high risk for hematologic relapse. Targeted therapies should prevent hematologic relapse, reduce MRD load and provide a bridging strategy to allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) and thereby improve overall outcome of these pts. In pts without (wo) SCT option reduction of MRD load is an essential goal as well. Blinatumomab is an antibody construct that redirects CD3+ T cells to CD19+ target cells, resulting in a serial lysis of CD19+ B cells. In a study in pts with MRD ≥10-3, 78% achieved complete MRD response (Gökbuget N et al., Blood 2018). The MolAct1 trial was initiated by the GMALL study group to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Blinatumomab in MRD+ ALL including those with MRD below 10-3 and pts with MRD after SCT. Adults (≥18 yrs) with CD19+, Ph-negative BCP ALL in CR after ≥ 3 chemotherapies with MRD ≥10-4 were eligible (NCT03109093). Recruitment of pts with MRD ≥10-3 was stopped after marketing authorization for this entity. After an amendment, which became effective after 44 recruited pts, pts with MRD below 10-4 or non-quantifiable (nq) MRD were eligible. Blinatumomab 28 μg/day was given as 4-wk infusion, followed by a 2-wk break (1 cycle). Responders could receive up to 4 cycles or undergo HSCT after ≥ 1 cycle. MRD after 1 cycle was the primary endpoint. MRD was centrally assessed by allele-specific quantitative real-time PCR of clonal rearrangements of immunoglobulin or T-cell receptor genes. For definition of MRD at inclusion and at response assessment see table 1. 64 pts with a median age of 44 (18-83) yrs were included from 19 centers and 60 were evaluable. 63 pts were treated in first CR (5 after SCT). Overall, 67% achieved MolCR, 10% had MolFail, 23% MolNE. MolNE identifies an intermediate response with different options clarified table 1. 81% of the pts included with MRD ≥10-4 had a molecular response i.e. MolCR or MRD < 10-4. No significant differences in terms of MRD response were observed according to MRD level at inclusion or other patient characteristics (table 1). 60 pts have completed study treatment (40 HSCT, 8 relapses during treatment, 4 completed 4 cycles wo SCT, 2 stopped earlier due to toxicities - 1 with subsequent SCT, 1 due to GvHD, 1 due to physicians' decision and 4 pts returned to standard treatment after 2 cycles). SCT pts had a median age of 42 (18-66) yrs and follow-up is available in 37 / 41 pts (29 CCR, 3 relapse, 5 death in CR). 16 relapses occurred: 8 during treatment (1 after MolCR, 5 MolNE1-3 and 2 with MolFail resp); after SCT in 3/41 pts; 5/11 with CR at end of treatment wo subsequent SCT. The median observation time of surviving pts is 12 (1-38) mo and the median survival is not reached. At 2 yrs the survival probability (OS) was 64%. OS was 70%, 64% and 43% in pts with MRD between 10-4-10-3, 10-3-10-2 and >10-2 at inclusion, resp (p>.05; Fig.1). OS was 71% vs 54% in pts MolFail vs MolRel at inclusion (p>.05). OS was 72%, 40% and 56% in pts with MolCR, MolFail and MolNE after cycle 1 resp (P=0.02; Fig.2). Overall, the results from previous trials were confirmed. In addition, it was demonstrated that pts with MRD between 10-4 and 10-3 had a similar response and a trend towards better outcome compared to pts with higher MRD levels >10-2. So far only 7 pts with MRD below 10-4 were included; more data are needed to evaluate the impact of Blinatumomab in this population; GMALL does currently not recommend SCT for these pts unless there is an indication due to other risk factors. Interestingly, a significant proportion of pts (23%) had an incomplete MRD response and the outcome results indicate that these pts together with those with MolFail may have an inferior survival compared to those with MolCR. The results underline that the clear definition of MRD categories and consideration of level and sensitivity is essential for interpretation, which is possible due to well defined standards for the PCR method used here. 68% of the pts received SCT in CR after Blinatumomab with a so far limited mortality (13%). Further follow-up is certainly required. The GMALL will continue to recruit patients with MRD levels below 10-3 in order to improve their chances for long-term survival This study was supported by Amgen Inc. Disclosures Goekbuget: Servier: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Schwartz:Pfizer: Other: personal fees ; AMGEN: Other: personal fees and non-financial support; BTG Intl Inc: Other: personal fees ; Gilead Sciences: Other: personal fees and non-financial support ; MSD Sharp & Dohme: Other: personal fees ; Basilea: Other: non-financial suppor; Novartis: Other: personal fees and non-financial support; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: personal fees and non-financial support. Hüttmann:Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy; University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany: Current Employment; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; 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); Gilead: Honoraria. Viardot:Roche: Honoraria, Other: advisory board; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other: advisory board; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: advisory board; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: advisory board. Fiedler:Daiichi Sankyo: Other: support for meeting attendance; Gilead: Other: support for meeting attendance; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: support for meeting attendance; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD/Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: support for meeting attendance, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Alakel:Pfizer: Consultancy. Stelljes:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Subklewe:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche AG: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wäsch:Pfizer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Vucinic:Celgene: Honoraria. Fransecky:Amgen: Consultancy. Bargou:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties; Gemoab: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cellex: Consultancy, Honoraria; Catalym: Consultancy, Honoraria. Topp:Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, KITE, Regeneron, Roche: Research Funding; Amgen, KITE, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche: Consultancy. Brüggemann:Regeneron: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. OffLabel Disclosure: Blinatumomab in MRD positive disease below 10-3

We investigated the role of copy number alterations to refine risk stratification in adult Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph)

Background The anti-PD1 antibody nivolumab is approved for relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) showing high overall response rates (ORR) and a favorable safety profile. However, complete response (CR) is rare in this setting, and most patients develop progressive disease. To evaluate the efficacy of combined nivolumab and doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (AVD) as 1st-line treatment for early-stage unfavorable cHL, we conducted the GHSG NIVAHL trial. Methods NIVAHL is a prospective, randomized, investigator-sponsored single-stage phase II trial that enrolled treatment-naïve early-stage unfavorable cHL patients between 18 and 60 years at 35 German centers (NCT03004833). In arm A, patients received 240mg nivolumab and AVD at standard doses on day 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for a total of four cycles (4xNivoAVD). In arm B, the same treatment was administered sequentially, starting with 4x nivolumab in 2-weekly intervals, followed by 2xNivoAVD and 2xAVD. Both groups received 30Gy involved-site radiotherapy (IS-RT). Primary endpoint is the centrally reviewed PET/CT-based CR rate after completion of protocol therapy including IS-RT. 55 patients per group were enrolled in order to exclude a CR rate ≤80% with a power of 90% on a one-sided alpha level of 2.5% each. Secondary endpoints will be analyzed descriptively and include treatment-related morbidity (TRMorbidity), progression-free (PFS), overall survival (OS), response at interim and final restaging as well as patient-reported outcomes. Sequential biopsies, blood and microbiome samples were collected for correlative studies. Results Between 04/2017 and 10/2018, a total of 110 patients were enrolled with one patient disqualified due to alteration of HL diagnosis by central pathology review (N=109, group A n=55, group B n=54). The median age of the predominantly female patients (60%) was 27 years. Stage II was present in 95% of cases with ≥3 involved areas as most common risk factor (69%), followed by elevated ESR (48%), large mediastinal mass (20%) and extranodal disease (13%). Mean duration of chemoimmunotherapy was 15 (standard deviation (SD) 3) weeks and 22 (SD 6) weeks with a mean relative dose intensity of 87.4 (SD 15.9)% and 85.8 (SD 24.2)% in groups A and B, respectively. Severe protocol deviations occurred in 4 patients in group A and 5 in group B. Reasons were toxicity (n=5), patient's wish (n=2), incorrect allocation to early-stage unfavorable risk group (n=1) and progressive disease (n=1). Another 2 patients refused to receive IS-RT. Any adverse events (AEs) were reported for 98% of patients. AEs ≥°3 were observed in 73% and 78%, respectively, and serious AEs occurred in 38% and 28% of patients in groups A and B, respectively. TRMorbidity defined as organ toxicity ≥°3 or anemia, thrombocytopenia or infection °4 was documented in 16% and 22% of patients; all of these were organ toxicities predominantly of liver and gastrointestinal tract, with 19/21 events occurring during the first 2 treatment cycles. Data on ongoing or late toxicities is limited by short follow-up. Until 07/2019, 4 cases of persistent hypothyroidism have been reported. At the 1st interim restaging after 2xNivoAVD and 4x nivolumab, the ORR was 100% (54/54) and 96% (49/51), with a CR rate of 85% and 53% in groups A and B, respectively. Interim remission status was not assessed in 1 and 3 patients, respectively, due to treatment discontinuation after incorrect allocation to early-stage unfavorable risk group (n=1) or toxicity (n=3). After completion of systemic therapy, ORR was 100% (54/54) and 98% (50/51) with a CR rate of 81% and 86%, respectively. One patient in group B developed histologically proven primary progressive HL during nivolumab monotherapy while no other case of progressive or relapsed disease or death has been documented so far. The centrally reviewed CR rate at the end of treatment will be reported at the meeting. Additionally, initial data from currently ongoing histopathologic and immunologic studies will also be presented. Conclusion Concomitant and sequential therapy with nivolumab and AVD is feasible with acceptable toxicity. In early-stage unfavorable cHL, concomitant Nivo-AVD induces a high early CR rate. The interim CR rate observed with 4x nivolumab monotherapy is higher than previously reported in relapsed or advanced-stage disease. The primary endpoint and initial PFS data will be reported at the meeting. Disclosures Bröckelmann: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; MSD Sharpe & Dohme: Research Funding. Kerkhoff:EUSA: Honoraria; Hexal: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Hüttmann:University Hospital Essen: Employment; Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Zimmermann:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses; MSD: Other: Travel Expenses; BMS: Other: Travel Expenses. von Tresckow:MSD Sharpe & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Klapper:Roche, Takeda, Amgen, Regeneron: Honoraria, Research Funding. Borchmann:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Nivolumab 240mg i.v. 2-weekly for 1st-line treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

Nelarabine, a purine analog with T-cell specific action, has been approved for relapsed/refractory T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (ALL/LBL). This is a report of a single-arm phase 2 study conducted in adults (18-81 years of age) with relapsed/refractory T-ALL/LBL. After 1 or 2 cycles, 45 of 126 evaluable patients (36%) achieved complete remission (CR), 12 partial remission (10%), and 66 (52%) were refractory. One treatment-related death was observed, and 2 patients were withdrawn before evaluation. A total of 80% of the CR patients were transferred to stem cell transplantation (SCT). Overall survival was 24% at 1 year (11% at 6 years). After subsequent SCT in CR, survival was 31% and relapse-free survival 37% at 3 years. Transplantation-related mortality was 11%. Neurologic toxicities of grade I-IV/grade III-IV were observed in 13%/4% of the cycles and 16%/7% of the patients. This largest study so far with nelarabine in adults showed impressive single-drug activity in relapsed T-ALL/T-LBL. The drug was well tolerated, even in heavily pretreated patients. A high proportion of CR patients were transferred to SCT with low mortality but a high relapse rate. Exploration of nelarabine in earlier stages of relapse (eg, increasing minimal residual disease), in front-line therapy, and in combination is warranted.

Background : Infectious disease plays a central role in malignancy, with up to one in six cancers having a microbial association (Parkin Int. J. Cancer 2006). Lymphomas in particular are associated with multiple viral pathogens, including Epstein Barr virus (EBV), Kaposi Sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV), and HIV. Sequencing of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is an emerging technique in the diagnosis and surveillance of cancer. While studies to date have focused primarily on tumor-associated somatic variants, cfDNA may also provide insight into the infectious and immune state of cancer patients. We examined cfDNA from lymphoma patients of multiple histologic subtypes to characterize viral detection and dynamics. Methods: Plasma from 360 pre-treatment patients with various lymphoma histologies was analyzed along with that of 69 healthy adults. Multiple samples per patient were included when available. All samples underwent deep sequencing with error correction by CAPP-Seq (Newman Nat Biotech 2016). Reads were filtered for homology to the human genome and endogenous retroviruses, mapped to NCBI consensus genomes for human-hosted viral species, and filtered by breadth of genomic coverage. Viral read count was normalized by total sequencing depth to determine viral read fraction (VRF). EBV fragment size was assessed via single-read BLAST alignment length considering reads with expect value < 1E-5. Integration sites were assessed with the VirusClip package (Ho Oncotarget 2015). Results: Patients with most lymphoma histologic subtypes had viral loads not significantly different from those of healthy adults. However, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) patients receiving immunosuppression for solid organ transplants had significantly increased total viremia (Fig 1A) and EBV levels (Fig 1B) when compared to healthy adults and non-transplant DLBCL patients. EBER+ classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) displayed no difference in total viremia but had significantly elevated EBV. In an EBV-positive PTLD patient, cfDNA viral levels tracked both clinical viral qPCR and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) levels in serial samples leading to diagnosis (Fig 1C). Elevated EBV levels were also present in a subset of non-transplant DLBCL. In a cohort of DLBCL patients treated with frontline R-CHOP-like chemotherapy (n=152), individuals with pre-treatment EBV frequency greater than VRF 1E-7 had significantly higher risk of disease progression at three years (HR 1.8, CI 1.0-3.4, p=0.013) (Fig 1D). Immunosuppression in transplant patients is associated with the expansion of the endogenous anellovirus family (De Vlaminck Cell 2013). Accordingly, anellovirus was detected significantly more often in PTLD patients (91% of samples) compared to DLBCL NOS (2.8%) and controls (1.4%) (Fig 1E, p < 0.0001). As the standard-of-care R-CHOP regimen for DLBCL has activity against both B- and T- lymphocytes, we hypothesized that an immunosuppressive effect might be observed. In non-transplant DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP (n=31), we detected anellovirus in 6% of samples at the time of first chemotherapy infusion, 16% immediately before cycle 2, but in no samples from post-treatment patients in complete response (Fig 1F). Viral integration into the host genome is associated with malignant transformation. We profiled a cohort of EBER+ cHL (n=8) and found circulating EBV/human chimeric reads suggesting integration in all cases. Viral fragment size distribution also distinguishes integrated DNA from shorter free episomes and may increase cancer screening performance (Lam PNAS 2018). We profiled EBV fragment sizes in cHL and PTLD patients grouped by EBER positivity. Plasma from EBER+ cHL and PTLD patients was significantly enriched in longer fragments (Fig 1G), suggesting nucleosomal protection of EBV integrated within tumor genomes but not their benign episomal counterparts. Conclusions: Viral infection in lymphoma has diagnostic and prognostic significance: elevated circulating EBV levels are associated with active PTLD (Kanakry Blood 2016) and poor outcomes in advanced HL (Kanakry Blood 2013) and DLBCL (Tisi Leuk & Lymph 2015). Our work demonstrates the utility of cfDNA sequencing for simultaneous characterization of malignancy, infection, and immunosuppression. The integration of viral dynamics into cfDNA analysis may assist in risk stratification and treatment monitoring in lymphoma patients. Disclosures Dührsen: Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Hüttmann:Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Roche: Other: Travel expenses. Meignan:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria. Casasnovas:Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; takeda: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Roche: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; merck: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy. Westin:Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Apotex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Advani:Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Agensys: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Background: A substantial proportion of patients fail first line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Currently available salvage therapies are often ineffective and cannot be tolerated, especially for elderly patients. Thus, probably less than 25% of patients achieve a long lasting remission. Regimens like gemcitabine/oxaliplatin, or bendamustin, both in combination with rituximab are available for elderly or after failure of HDT, however induce only short lived responses. Obinutuzumab (GA101) is a type II anti-CD20 antibody, with preclinical evidence of superiority over rituximab in xenograft models of MCL and DLBCL. Recently a large phase III trial failed to show a benefit in patients with untreated DLBCL, although a subset analysis showed a potential benefit in a subset GCB DLBCL of patients, its value in relapsed disease is not yet finally determined. Although desirable, cumulative dose-related, progressive cardiotoxicity eliminates anthracyclines from relapse treatments. With pixantrone, a drug related to anthracyclines, a re-exposition against this drug class has been shown to be feasible, a best EOT-ORR of 37% (20% CR/CRu) was observed in a phase III trial. We thus initiated a trial combining both agents for the first time. The trial has opened in Q3/2015 and recruitment of 70 patients is completed as of 7/2018. Primary endpoint is the ORR, secondary endpoints being safety, PFS and OS. We report about available data after enrollment of the last patient. Methods: this is a multicenter, national, prospective trial. Main inclusion criteria: histologically proven DLBCL, FL grade IIIb or transformed iNHL (20% Quorum), no curative option available, relapsed and measurable disease, ECOG < 3, sufficient BM reserve, no severe concomitant diseases and given informed consent. There was no upper limit of prior treatment lines. Treatment consisted of up to 6 cycles of pixantrone 50mg/m² day 1, 8 and 15 of each cycle, obinutuzumab 1000 mg flat dose day 1, 8 and 15 of cycle one and day 1 of each subsequent cycle. Interim staging was scheduled after 3 cycles. Results: Basic data are available of 67 patients, all were caucasian, 37 were female the other 30 male and median age was 75 years. Most of the patients suffered from DLBCL (49 pts, 68%), 68% had advanced stage at diagnosis and the median secondary IPI was 3. Data collection is ongoing, until now data of 32 patients are fully available and updated results will be presented. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (1 to 6). Treatment seemed to be well tolerated, median number of cycles applied was 3, pre-mature stop of treatment was primarily based on progression. Response evaluation: at this time 13/32 (40.6%) evaluable patients responded with 5 patients achieving CR/CRu (15.6%) and 8 a PR. One year after initiation of treatment 54% of patients remained alive. Median follow up is 8.2 months. Median PFS and OS is 82 day and not reached, 1 year PFS and OS are 37% and 54%, respectively, no patient experienced relapse if the patient remained free from relapse at one year. Observed toxicity was predominantly hematologic. The following hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were observed: leukopenia (9.4%) neutropenia (75%), thrombocytopenia (12.5%). The febrile neutropenia rate was 6.3%. Non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were very rare, no single side effect was observed with a frequency of 5% or more. Summary: the combination of Obinutuzumab and Pixantrone is feasible and safe. Early response rates are interesting. Importantly, although some patients experience progress early, a promising proportion shows long lasting remissions. Molecular analyses are ongoing, as well as a detailed analysis on the impact of factors such as of number of prior treatments, status at inclusion. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Hess: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hüttmann:Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Roche: Other: Travel expenses. Marks:BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria. Dreyling:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy. Keller:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Ernst:Novartis: Research Funding. Viardot:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lenz:Novartis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corp.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction: Treatment results in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are heterogeneous. Established risk models like the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and molecular lymphoma features such as MYC translocations and the cell of origin (COO) subtype are prognostic of outcome. A positive iPET scan after 2 cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) has recently been shown to predict poor outcome independent of the IPI (Positron Emission Tomography-Guided Therapy of Aggressive Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas trial [PETAL]; Dührsen et al., J Clin Oncol 36:2024, 2018). Another PET-derived parameter of potential prognostic significance is baseline MTV. This retrospective analysis of lymphoma biopsies from the PETAL trial investigated the relationship between molecular lymphoma features and PET parameters. Methods: Available lymphoma specimens were analyzed for COO by immunohistochemistry employing the Hans-classifier (HC) and by gene expression (GE) using the HTG EdgeSeq System (HTG Molecular Diagnostics). MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocations ("double-hit" [DH]) were assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). MTV was determined applying the 41% SUVmax segmentation method, and iPET was evaluated using the deltaSUVmax method. Association between iPET result and molecular lymphoma features was assessed by risk ratios (RR). Survival curves of time-to-event endpoints were compared using hazard ratios (HR) from Cox regression and the log-rank test. Results: Of 609 DLBCL patients treated in the PETAL trial, 63 had a positive iPET. 134 of 267 DLBCL biopsies available for HC analysis (50.2%) were classified as non-germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) and 133 (49.8%) as GCB. COO analysis by GE revealed an activated B-cell (ABC) type in 122 (51.1%) and a GCB type in 102 (42.7%) of 239 available biopsies (n=7 [2.9%] unclassified, n=8 [3.3%] failed quality control). Concordance between HC and GE was found in 165 of 197 biopsies studied by both methods (83.8%). MYC breaks were found in 27 (10.7%) and MYC amplifications in 48 (19.0%) of 253 cases studied by FISH. A DH lymphoma was diagnosed in 16 of 253 cases (6.3%). Complete information on HC, GE and DH status was available for 170 cases. The relationship is depicted in figure 1. COO classification by either HC or GE was not correlated with baseline MTV, iPET result, event-free (EFS) survival or overall (OS) survival. By contrast, DH status was correlated with positive iPET (RR 2.30 [95% CI, 0.76 to 6.96]) and inferior outcome as shown in figure 2 (EFS: HR 2.04 [95% CI, 1.02 to 4.07]; p=.044; OS: HR 3.00 [95% CI, 1.34 to 6.71]; p=.007). There was no correlation between DH status and MTV. iPET-positive DLBCL harbored MYC breaks more frequently than iPET-negative DLBCL (RR 3.29 [95% CI, 1.40 to 7.77]). A similar trend was observed in 72 cases tested for BCL2 breaks (RR 1.30 [95% CI, 0.44 to 3.84]) and 74 cases tested for BCL6 breaks (RR 1.85 [95% CI, 0.59 to 5.80]). Conclusion: HC and GE showed good concordance with respect to COO classification, but COO was not correlated with MTV, iPET, EFS or OS. By contrast, MYC-rearranged lymphomas with or without BCL2 or BCL6 breaks were statistically significantly associated with a positive iPET, and DH lymphomas were correlated with poor outcome. Yet, the unfavorable prognosis of iPET-positive DLBCL cannot solely be explained by MYC translocations because most iPET-positive lymphomas lacked this genetic anomaly. Our results strengthen the role of iPET as a prognostic tool, independent not only of IPI, but also of COO status and MYC translocation. Disclosures Richter: HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Inc.: Research Funding. Hüttmann:Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Roche: Other: Travel expenses. Gärtner:HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Inc.: Employment. Duehrsen:Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Klapper:HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Inc.: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Regeneron: Honoraria, Research Funding; F.Hoffman-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: The addition of sorafenib to standard induction and consolidation therapy in newly diagnosed patients (pts) ≤60 years (yrs) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) led to significant prolongation of event-free survival (EFS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) in the randomized placebo-controlled SORAML trial (NCT00893373). After a median follow-up of 3 yrs, a benefit for sorafenib treated pts was observed also in overall survival (OS), but this difference was not significant. Here, we present updated survival data and information on relapse treatment and outcome. Methods: In the SORAML trial, 267 newly diagnosed untreated fit AML pts up to 60 yrs of age and irrespective of FLT3 mutation status received two cycles of induction chemotherapy with DA (daunorubicin 60 mg/m2 days 3-5 plus cytarabine 100 mg/m2 cont. inf. days 1-7), followed by three cycles of high-dose cytarabine consolidation (3 g/m2 b.i.d. days 1, 3, 5). Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT) was scheduled for all intermediate-risk pts in first complete remission (CR) with a sibling donor and for all high-risk pts with a matched related or unrelated donor. At study inclusion, pts were randomized to receive either sorafenib (2x400 mg/day) or placebo as add-on to standard treatment in a double blinded fashion. Study medication was given on days 10-19 of DA I+II, from day 8 of each consolidation until 3 days before the start of the next consolidation and as maintenance for 12 months (mos) after the end of consolidation. The primary endpoint of the trial was EFS. The results after follow-up of 3 yrs were presented at ASH 2014 (Röllig et al., Blood 2014; 124: 6) and fully published (Röllig et al., Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 1691-9). Here, we present the results after prolonged follow-up. For this analysis, information on remission and survival status, mode and outcome of relapse treatment including SCT were collected for all randomized pts and analyzed by standard statistical methods. Results: Of 267 treated pts, 134 were randomized in the sorafenib arm and 133 in the placebo arm with a resulting CR rate of 60% and 59%, respectively. After a median observation time of 78 mos, the primary study endpoint EFS in the placebo vs sorafenib arm was 9 mos vs 26 mos (HR 0.68, p=0.01) in univariate Kaplan Meier analysis. The beneficial effect of sorafenib on EFS was confirmed in multivariate Cox regression analysis with a HR of 0.61 (p=0.005). Median RFS in the placebo vs sorafenib arms was 22 vs 63 mos, corresponding to a HR of 0.64 (p=0.033). Exploratory analyses were performed in the 70 relapsing pts (40 after placebo vs 30 after sorafenib treatment). Among relapsing pts, 82% vs 73% achieved a second CR. In these two groups, 88% and 87% of pts received a SCT as part of salvage treatment. A lower proportion of pts in the placebo arm received a second SCT as salvage treatment (5% vs 13%). In the context of salvage SCT, the proportion of haploident donors in the placebo and sorafenib group was 3% vs 15% and the incidence of Grade 3/4 GVDH was 17% vs 0%. SCT-related non-relapse mortality (NRM) was similar in both groups, but the cumulative incidence of second relapse (CIR) was higher in the sorafenib group (35% vs 54% after 48 mos). Therefore, median OS from relapse in the placebo vs sorafenib groups were 27 mos vs 10 mos, corresponding to a HR of 1.68 (p=0.098). The projected median OS from randomization is 83 mos in the placebo arm and was not reached for the sorafenib arm, corresponding to a 5-year OS of 52% vs 61% (HR 0.81, p=0.263). Conclusion: Mature follow-up data confirms the antileukemic efficacy of sorafenib in younger AML pts with and without FLT3 mutation. The addition of sorafenib to standard chemotherapy resulted in a significantly longer EFS and clinically relevant 36% risk reduction for relapse or death. Five pts need to be treated (NNT) to prevent one relapse or death at 3 years and six pts at 5 yrs. Exploratory analyses in relapsing pts show that survival after relapse is shorter after sorafenib which might be due to i) a higher rate of second SCTs and a higher incidence of haploidentical SCT despite the lower frequency of severe GVHD, most likely by chance and not explainable by systematic reasons and ii) a lower response to salvage treatment after sorafenib therapy. Despite these observations, primary sorafenib treatment led to an OS benefit with a 19% risk reduction for death which was not statistically significant since this phase II trial was not adequately powered to detect OS differences. Figure Figure. Disclosures Rollig: Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hüttmann: Gilead, Amgen: Other: Travel cost; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Celgene, Roche: Honoraria. Giagounidis: Acceleron: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Mackensen: AMGEN: Research Funding. Hänel: Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Thiede: Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agendix: Employment. Schetelig: Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.