Search

Central nervous system (CNS) relapse of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare phenomenon with dismal prognosis, where no standard therapy exists. Since the covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is effective in relapsed/refractory MCL and penetrates the blood–brain barrier (BBB), on behalf of Fondazione Italiana Linfomi and European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network we performed a multicenter retrospective international study to investigate the outcomes of patients treated with ibrutinib or chemoimmunotherapy. In this observational study, we recruited patients with MCL with CNS involvement at relapse who received CNS-directed therapy between 2000 and 2019. The primary objective was to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients treated with ibrutinib or BBB crossing chemotherapy. A propensity score based on a multivariable binary regression model was applied to balance treatment cohorts. Eighty-eight patients were included. The median age at study entry was 65 years (range, 39-87), 76% were males, and the median time from lymphoma diagnosis to CNS relapse was 16 months (range, 1-122). Patients were treated with ibrutinib (n = 29, ibrutinib cohort), BBB crossing chemotherapy (ie, high-dose methotrexate ± cytarabine; n = 29, BBB cohort), or miscellaneous treatments (n = 30, other therapy cohort). Both median OS (16.8 vs 4.4 months; P = .007) and median progression-free survival (PFS) (13.1 vs 3.0 months; P = .009) were superior in the ibrutinib cohort compared with the BBB cohort. Multivariable Cox regression model revealed that ibrutinib therapeutic choice was the strongest independent favorable predictive factor for both OS (hazard ratio [HR], 6.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-21.3; P < .001) and PFS (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.7-12.5; P = .002), followed by CNS progression of disease (POD) >24 months from first MCL diagnosis (HR for death, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.3; P = .026; HR for death or progression, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.6; P = .023). The addition of intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy to systemic CNS-directed therapy was not associated with superior OS (P = .502) as the morphological variant (classical vs others, P = .118). Ibrutinib was associated with superior survival compared with BBB-penetrating chemotherapy in patients with CNS relapse of MCL and should be considered as a therapeutic option.

Patients with indolent conjunctival lymphomas exhibit good prognosis, with exceptional cases of dissemination, and are suitable candidates for intralesional therapies. We report the first prospective phase 2 trial using intralesional rituximab supplemented with autologous serum in adults with relapsed/refractory indolent CD20+ lymphoma of the conjunctiva (NCT01514344). Patients received 4 weekly intralesional injections of rituximab, followed by 6 monthly injections; 500 μL of autologous serum was added to rituximab in patients with lymphoma unresponsive to weekly doses. Safety, activity, and antitumor effect of autologous serum were investigated. Twenty patients with mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT)–type lymphoma were enrolled. Tolerability was excellent, with only 3 mild local reactions. After weekly injections, 11 patients achieved tumor regression, 8 had stable disease, and 1 experienced progressive disease; 9 patients received autologous serum, with response improvement in 4 cases (3 complete responses, 1 partial response). At the end of treatment, 12 patients achieved a complete remission, and 1 achieved a partial response, with an overall response rate of 65% (95% confidence interval, 45-85). At a median follow-up of 42 months (range, 10-78), 12 patients remain relapse free, with 5-year progression-free survival and time-to-next-treatment rates of 59% ± 11% and 69% ± 11%, respectively. Three patients with local relapse were retreated with intralesional rituximab and serum; 2 achieved a complete response that lasted 25+ and 38+ months. Thus, intralesional rituximab is a safe and active therapy in patients with relapsed conjunctival MALT lymphoma. The addition of autologous serum improves response in some cases. Retreatment of local relapses can result in a second durable remission.

Background. The PI3Kδ inhibitor idelalisib given in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (R/R CLL) has been associated with an objective response in 81% of cases with a median PFS of 20.3 months in a phase-3 clinical trial (Sharman et al, JCO 2019). Because the efficacy of new drugs reported in clinical trials may not translate into similar results in the day-to-day practice, we performed an observational retrospective-prospective study on the efficacy and safety of idelalisib and rituximab (IR) in R/R CLL patients treated outside of clinical trials in Italian centers belonging to the GIMEMA group. Methods. R/R CLL patients treated with IR outside of clinical trials between July 2014 and May 2017 were enrolled. Treatment was initiated at symptomatic progression; treatment response and disease progression were assessed according to the NCI criteria. The data were extracted from the medical files and entered into case record forms (CRF) by each treating physician. Computerized and manual consistency checks were performed by the GIMEMA data center on newly entered forms and queries were issued in case of inconsistencies. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), the percentage of patients on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, overall survival (OS) and response to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment. Results. 149 R/R CLL patients from 35 Italian centers were included in the study. The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. At a median follow-up of 39.4 months, the median PFS was 22.9 months (95% CI 20.5-28.8). In univariate analysis, a shorter PFS was associated with ≥3 lines of therapy (p=0.0175) (Fig. 1a). The ORR (CR + PR) was 72.5%. Age ≤70 yrs (p=0.037) and a PS grade 3 during RI treatment were neutropenia (35% of cases), gastrointestinal disorders (17%), infections (17%) and transaminitis (6%). Conclusions. The results hereby observed show that the efficacy of IR in a cohort in a real-life RR/CLL with a long follow-up is superimposable to those reported in the pivotal clinical trial, suggesting that the patient population who received IR in the day-to-day clinical practice mirrored that enrolled in the trial. Advanced clinical stage and 3 or more previous lines of therapy were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Interestingly, PFS and objective measures of efficacy such as the proportion of patients still on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, as well as OS, were not influenced by the TP53 status. Furthermore, the majority of patents responded to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment and relatively durable responses were observed in patients who discontinued IR due to toxicity. Disclosures Rigolin: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Visentin:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Coscia:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Farina:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Murru:Janssen: 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; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Varettoni:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses. Sportoletti:Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Laurenti:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Marasca:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Marchetti:Takeda: Other: Sponsored meetings; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Sponsored meetings; Pfeizer: Other: Sponsored meetings. Mauro:Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octopharma: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Molica:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Pane:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis pharma SAS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gozzetti:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Galieni:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Krampera:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trentin:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Montillo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Foà:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax (Ven), a highly selective Bcl-2 inhibitor combined with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, showed high efficacy inducing high rates of deep responses with undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) in patients with previously treated and untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The efficacy and safety of the Ven and rituximab (VenR) combination have been investigated in a multicenter, prospective study of the GIMEMA group that included young patients with previously untreated CLL (LLC 1518, VERITAS, NCT03455517). The primary endpoint of this study was the CR rate assessed according to the iwCLL criteria. Inclusion criteria were: treatment requirement per iwCLL criteria, age ≤65 years, cumulative Illness rating scale score ≤6, creatinine clearance ≥30 mL/min, and an unfavorable biologic profile with IGHV unmutated and or TP53 disruption. Treatment consisted of the Ven dose ramp-up (from 20 to 400 mg daily, during 5-weeks) followed by Ven 400 mg daily, combined with R for six 28-day courses (375 mg/m2, course 1; 500 mg/m2, courses 2-6). Patients continued with Ven single agent, 400 mg daily, until month 13. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis measures included hydration, allopurinol, or rasburicase. All patients received PneumocystisJirovecii prophylaxis. G-CSF was given in patients with recurrent and severe granulocytopenia. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the CTCAE criteria v.5, TLS events were classified according to Howard's criteria. Response was assessed at months 7 and 15 and included clinical examination, PB evaluation, BM aspirate, BM biopsy, and CT scan. MRD was checked centrally in the PB and BM by a 6/4-color flow-cytometry assay with a sensitivity of at least 10-4 according to the internationally standardized European Research Initiative on CLL. Quantitative MRD results assessed by flow-cytometry were categorized as uMRD (uMRD4; Between October 2018 and May 2020, 77 patients with CLL were included in this study. Two patients were off study before the start of treatment (withdrawal of consent, 1; Covid-19 infection, 1) and were not included in the analysis. The median age was 53.5 years (range 38-65). Binet stage B/C was present in 84% of patients, increased beta-2 microglobulin in 41%. Seventy-one (96%) of patients were IGHV unmutated, while 3 (4%) were IGHV mutated and showed TP53 mutation (Table 1). At the data cutoff of June 30, 2020, 65 (87%) patients completed the ramp-up phase. The planned 400 mg dose of Ven was reached within 5 weeks in 78.5% of patients. Response was assessed in 34 patients at the end of the VenR combination therapy. A response was achieved by 32 (94%) patients. Responses included 20 (59%) CRs, 1 CRi (3%) and 11 (32%) PRs due to residual enlarged nodes (median maximum size, 1.9 cm). Treatment failure due to toxicity was recorded in 2 (6%) patients. Overall, a response with uMRD4 by flow-cytometry in the PB was observed in 26 (76.5%) cases, and in the PB and BM, in 17 (50.0%). The rates of patients with CR and uMRD4 by flow-cytometry in the PB, and both in the PB and BM, were 44%, and 35%, respectively (Table 2). No detectable disease by PCR, both in the PB and BM, was observed in 4 (12%) patients. With a median follow-up of 4.5 months from the start of therapy, no patient has progressed or died. Fifty-three percent of patients were hospitalized during the first seven days of the Ven ramp-up phase. A transient laboratory TLS was observed in 3 patients. Treatment was discontinued after the first dose of Ven in 1 patient with evidence of laboratory TLS associated with severe neurologic toxicity due to the concomitant administration of fentanyl. Selected grade ≥3 AEs included neutropenia in 10 patients (ramp-up phase, 5) and neutropenic fever in 4. Grade ≥3 infection was recorded in 3 patients and was the reason for treatment discontinuation in 1 who developed COVID-19 pneumonia. In conclusion, the preliminary results of this study demonstrate the high efficacy of the front-line VenR combination, which resulted in a high proportion of CRs and responses with uMRD4 in young patients with CLL and an unfavorable biologic profile. Disclosures Mauro: Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octopharma: Consultancy. Reda:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trentin:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coscia:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sportoletti:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Laurenti:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: 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. Gaidano:Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marasca:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Murru:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rigolin:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: 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. Scarfo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marchetti:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levato:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Galieni:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Liberati:Verastem: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Molica:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Visentin:Abbvie: 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: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vitale:Janssen: Honoraria. Del Giudice:Janssen: Other: grant for meeting participation; Tolero: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Other: grant for meeting partecipation; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Foà:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction. The administration of immuno-chemotherapy (ICT) followed by rituximab maintenance (RM) is the recommended approach for the front-line therapy of high tumor burden follicular lymphoma (HTB-FL) patients. Among available ICT regimens, RB (Rituximab-bendamustine) and R-CHOP regimen, are preferred options with high, similar efficacy. Regarding RM, its use is strongly supported after R-CHOP by the results of the PRIMA randomized trial; conversely, no prospective data are available to confirm the efficacy of RM in patients initially treated with RB. The FOLL12 trial was conducted to try to demonstrate that a response adapted post induction management of patients with HTB-FL could be as effective as standard RM in terms of Progression Free Survival (PFS). The trial actually showed the better efficacy of standard RM compared to the experimental approach thus providing indirect confirmation of the efficacy of RM after ICT, 10 years after the PRIMA trial. We here analyse the impact of initial ICT in the FOLL12 study that left treatment choice between RB and R-CHOP at physician discretion and on an individual patient basis. Methods. FOLL12 is a multicenter, randomized, phase III trial that compared standard RM vs. a response adapted post induction management in treatment naïve adult patients with grade 1-3a, stage II-IV and a HTB-FL. All patients received induction immunochemotherapy with 6 cycles of either R-CHOP or R-Bendamustine both followed by two additional doses of rituximab. Choice of ICT was at the physicians' discretion. After ICT, patients in the standard arm received bimonthly rituximab for up to two years. Patients in the experimental arm were managed according to centrally reviewed metabolic and molecular response. Patients achieving complete metabolic (CMR) and molecular response were managed with observation only, those in CMR with molecular persistence received 4 weekly rituximab doses. Patients not achieving CMR were treated with radioimmunotherapy with ibritumomab tiuxetan followed by standard RM. Primary study endpoint was 3 years progression free survival (PFS). Results. A total of 786 eligible patients were enrolled and 1:1 randomized either to standard or experimental arm. By backbone therapy, 341 patients received RB and 445 received RCHOP induction immunochemotherapy. RB was more frequently prescribed in older and female patients (OR 1.6, p=0.001) whereas RCHOP was preferred in patients with bulky disease (>6cm) and grade 3a histology (OR 0.65, p=0.013). The median follow-up of the analysis was 56 months (range 1-71). In the non-randomized comparison between RB and RCHOP, no difference in terms of PFS was observed between the two regimens (HR for RB 1.07, 95%CI 0.83-1.38, p=0.597, Figure 1). Standard maintenance arm was more effective than experimental arm both in patients initially treated with RCHOP and in those treated with RB (HR RCHOP 1.61, 95% CI 1.16-2.25; HR RB 1.89, 95% CI 1.27-2.82). An unequal interaction between RB and RCHOP and post-induction therapy was observed for sex and for bone marrow involvement. Considering grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs), neutropenia was less frequently observed in RB (35.7%) compared to RCHOP (46.2%). Among extra-hematological AEs, higher frequency of grade 3-4 infections and of cutaneous toxicity were observed in RB treated patients (3.8% vs. 1.2% and 2.4% vs. 0.2%). Overall, 54 second malignancies (SM) have been observed including 23 hematologic malignancies and 31 solid cancers. Cumulative incidence of secondary cancer (excluding non melanoma skin cancers) at 3 and 5 years was 3.7% (95%CI 2.4-5.3%) and 8.1% (95%CI 5.8-10.9%). Conclusion. The current update of the FOLL12 trial demonstrated superiority of standard RM compared to the response adapted post induction management irrespective of prescribed regimen thus proving a first prospective non-randomized evidence of RM efficacy in patients with high tumor burden follicular lymphoma patients treated with RB. Both R-CHOP and RB were associated with a similar efficacy profile. Figure 1. Progression free survival for the standard maintenance arm (A) versus response oriented experimental arm (B) of the FOLL12 trial in patients treated with R-CHOP or R-Bendamustine (RB). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Luminari: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Janssen: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Consultancy; GENELAB SRL: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tucci: janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentili: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ferrero: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Clinigen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau. Arcaini: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bayer, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Roche, Sandoz, Janssen-Cilag, VERASTEM: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead: Other: Travel expenses. Pulsoni: Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, Merk: Consultancy; Gilead, Bristol: Speakers Bureau. Musuraca: Janssen, Roche, Incyte: Honoraria; Janssen, Roche, Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Incyte, Roche: Consultancy.

Introduction: We recently demonstrated in a large multicentre study that sGA can identify fit older patients with aggressive lymphoma able to tolerate first-line intensive treatment with curative intent and to obtain similar results than younger people (Merli at al JCO 2021). Regardless of age, about 40% of patients with aggressive lymphoma are either refractory or will eventually relapse after treatment with curative intent. Salvage platinum-based regimens followed by ASCT in responsive disease is a standard of care to obtain longer second remission. However, in many case series, patients over 65 years are excluded from the transplant approach because of potential severe toxicities of high-dose therapy in older patients. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and activity of high-dose treatment followed by ASCT in older FIT patients with R/R aggressive lymphoma selected with a sGA. Methods: Patients with R/R aggressive lymphoma after one line of treatment, aged between 65 and 75, and FIT to sGA were eligible for the study. Salvage treatment could be chosen between R-DHAP, R-ICE or other platinum or gemcitabine-containing regimens and stem cells were mobilized after 1 or 2 cycles. Patients achieving at least partial response after 3 courses and who remained FIT to sGA evaluation were eligible for ASCT and were conditioned with either BEAM or FEAM. Results: From May 2014 to August 2019, seventy-five patients from 16 FIL centres were enrolled and 70 were eligible for the study. Sixty-six of them had a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, one had follicular 3b, 2 mantle cell and 1 Burkitt histology. Salvage treatment was R-DHAP in 48 patients, R-ICE in seven and gemcitabine or oxalyplatinum containing regimens in the remaining ones. Overall response rate after three courses was 44% (21 complete and 10 partial remission). Among the 39 unresponsive patients, 29 had progressive and 4 stable disease, 2 patients died of septic shock and heart failure during salvage and 4 patients withdrew their consent to ASCT. Four patients relapsed soon after response achievement before undergoing the transplant. ASCT was performed in 27 patients with a median of 5.6 x 10 6 CD34/Kg reinfused. No differences emerged in demographic and clinical characteristics between patients reaching the ASCT timepoint or not (Tab 1a). By intention to treat analysis, 2-y overall survival (OS) and PFS of the entire intention-to-treat population were 65% (95%CI: 50-76%) and 34% (95%CI: 22-46%) respectively, without differences according to age (Tab 1b). After a median of 27 months, 2-y OS was 79% (95CI: 51-86%) and EFS 56% (95CI: 32-75%). Twenty-four patients obtained a complete remission (CR) and 20 of them are in continuous CR after more than 12 months. Three patients progressed 1-8 months after ASCT and died. Most common non-hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events were gastrointestinal (10%) and infectious (8%). Conclusion: This study shows that sGA can identify older patients with R/R aggressive lymphoma who are able to tolerate and can benefit from high-dose therapy and ASCT. The poor response to second-line immunochemotherapy remains the major drawback of this approach since less than 50% of patients could actually receive ASCT. Nevertheless the 2-y survival of 65% in the intention to treat population is remarkable and sets the stage for the evaluation of new approaches such as CAR-T or bispecific antibodies also in older patients. A next step should be to explore the usefulness of sGA in the selection of candidates to these innovative treatments. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Tucci: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentili: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Musuraca: janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo: ROCHE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Zilioli: Roche, Italfarmaco: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD, Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations; Gentili, Takeda, Gilead, Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: travel expenses, accommodation. Merli: EUSA Pharma: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Science: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Celgene: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses. Marcheselli: sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rossi: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction Symptomatic patients with relapsed/refractory Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (RR-WM) treated with standard rituximab plus chemotherapy as second-line salvage therapy, generally show a 18-months progression free survival (PFS) of about 50%. On behalf of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi, a multicenter phase II study was designed to assess whether a combination of bendamustine, rituximab and bortezomib (BRB) (EudraCT Number:2013-005129-22) could be considered a promising new treatment in this setting. Patients and Methods This single-arm phase II study tested the hypothesis that 18-months PFS is at least 65%. The required sample size was 38 patients (alpha=0.10; beta=0.25; minimum follow up=24 months). Treatment plan provided: rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 followed by intravenously bendamustine 90 mg/m2 on day 1 and 2 and subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on day 1, 8, 15 and 22, every 28 days for 6 months (6 cycles). MYD88 L265P and CXCR4 S338X mutations were tested by ddPCR in bone marrow (BM), plasma and peripheral blood (PB) samples, both at baseline (as mutational screening) and at the end of treatment (for minimal residual disease purposes, MRD). Results Median age was 66.8 years (8 patients were older than 75 years). Many patients had features of advanced disease such as cytopenia (anemia 71%, thrombocytopenia 20%), systemic symptoms (40%) and symptomatic splenomegaly (24%). Sixteen (42%) patients had at least one comorbidity, mostly cardiovascular disease (21%) or metabolic disorders (16%), such as diabetes mellitus. Thirty patients completed six cycles, 7 patients stopped therapy for toxicity and 1 for progressive disease. Overall response rate at the end of therapy was 82%, including 4 (11%) complete, 15 (39%) very good partial, 12 (32%) partial responses according to IWM response criteria. At 18, 24, and 30 months PFS was 84% (95% CI 68-92%), 81% (95%CI 65-91) and 79% (95%CI 62-89) respectively. At 18 months OS was 92% (95%CI 77-97%) and no deaths were observed between 18 and 30 months. Nineteen patients (50%) experienced grade ≥3 hematological toxicity, mainly thrombocytopenia, 12 patients (31.5%) developed grade ≥3 extra-hematological toxicity of which only one cutaneous toxicity related to bendamustine. Bortezomib-related nervous system disorders were observed in 6 patients (5 of grade 1-2 and 1 of grade 3), with no discontinuations. Mutational data were available for 21 patients: all patients scored MYD88 L265P in BM, 18/19 (95%) in plasma and only 18/21 (86%) in PB, prospectively confirming the risk of false negative results when only PB of rituximab pre-treated patients is analyzed. CXCR4 S338X was detected only in one patient at baseline. MRD negativization rates after treatment differed across investigated tissues: in detail, 5/17 (29%) in BM, 6/14 (43%) in plasma and 12/16 (75%) in PB. Overall, a good concordance was observed between BM and plasma (Cohen's kappa= 0.714), suggesting the possibility of avoiding BM aspiration for mutational screening and MRD analysis. Conclusion The final results of FIL BRB phase II trial showed that BRB regimen, used as second-line therapy, is an effective and well-tolerated salvage treatment for RR-WM patients. The deep anti-tumor activity of the novel combination is highlighted by an absolute increase of PFS rate in comparison to historical controls (30-months PFS of 79%), as well as by high rates of clinical response, with an ORR (CR+VGPR+PR) of 82% (95%CI 66-92). Moreover, MRD monitoring showed promising efficacy of BRB regimen in clearing the residual disease. Disclosures Benevolo: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Speakers Bureau. Ferrero: Morphosys: Research Funding; Servier: Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Clinigen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cavallo: ROCHE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Gaidano: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Musuraca: janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Varettoni: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vitolo: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Background. Immunochemotherapy is effective in follicular lymphoma (FL), but most patients (pts) eventually relapse. MRD analysis, based on the detection of Bcl-2/IGH rearrangement by highly sensitive PCR-based tools, is effective in identifying pts at risk of relapse [Ladetto Blood 2012; Pott EHA23]. However, several issues are still unresolved, including: i) which is the best tissue source and the most reliable technique; ii) which are the most predictive time points; iii) which is the role of disease kinetics during the long natural history of FL. The FIL FOLL12 prospective, phase III randomized clinical trial (EudraCT: 2012-003170-60) included a systematic MRD analysis on both peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) taken at eight different pre-planned time points, by both nested and real time quantitative (RQ)-PCR. Therefore, it allows addressing these unresolved issues. Methods. The FOLL12 compared conventional rituximab maintenance [Salles et al, Lancet 2010] vs a combined PET/MRD response-based post-induction approach in pts with advanced FL after first line chemo-immunotherapy. Clinical results have been already reported [Luminari et al, ICML16]. PB and BM samples were centralized at four Italian Euro-MRD certified laboratories. MRD was assessed with consensus primers on Bcl-2/IGH rearrangements (MBR, mcr and minor rearrangements) by both nested and RQ-PCR at eight time points: baseline, end of induction (EoI) and every six months thereafter till month 36. MRD data were treated as a time-varying covariate and analyzed by means of flexible parametric survival model (Parmar-Royston) with the log cumulative baseline hazard function. MRD data were modeled with restricted cubic spline as function of time. Effect of fixed covariates and landmark analysis were performed with the Cox PH regression. Any estimation was reported with its 95%CI. Results. Overall, 10,702 analytical results were generated, (3,000 for marker screening and 7,702 for MRD). 780 of 786 eligible pts (99%) were screened at baseline for the presence of a molecular marker. 443/780 (57%) had a detectable Bcl-2/IGH rearrangement, as expected. High rates of MRD negativity were observed at EoI, with similar results by both techniques (87% in BM and 95% in PB by nested-PCR, 90% in BM and 95% in PB with RQ-PCR). Overall, the presence of one MRD positive result was associated during the entire follow-up period with an increased risk of relapse in the subsequent six months interval (HR for PFS 2.82, 95% CI 1.84-4.34, p Conclusions. This comprehensive MRD study in FL clearly indicates that: i) punctual MRD analysis is predictive of poor outcome at multiple pre-planned time points taken over a 36 months period; ii) both nested and RQ-PCR performed adequately, the latter being preferable as broadly used and internationally standardized; iii) BM allows better prediction at the early time points but, starting from month 12 after EoI PB is superimposable to BM, allowing effective and reliable long-term non-invasive MRD monitoring; iv) the high predictive value of punctual time point analysis is further improved by a kinetic approach to the interpretation of MRD results. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ladetto: AbbVie, Jazz, Gentili, Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Acerta, Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche, J&J, Celgene, Novartis, Amgen, Gilead, Beigene, GSK: Honoraria. Ferrero: Servier: Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Clinigen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Del Giudice: Tolero: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Galimberti: Incyte: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Gattei: abbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Menarini: Research Funding. Mannina: Janssen,Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Falini: Rasna Therapeutics: Honoraria. Luminari: Roche, Celgene, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria.

Venetoclax is the first BCL-2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) alone or in combination with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs). Initial studies have shown high efficacy of venetoclax monotherapy or in combination with rituximab with an overall response rate of 79-92% in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL. To investigate the use of venetoclax combinations in a real-world population, we designed this observational retrospective and prospective study aimed at defining the outcome of patients with R/R CLL treated with venetoclax-based regimens outside clinical trials in Italy. Efficacy (progression-free survival -PFS-, overall response rate -ORR-, complete response -CR-, measurable residual disease -MRD-) and safety (most frequent adverse events -AE-, grade 3-4 AE, laboratory and clinical tumor lysis syndrome -TLS-) data were collected within the study through a web-based platform after patients signed written informed consent. As of July 8 th, 2021 124 subjects (85 males, 39 females) were enrolled into the study (Table 1). Median age at venetoclax initiation was 70 years (44-91), median CIRS score 4 (0-14), median creatinine clearance 70 ml/min (22-123). A relevant proportion of patients presented adverse prognostic features, including TP53 aberrations [32% TP53 mutation and/or del(17p)], unmutated IGHV (77%). At the time of venetoclax initiation, patients had received a median of 2 previous therapies (1-8), with 57% previously exposed to BTK and/or PI3K inhibitors. 67/117 (57%) patients received venetoclax alone, while 50 were treated with a combination of venetoclax + rituximab (VenR), information on treatment plan was missing in 7 patients. Patients on venetoclax monotherapy compared to those receiving VenR showed a higher percentage of elevated LDH at baseline (64% vs 38%), were more heavily pretreated (median lines of therapy 3 vs 1), and had more frequently received treatment with ibrutinib (66% vs 27%) and/or idelalisib + rituximab (29% vs 4%). After a median follow-up of 13.7 months (0-41.9), the estimated 12m-PFS was 82% (CI 74-90%) (Figure 1), and the estimated 12m-overall survival (OS) was 83% (CI 76-91%). The best ORR in the whole cohort was 85% (CI 95% 76-91%) with a CR rate of 40%; best response was reached after a median of 3.9 months of treatment (range 0.6-30.5). The best ORR was not different in patients receiving VenR vs venetoclax alone (83% vs 88% respectively, p = n.s.), while the CR rate was significantly higher in those receiving VenR vs venetoclax alone (57% vs 30%, p=0.011). The ORR and CR rate in patients previously exposed to BTK and/or PI3K inhibitors were significantly lower (77% and 29% respectively), and the 12m-PFS was shorter in patients previously treated with ibrutinib compared to ibrutinib-naïve (75% vs 89%, p=0.005). Twenty subjects discontinued venetoclax (median time to discontinuation 4.1 months, range 0.4-10.8), 8 due to disease progression, 3 Richter's transformation, 7 AEs, 1 was lost to follow-up and 1 underwent planned allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Venetoclax-based regimens were well tolerated, with the most frequent AE of any grade related to venetoclax being neutropenia (79.6%), grade 3-4 in 61.9% (Table 2). In the whole cohort one grade 3 clinical TLS occurred and resolved without sequelae, and only 2/124 patients experienced laboratory TLS during ramp-up phase (both grade 1). No treatment-related death was reported. In conclusion, this analysis presents the results of one of the largest cohort of patients with R/R CLL treated with venetoclax-based regimens outside clinical trials and confirms the favourable efficacy and safety profile of the drug. In this patient population highly enriched for unfavorable disease features (1 out of 3 carrying TP53 aberrations, almost 80% with unmutated IGHV) venetoclax-based regimens were able to obtain a response in a high proportion of cases, with a very short time to best response (less than 4 months). As expected, response duration was shorter in patients previously exposed to BTKi/PI3Ki. When we compared the outcome of patients treated with venetoclax monotherapy vs VenR, the addition of anti-CD20 MoAb allowed to reach deeper responses by significantly increasing the CR rate. As the study and its data collection are still ongoing, the updated analysis of an expanded cohort with longer follow-up will be presented at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Scarfo: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Quaglia: Roche: Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Marasca: AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Sanna: Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laurenti: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Gaidano: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Reda: Beigene: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Molica: Astrazeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sportoletti: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Galimberti: AbbVie, Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Mauro: AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Cuneo: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ghia: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding.

Cancer chemotherapy may be associated with a high incidence of nausea and vomiting, particularly when highly emetogenic antineoplastic drugs are used. Uncontrolled emesis can profoundly impact on the patient's quality of life and ability to survive, by causing dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, malnutrition and treatment discontinuation. The ABVD regimen (Adriamycin, Bleomycin, Vinblastine and Dacarbazine) is considered the standard of care for first-line treatment of Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Among these drugs, dacarbazine and adriamycin are the most emetogenic, being classified as highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, respectively. NEPA is the first fixed antiemetic combination composed by the pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5HT3 receptor antagonist (5HT3-RA) palonosetron and the highly selective Neurokinin1/Substance P receptor antagonist (NK1-RA). A single dose of NEPA per chemotherapy cycle acts on the principal pathways involved in the mechanisms controlling nausea and vomiting in a synergistic way with an appropriate half-life to cover both the acute (0-24 hours from chemotherapy) and delayed (25-120 hours) phase. In this open label multicenter study, chemo-naïve Hodgkin's Lymphoma patients who were addressed to receive their first cycle of ABVD regimen (2 doses in 28 days, on days 1 and 15) were given a single administration of NEPA plus 4 mg dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue medication during the overall phase (0-120 hours) on the first dose of the first ABVD cycle. A total of 77 patients were evaluated. According to the adopted Fleming one-stage design, the primary endpoint of this study was achieved. Indeed, the number of the complete responders for the overall phase among the first 70 consecutive patients was 66, which is greater than the pre-determined cut-off of 46, representing the minimum frequency of responders for which the treatment is considered effective. In addition to the primary efficacy endpoint, several additional endpoints were evaluated. The CR values were 93.5% for the acute phase, 81.8% for the delayed phase and 80.5% for the overall phase, while Complete Control (CR with no more than mild nausea) were achieved in the 93.5%of patients in the acute phase, 76.6% in the delayed phase and 75.3% in the overall phase (Figure 1A). Also, levels of no significant nausea (no more than mild nausea) were 94.6% for the acute phase, 83.1% for the delayed phase and 81.8% for the overall phase (Figure 1B). This study demonstrated the efficacy of NEPA plus dexamethasone in preventing the nausea and vomiting induced by the highly emetogenic ABVD regimen. Disclosures Abruzzese: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bms: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Di Renzo:BerGenBio ASA: Research Funding. Flenghi:takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; janssen-cilag: Consultancy; teva: Consultancy; Servier Italia: Consultancy. Cantonetti:Vifor: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy.

Background: Triplet-based lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd) combinations have become the new standard of care for early relapse and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Carfilzomib is a novel selective proteasome inhibitor (PI) with high efficacy in RRMM. The ASPIRE phase 3 trial showed the superiority of carfilzomib-based triplet (KRd compared to Rd), leading to approval of K for RRMM. However, little is known about safety and efficacy of KRd outside a clinical trial context. Experimental design and aims: In 11 Sicilian Centers belonging to the Sicilian Myeloma Network, from November 2016, when KRd regimen was approved in Italy, to June 2018, 103 consecutive RRMM patients (previous lines 1-10) have received KRd regimen, according to ASPIRE schedule. Lenalidomide dosage was reduced in patients with a low count of platelet and/or renal failure according to manufacturer guidelines. Since previous studies have demonstrated that increased cumulative dose of first generation PI bortezomib significantly improved overall survival of patients treated with VMP regimen, we studied the effect of cumulative dose of Carfilzomib in RRMM patients receiving KRd. Results: Clinical and demographic characteristics of patients included in the study are summarized in Table 1. Median age was 65 years (range 33-86), most patients were males (54%). About half of the patients included in the survey were refractory to previous treatment (54%); Sixty-five (63%) patients received at least 5 cycles of KRd and 38 (36%) received at least 10 cycles. Overall response rate was 34% (35 patients); 18 patients (17%) achieved a complete response (CR), 6 patients minimal response (MR), 13 (12%) patients achieved PR, 16 patients achieved MR and then progressed; progression occurred in 20 patients, among them 3 did not reached any response. Delays due to adverse events were 33%, mainly due to febrile neutropenia (22%), thromboembolic events (4.5%), heart failure (3%), or thrombocytopenia (4.5%). To prevent hematological toxicities, 24% of patients received granulocyte growth factors, 15% erythropoietin. In 30 patients treatment was reduced (mainly due to lenalidomide toxicity) and in 5 patients discontinued for toxicity. Thus, median cumulative carfizomib doses at 2, 3, 4 and 6 cycles were respectively 480 mg (282 mg/m2), 735 mg (435 mg/m2), 995 mg (589 mg/m2) and 1522mg (890 mg/m2). After a median follow up of 16.2 months, PFS at 12 months was 67.3%. We found that median PFS was significantly longer in patients who received at least 480 mg (282 mg/m2) within first two months of treatment compared to those that could not receive full-dose KRd (respectively, undefined vs 11 months p=0.04). To identify patients that could obtain the most advantage by KRd treatment, 65 patients who had received at least six cycles were distinguished in two groups, based on previous treatments. In group A, 27 patients were heavily pretreated (median previous lines 4, range 2-10) and had previously received lenalidomide while 38 patients included in group B were less pretreated (median previous lines 3, range 1-5) and lenalidomide- naïve. We found that group A had lower PFS than group B although duration of PFS from the previous treatment was similar in both groups. Conclusions: In our cohort of patients rate of VGPR or better obtained with KRd combination was high with an overall response rate of 34%, with an acceptable safety profile. It is therefore reasonable that approaches to achieve a higher cumulative dose, such as continuing therapy in responding patients and/or proactive adverse events management, influence efficacy. In addition, it is likely that patients not previously exposed to several lines of treatment including lenalidomide are the best candidate for a favorable outcome with KRd regimen. Disclosures Di Raimondo: Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: Elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) experience a low complete remission (CR) rate following intensive chemotherapy, a short duration of CR and high treatment-related mortality. Median survival is 7-12 months. Several reports suggest that maintenance therapy may improve survival. In particular, a recent report (Huls G, et al. Blood 2019) has shown that azacitidine (Aza) maintenance treatment improves 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) when adjusted for cytogenetics at diagnosis and platelet (PLT) count at randomization. Aims: This phase III, randomized, multicenter trial assesses the efficacy of post-remission Aza treatment versus best supportive care (BSC) in 54 AML subjects >60 years of age in CR after homogeneous induction and consolidation chemotherapy. Primary endpoint is the difference in DFS at 2 and 5 years between arms; main secondary endpoints are the difference in overall survival (OS), the number and length of hospitalizations and quality of life (QoL). Methods: AML subjects with >30% blasts, "de novo" or evolving from myelodysplastic syndrome and fit for intensive chemotherapy, received 2 courses of "3+7" therapy (daunorubicin 40 mg/m2 daily days 1-3 and cytarabine 100 mg/m2 daily IV infusion days 1-7). Subjects obtaining a CR received cytarabine 800 mg/m2 3 hour infusion bid days 1-3 and were randomized 1:1 to receive BSC or Aza at 50 mg/m2 s.c./i.v. for 7 days every 28 days and dose increase after 1st cycle to 75 mg/ m2 for further 5 cycles, followed by cycles every 56 days for 4.5 years or until relapse. QoL was assessed by QOL-E and EORTC QLQ-C30. Results: 149 subjects were included of median age 69, interquartile range (IQR) 65-74 years, and male/female 78/71. Amongst subjects not reaching randomization, 59 were relapsed/refractory, 22 died, 10 refused to continue, 3 were excluded for protocol violation, and 1 was lost to follow-up. Randomized patients (27 Aza, 27 BSC) were in study until relapse. Median follow-up was 9.9 months (IQR: 3.2-22.5). At 2 years post-randomization, no deaths occurred and 21 subjects in the BSC arm (median DFS 9 months, 95% CI 0-20) relapsed versus 18 subjects in the Aza arm (median DFS 11 months, 95% CI 1-21; P=0.33; Fig.1a). There was an effect modification by age on the effect of Aza versus BSC on relapse (P for effect modification=0.02) so that the effect of AZA was not significant for subjects 73 years (P=0.008, Fig.1b). Cytogenetic risk (P=0.84), minimal residual disease (P=0.97), and platelet (PLT) count (below/above 100 Gi/L, P=0.47) did not modify the effect of Aza on DFS. However, cytogenetic risk and PLT count were confounders: after data adjustment, the effect of Aza on DFS just failed to reach statistical significance [HR (Aza vs BSC): 0.53, 95% CI: 0.26-1.05, P=0.068] . At 5 years post-randomization, no subjects died; 2 subjects on Aza and 1 subject on BSC withdrew consent and 1 subject on Aza in CR withdrew for relapse of bladder cancer. In the BSC arm, 23 subjects relapsed (median DFS 9 months, 95% CI: 0-20) versus 20 Aza subjects (median 11 months, 95% CI: 1-21; P=0.31, Fig.1a).Similar to 2 years post-randomization, at 5 years post-randomization an effect modification by age on the effect of Aza versus BSC was confirmed (P for effect modification=0.01) and the effect of Aza was significant only in subjects >73 years of age (P=0.007, Fig.1b). Again, data adjustment for cytogenetic risk and PLT count strengthened the link between Aza and DFS [HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.29-1.07, P=0.08]. Grade 3-4 adverse events (mainly neutropenia) were more frequent in the Aza (41%) than in the BSC arm (4%, P=0.002). Two Aza subjects were hospitalized twice for adverse events for a total of 22 and 26 days, respectively, versus no hospitalization for BSC subjects. QOL-E scores were poor at diagnosis and improved significantly at randomization, with further improvement for physical well-being. EORTC QLQ-C30 symptoms improved progressively over time. In linear mixed model analyses, no significant effect of Aza versus BSC was found for any QoL domain, confirming safety of Aza versus BSC. Summary/Conclusion: With the limitation of a small trial, we conclude that post-remission Aza in elderly AML patients receiving standard induction-consolidation chemotherapy is safe and is well-tolerated. Noteworthy, in patients over 73 years of age, Aza significantly prolongs DFS up to 5 years. Figure Disclosures Oliva: Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Candoni:Merck SD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Di Raimondo:Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Musto:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mannina:Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martino:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: 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. Alati:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction Limited stage follicular lymphoma (FL) is usually managed with involved field radiotherapy (IFRT), although different approaches are currently carried out, ranging from watch and wait to combined treatment. RT on involved lymph nodes allows eradication of the disease only in 40-50% of patients. Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (MoAb), widely used in advanced stage FL, are likely to be effective in reducing the relapse risk, although no scientific evidence of their role has been provided. The aim of this multicenter phase II prospective study was to evaluate the role of MRD in identifying patients unlikely to be cured by RT, for whom an immunotherapy-based consolidation could improve outcome. Methods 110 patients with stage I/II FL were enrolled. IFRT was administered to all patients at a dose of 24 Gy. Peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) samples were centralized to the Italian FIL (Federazione Italiani Linfomi) MRD Network of EuroMRD-certified laboratories: the presence of a BCL2/IGH rearrangement was investigated at baseline in all patients by nested PCR (NEST) and RQ-PCR (RQ), the latter according to the EuroMRD guidelines. In patients BCL2/IGH+ at baseline by both NEST and RQ in BM and/or PB, MRD was analyzed in both tissues after IFRT and every 6 months over a three-year follow-up period. Patients with positive MRD by both NEST and RQ in BM and/or PB after IFRT or who became positive during the follow-up were treated with 8 weekly doses of the anti-CD20 MoAb ofatumumab. The primary objective of the study was to define the efficacy of immunotherapy in obtaining the disappearance of BCL2/IGH rearranged cells. Results Preliminary data are available for 107 patients, 57 males, 50 females. Median age was 55 years (29-83). 17% had G1 FL, 32% G2, 40% G3A, 11% NOS. The FLIPI score was 0 in 59% of patients, 1 in 35%, 2 in 6%. 69% of patients had inguinal site involvement. Despite a negative BM biopsy, at baseline 30% of patients (n=32) had a BCL2/IGH rearrangement (30 MBR, 1 MBR and mcr, 1 mcr) in the BM and/or PB; the concordance between compartments was 90%, with 10% of negative PB showing a positive BM. No significant differences were observed in relapse probability between patients with or without a molecular marker. All patients were submitted to IFRT and all obtained a clinical response, which was complete in 79 of the 101 evaluated patients (78%) and partial in 22 (22%). MRD evaluation after treatment revealed the persistence of BCL2/IGH rearranged cells in the PB and/or BM in 60% of patients. According to the design of the protocol, MRD-positive patients, either after IFRT (n=18) or in case of conversion to a positive signal during the follow-up (n=7), received 8 weekly administration of ofatumumab. A conversion to MRD negativity, evaluated in 23 treated patients, was obtained in 20 (87% - CI 65.1-97.1). This result was significantly superior to the expected 50%. One death occurred after IFRT, due to ischemic stroke. Adverse events likely correlated to ofatumumab occurred in 7/25 treated patients, consisting of infusion reactions in 5, leading to a permanent interruption of immunotherapy in 3. After a median follow-up of 18 months, all patients who achieved a MRD negativity with ofatumumab underwent a regular molecular follow-up and are still MRD-negative. Overall, clinical relapse or progression were observed in 17 patients: 13 (18%) among the 73 "no marker" patients; 2 relapses (16%) were observed among the 12 MRD-negative patients after IFRT and 2 relapses were observed among the 23 patients treated with the anti-CD20 MoAb (8.7%), 1 having achieved a MRD negativity and 1 not. No significant differences in event-free survival have so far been observed between the three groups. Conclusions The MRD data of this phase II trial for early stage FL indicate that RT alone is often insufficient to eradicate the disease, being capable of inducing a negative MRD only in 40% of evaluable cases, with a long-lasting effect only in half of them. The primary objective of this study - MRD negativity after immunotherapy - was achieved, obtaining the disappearance of BCL2/IGH rearranged cells in the majority of patients treated with ofatumumab. The strategy of an immunotherapy consolidation after IFRT in MRD-positive patients allowed to increase molecular responses. A longer follow-up and further studies on larger patient populations will allow to conclusively define the impact of this MRD-driven strategy also on clinical outcome. Disclosures Pulsoni: Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Merk: Consultancy; Bristol Meyer Squibb: Speakers Bureau. Ferrero:Servier: Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Luminari:ROCHE: Other: Role as Advisor ; CELGENE: Other: Role as Advisor & Travel Grant; TAKEDA: Other: Travel Grant; GILEAD: Other: Lecturer . Liberati:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical trial support; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trial support; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical trial support; Roche: Other: Clinical trial support; Novartis: Other: Clinical trial support. Ferreri:Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. Nassi:Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Corradini:Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; kite: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Mannina:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Arcaini:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bayer, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Roche, Sandoz, Janssen-Cilag, VERASTEM: Consultancy; Celgene, Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead: Other: Travel expenses. Galimberti:Roche: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Ladetto:AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria; Acerta: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; J&J: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Foà:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: The anti-CD20 MoAb Ofatumomab is employed to eradicate Minimal Residual Disease in early stage Follicular Lymphoma(FL). The drug is registered for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, not for FL.

BACKGROUND: Standard rituximab plus chemotherapy salvage treatment has shown moderate activity in patients with relapsed/refractory Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (RR-WM), with 18-months progression free survival (18-PFS) of about 50%. On behalf of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (F.I.L.) we designed a multicenter phase II study to assess the efficacy of a combination of bendamustine, rituximab and bortezomib (BRB) in improving these results. METHODS and PATIENTS: This single-arm phase II study tested the hypothesis that 18-PFS is at least 65%. The required sample size was 38 patients (alpha=0.10; beta=0.25; minimum follow up=24 months). Treatment plan was: rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 followed by intravenously bendamustine 90 mg/m2 on day 1 and 2 and subcutaneous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 on day 1, 8, 15 and 22, every 28 days for 6 months. Patients with RR-WM after first line of therapy were enrolled in 18 F.I.L. centers, from October 2014 to November 2017. In the last 23 patients MYD88L265Pwas tested by the recently described droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay both on bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) samples, both at baseline (as mutational screening) and at the end of treatment (for minimal residual disease purposes, MRD). RESULTS: At the time of analysis, 29 patients completed the six cycles of therapy, six patients stopped therapy for toxicity, two patients died and one had just finished therapy and was not yet evaluated. 18-PFS was 84% (95%CI: 61-94%), with two progressions and two deaths without evidence of progression (one cerebrovascular accident during the fifth cycle and one pulmonary embolism at three months follow up). On an intention-to-treat analysis (N=37), overall response rate was 70%, (N=26) including 4 (11%) complete, 11 (30%) very good partial, 10 (27%) partial responses and 1 (3%) minimal response according to IWM response criteria. Overall, treatment was well tolerated, the most common adverse events of any grade included 13 patients (34%) experiencing grade 3-4 neutropenia, especially in cycle 4 (leading in four cases to treatment discontinuation). Peripheral nervous system toxicity was observed in five patients (13%; 4 of grade 1-2 and 1 of grade 3-4), with no discontinuations. Serious adverse events were observed only in three patients, mainly rash, all resolved. All the 23 patients assessed for MYD88L265Pat baseline scored positive in BM, while only 18/23 (78%) in PB, prospectively confirming the risk of false negative results when only PB of rituximab pre-treated patients is analyzed. Among the 21 patients monitored for MRD after treatment 5 scored MRD negative in BM and 13 in PB, highlighting the deep activity of the BRB regimen in clearing the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with RR-WM after first line of therapy, BRB regimen is a well-tolerated salvage treatment, resulting in high rates of PFS at 18 months. Moreover, the deep anti-tumor activity of this regimen is highlighted by the promising rates of both clinical and molecular responses. More complete and mature results will be presented during the meeting. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02371148). Disclosures Gaidano: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Vitolo:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

From November 2012 to July 2014, brentuximab vedotin (BV) was available in Italy for patients with relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) outside a clinical trial context based on a local disposition of the Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) issued according to a national law (Law 648/96: "medicinal products that are provided free of charge on the national health service"). A large Italian observational retrospective study was conducted on the use of BV in the everyday clinical practice to check if clinical trial results are confirmed even in a real life context. Primary endpoint was the best response; secondary endpoints were the overall response rate at the end of the treatment, duration of response, survival and the safety profile. BV was infused intravenously at the dose of 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks. A total of 234 HL patients were treated in 40. All patients had histologically documented CD30+ HL; 49% had relapsed and 51% had refractory disease. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 previous therapies (including autologous stem cell transplant [SCT] in the 69% of cases). Best response was observed after a median of 4 cycles in 140 patients (59.8%): 74 (31.6%) patients obtained a complete response (CR) and 66 (28.2%) achieved a partial response (PR); overall response rate at the end of the treatment was 48.3% (62 CR and 51 PR). The best response rate was higher in the elderly subset (>60 years): 14 (50%) CR and 5 (17.8%) PR. Disease free survival was 26.3% at 29 months and progression free survival 31.9% at 55 months. We identified 30 long term responders (patients with a response ≥ 12 months) of whom 18 are still in CR, 7 with a consolidative SCT and 11 without any consolidative procedure. Duration of response did not differ who achieved at least PR and then either did or did not undergo consolidative SCT. All patients were included in the safety profile for the analysis; in general, the treatment was well tolerated in everyday clinical practice and the toxicity profile was closely similar to the previously published data; no death has been linked to BV-induced toxicity. This preliminary analysis could indicate that BV displays a number of features favoring its use as a bridge to transplant in patients with active disease who achieve a suboptimal response to salvage treatment. Even in a real life context, BV induces clinical responses quite rapidly, i.e. within the first 4 cycles in most responders, thus permitting the timely application of the transplantation phase. BV displays a favorable toxicity profile, without overlapping toxicities with most of the agents employed in high-dose conditioning regimens. Furthermore, for HL patients ineligible for transplant or for who transplant failed, may represent a feasible effective therapeutic option. Disclosures Rusconi: Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Congress attendance; Teva: Consultancy, Other: Congress attendance; Takeda: Consultancy. Spina:Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaker Fee; Mundipharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaker Fee. Zinzani:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celegene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Indolent non follicular B-Cell Lymphomas (INFL) are a heterogeneous group of lymphomas and include small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), lymphoplasmacytic lymphomas (LPL) and marginal zone lymphomas of splenic (SMZL), nodal (NMZL) and extranodal (ENMZL) subtypes. In 2010 the NF10 study was started by the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi as a prospective registry specifically devised for investigating the prognosis of this group of lymphomas. We provide a preliminary report describing registered cases with an emphasis on initial therapy. Methods: The registration of consecutive adult patients with newly diagnosed INFL and no exclusion criteria is ongoing at a dedicated website via secure HTTP protocols. For the purposes of the study in addition to the conventional INFL subtype, the category of disseminated MZL and CD5- low grade lymphoma were also considered. So far the study has been activated in 65 centers in Europe and South America. Results: Between July 2010 and July 2015, 665 cases have been registered. The current report is based on 395 cases that have been validated. Forty-seven (12%) cases were registered as SLL, 76 (19%) as LPL, 59 (15%) as CD5-low grade and 213 (54%) as MZL, including 73 (18%) SMZL, 18 (5%) NMZL, 81 (21%) ENMZL or 41 (10%) disseminated subtypes. Median age was 67 years (range 29-94), 53% of patients were males; Ann Arbor stage was III-IV in 79%; 14% had B symptoms, 7% had ECOG performance status > 1, lactate dehydrogenase and b2-microglobulin were elevated in 70% and 54% of cases, respectively. Six percent of cases were HCV positive (HCV+ rate was 7.5% among MZL cases). Regarding HBV infection, 21% of patients were HBcAb-positive and 3% of patients were HBsAg-positive. Immediate systemic therapy was planned in 50% of patients. SMZL, SLL and CD5-low grade were the subtypes with the lower rates of immediate therapy (44%, 46% and 24% respectively) whereas ENMZL were addressed to systemic therapy in 67% of cases. When systemic therapy was prescribed rituximab (R) was used in 88%. In 81% of patients R was combined to cytotoxic therapy including alkylating agents in 40%, CHOP-like in 18%, bendamustine in 17% and fludarabine in 6%. ENMZL and CD5-low grade had the highest rates of R-alkylating use (61% and 64%); SMZL and MZL were frequently treated with R-CHOP like regimens (35% and 40%). Young age at diagnosis (less than 60 years) and increased b2-microglobulin were more frequently associated with patients requiring immediate systemic therapy. With 22 months of median follow up, 2-year progression free survival and overall survival (OS) were 88% (95CI: 83-92) and 95% (95CI: 91-97) respectively; the initial choice of deferring immediate therapy did not impact on OS. Conclusions: We provide a complete report on the initial approach to patients with INFL showing that immediate therapy is required in half of the cases with a heterogeneous approach among INFL subtypes. The majority of patients requiring therapy was treated with the combination of R and alkylating agents. The NF10 study confirms that a web-based world-wide cooperation allows the collection of a relevant and complete data set, providing a platform for future prognostic and pathobiological studies in order to identify novel and more efficient therapeutic targets. Disclosures Luminari: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ferrero:Mundipharma: Other: Speakers Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Speakers Honoraria. Gaidano:Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys, Roche, Novartis, GlaxoSmith Kline, Amgen, Janssen, Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards.

Background: Over the last two decades several phenotypic, molecular, and chromosomal markers have been identified that are significantly associated with the prognosis of CLL patients. Therefore, clinicians managing CLL patients would benefit from a simplified prognostic index. Methods: We analyzed prospectively collected data from 337 Binet A CLL patients enrolled in Italian the O-CLL1-GISL protocol with the aim of developing scores capable of predicting treatment free survival (TFS). Factors independently associated with TFS were included in the prognostic indexes. To account for differences in the magnitude of the association between the individual independent factors and TFS, we assigned a weighted risk score to each factor based on ranges of their corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) (i.e., 1 point for HR 1.1-1.9; 2 points for HR 2.0-2.9, etc.). The total risk score was then calculated by the sum of the ratings of each factor on individual basis. Risk groups were identified combining risk categories with a non-statistically different TFS. Results: We developed two scores based on weighted multivariable models: the first included clinical and laboratory parameters [clinical score (c-score)], while the second was based on biological markers [biological score (b-score)] (Table 1). The c-score allowed to predict the TFS of patients through the combination of Rai stage, b2-microglobulin and absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), while the b-score predicted TFS by IGHV mutational status and CD38 expression. The c-score showed a C-statistic of 0.72, while the b-score was 0.67, although cases stratified according to the b-score showed a more specific mRNA/microRNA profile. When the two scores were forced in a multivariate analysis, both showed an independent predictive value on TFS with a similar HR, demonstrating their complementarity. Thus, we attempted to integrate the two scores performing a further multivariate analysis in which all parameters, significantly associated with TFS at univariate analysis, were tested (Table 1). ALC, Rai stage, b2-microglobulin together with IGHV mutational status, resulted independently associated with TFS. We constructed a weighted score [comprehensive score (co-score)], including all the above 4 variables, which allowed the identification of 3 different risk groups with significantly different TFS (Figure 1). The C-statistic of the g-score was 0.75, showing a better concordance than the other two scores. Moreover, its validity was externally validated in a series of 297 newly diagnosed Binet A CLL patients from the Mayo Clinic, USA. Conclusions: Using this multistep process and external validation, we developed a score with high discriminatory power and predictive significance on the individual patient level. Table 1. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional Hazards Models Variable Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis Clinical model Biological model Comprehensive model HR (95% CI) P HR (95% CI) P score HR (95% CI) P score HR (95% CI) P score Age (years) 60 1.12 (0.73-1.74) 0.59 - - - - - - - - - Sex Male/Female 0.93 (0.6-1.44) 0.93 - - - - - - - - - Rai stage 0/I-II 2.30 (1.47-3.50) 10 3.43 (1.99-5.92) Figure 1. TFS according to comprehensive progression risk score. Figure 1. TFS according to comprehensive progression risk score. Disclosures Shanafelt: Cephalon: Research Funding; Glaxo-Smith-Kline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Research Funding; Polyphenon E International: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kay:Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Tolero Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Background In the last decades, evaluation of thrombotic complications secondary to acute leukemia (AL) has been poorly investigated. Only scant data are available on management and prevention of thrombosis in this setting. We performed a multicenter retrospective study with the aim to evaluate the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with AL and to report the most commonly adopted regimens of treatment. Materials and methods Available clinical records of out and in-patients diagnosed with AL from January 2008 to June 2013 in 7 Reference Regional Hospitals were analyzed. Cases of VTE, including thrombosis in atypical sites [Retinal occlusion (RO) and Cerebral Sinus Thrombosis (SCT)], were reported. All data were recorded in a dedicated electronic database. The patient’s basic demographic data (age, gender, race), medical history, disease-related information, and laboratory data were extracted. Instrumental diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and RO and SCT was performed according to ACCP guidelines. Data were collected and analysed by the IBM SPSS Software 21.0 version (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, Ill, US) and the Epi Info software, version 3.2.2, (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Statistical analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, included descriptive statistics, was performed for all the items. Results Over a population of 1461 patients with AL, 99 (6.8%) cases of VTE were recorded, mainly in hospitalized patients: 72 cases were associated with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and 27 with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL), with a mean age of 52.2 ± 15.4 years (median age: 53years). In particular the incidence/ratio over the sub-population of AML-patients was 6.0%, that is 72/1191 cases; with a mean age of 54.7 ± 14.3 years (median age: 57 years). VTE occurred during chemotherapy (CHT) in 90/99 (90%) cases, mainly during the induction phase of treatment (in 70% of cases ),the remaining 9 cases were diagnosed in concomitance with acute leukemia. In both subgroups with VT, there was no statistical significant difference between time at diagnosis of VT and time at diagnosis of AL. Treatment of VTE was mainly based on Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH), in accordance with results from previous studies and current guidelines (full dosage for the first month from diagnosis and reduced dosage at 75% for the following months). Thrombocytopenia occurred in 55 patients at diagnosis of AL, in 33 cases platelets were Conclusion VTE can complicate the clinical course of AL in a not negligible percentage of cases. Anticoagulant treatment schedules and duration in patients with AL are influenced by many factors, mainly related to chemotherapy and severe thrombocytopenia. In the analyzed subset of patients, full dose treatment with LMWH for at least one month followed by a dose reduction for at least three months was appropriate. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.