Search

This study evaluated ofatumumab (Ofa), an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, alone or with bendamustine (Benda), in transplant-ineligible patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Low-risk patients received Ofa monotherapy. Non-responders received subsequent treatment with Benda-Ofa. Six patients received Ofa monotherapy and 3 patients crossed over to Bend-Ofa. Twenty-four high-risk patients were initially treated with Benda-Ofa. The overall response rate for patients treated with Ofa monotherapy was 1/6 (17%) and 23/25 (92%) for patients treated with Benda-Ofa. With a median follow-up of 8.6 years, all Ofa patients progressed with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.6 years (95% CI 0.31-NR) and remain alive. With a median follow-up of 6.3 years, Bend-Ofa treated patients had median PFS 2.5 years (95% CI 1.8-NR) and a median overall survival of 7.4 years (95% CI 5.8-NR). Benda-Ofa had a favorable adverse event profile and efficacy similar, but not clearly superior, to those reported for Benda-Rituximab.

Purpose: In RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), patient-level outcomes from the L-MIND study (NCT02399085) of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide were retrospectively compared with patient-level matched observational cohorts treated with National Cancer Care Network (NCCN)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-listed systemic therapies for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients and Methods: Data were collected from health records of eligible patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL who had received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy). Patients from L-MIND were matched with patients from the RE-MIND2 observational cohort using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching, balanced for nine covariates. The primary analysis compared tafasitamab plus lenalidomide with patients who received any systemic therapy for R/R DLBCL (pooled in one cohort) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) or rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx; as two distinct cohorts). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included treatment response and time-to-event outcomes. Results: In RE-MIND2, 3,454 patients were enrolled from 200 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Strictly matched pairs of patients consisted of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus systemic therapies pooled (n = 76 pairs), versus BR (n = 75 pairs), and versus R­GemOx (n = 74 pairs). Significantly prolonged OS was reported with tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus systemic pooled therapies [hazard ratios (HR): 0.55; P = 0.0068], BR (HR: 0.42; P < 0.0001), and R-GemOx (HR: 0.47; P = 0.0003). Conclusions: RE-MIND2, a retrospective observational study, met its primary endpoint, demonstrating prolonged OS with tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus BR and R-GemOx. See related commentary by Cherng and Westin, p. 3908

Mature B cell neoplasms, previously indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHLs), are a heterogeneous group of malignancies sharing similar disease courses and treatment paradigms. Most patients with iNHL have an excellent prognosis, and in many, treatment can be deferred for years. However, some patients will have an accelerated course and may experience transformation into aggressive lymphomas. In this review, we focus on management concepts shared across iNHLs, as well as histology-specific strategies. We address open questions in the field, including the influence of genomics and molecular pathway alterations on treatment decisions. In addition, we review the management of uncommon clinical entities including nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma, hairy cell leukemia, splenic lymphoma and primary lymphoma of extranodal sites. Finally, we include a perspective on novel targeted therapies, antibodies, antibody–drug conjugates, bispecific T cell engagers and chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy.

BACKGROUND Emavusertib, an oral interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) inhibitor, targets toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling pathway in B-cell proliferation. IRAK4 forms a Myddosome complex with MYD88 adaptor protein and drives overactivation of NF-κB, causing inflammation and tumor growth. Emavusertib has been reported to be well tolerated and active as monotherapy in heavily pretreated relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). In a murine PDX model of primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL), emavusertib crossed the blood-brain barrier, resulting in tumor response and prolonged survival. In combination with Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, emavusertib showed in vivo anti-cancer synergy in B-cell NHL. METHODS This is an ongoing open-label trial (NCT03328078) in patients with R/R NHL. Currently, we are in the dose escalation portion of combination therapy to evaluate safety and efficacy following treatment of emavusertib at dose levels of 200 or 300mg BID with ibrutinib at full prescribed dose. As of May 6th, 2022, 13 patients have been treated with emavusertib+ibrutinib combination therapy. RESULTS Among the 13 patients, two were diagnosed with R/R PCNSL and had several prior lines of anti-cancer therapy. Emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib (560 mg daily) appeared to be well tolerated in these two subjects. One patient experienced Gr3 treatment-related adverse events (thrombocytopenia, muscle weakness, pain). The preliminary efficacy data demonstrated one CR and one SD. The patient who achieved CR after the combination therapy was originally intolerant to high-dose methotrexate based chemoimmunotherapy and did not achieve complete remission after switching to ibrutinib, providing early clinical evidence of CNS penetration and anti-tumor activity of emavusertib. CONCLUSION In R/R PCNSL, these preliminary data suggest that combination therapy has a tolerable safety profile with promising anti-cancer activity and may overcome ibrutinib resistance.

Recent prospective clinical trial data suggest that patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma who continue treatment with ABVD, despite failing to attain a complete metabolic response on interim PET (PET2+), may fare better than previously published. We describe the outcomes of PET2+ patients who continued ABVD and compare the performance of a quantitative measure based on the lesion-to-liver SUV ratio (LLS qPET2+) to that of the subjective Deauville criteria (dvPET2+). We analyzed all patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with frontline ABVD at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2008 and 2017. Eligibility was set to correspond with the RATHL inclusion criteria. Images were reviewed by two nuclear medicine physicians and discordant cases were resolved with a third expert in consensus. qPET2+ was defined as LLS ≥ 1.3. We identified 227 patients of whom 25% (57) were qPET2+, but only 14% (31) were dvPET2+. Forty-eight patients (84%) continued ABVD with a 3-year PFS of 70% for qPET2+ and 64% for dvPET2+. In conclusion, interim PET interpretation in clinical practice may be associated with a higher rate of scans deemed positive. Irrespective of the criteria for PET2 positivity, a subset of patients may continue ABVD without a dismal outcome.

Background T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma (THRLBCL) is an uncommon variant of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), characterized by low content of lymphoma cells in a background of extensive infiltrate of T-cells and histiocytes. Historically, THRLBCL was considered an aggressive variant of DLBCL with poorer outcomes and a 3-year OS We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, prognostic factors, response to treatment, and outcome among pts diagnosed with THRLBCL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in the rituximab era. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed all cases of THRLBCL who were diagnosed in our center from January 2000 to October 2019. We collected data for demographic and clinical characteristics, pathology results, disease stage and sites of involvement, treatment regimen, and outcome. Fisher's exact test was used to assess associations between patient characteristics and treatment regimen. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon test were used to assess associations between categorical or continuous characteristics and response to treatment, respectively. The likelihood ratio test was used to assess significance of Cox regression univariate models. Overall survival (OS) was measured from date of diagnosis until last follow up or death. Event-free survival (EFS) was measured from end of treatment to last follow up or pathology proven relapse or disease progression. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Results A total of 100 pts were diagnosed with THRLBCL at our center during the study period. We excluded 33 pts who had missing data regarding stage, frontline treatment, or response. A total of 67 pts were included for analysis in our cohort. Median follow up duration among survivors was 3.4 years (range 0.4-10.8 years). Baseline characteristics are summarized in table 1. Forty-eight were males (72%). Median age at diagnosis was 41 years (range 19-86). Fifty-three (72%) pts were diagnosed at stage IV. Thirty-five (52%) pts had involvement of more than 1 extra-nodal site. The most common extranodal site was bone (60%). Fourteen pts had a positive bone marrow biopsy (26% of those evaluated). Univariate analysis was performed for age, gender, ethnicity, stage, extra-nodal sites, presence of B symptoms, performance status, elevated LDH, IPI score>=3, and history of NLPHL. None of these factors were found significantly associated with response rate, EFS, or OS. Frontline treatment is shown in table 2 and included R-CHOP or R-CHOP based treatment in 48% (n=32), R-EPOCH in 12% (n=8), R-CHOP/R-ICE (4 cycles of R-CHOP-14 followed by 3 cycles of R-ICE, Moskowitz CH, et al. JCO 2010) in 33% (n=22) and other regimens in 7.5% (n=5). CNS prophylactic treatment was given in 19 pts. One pt had an autologous stem cell transplant and 1 pt had an allogeneic stem cell transplant as part of frontline treatment. Fifty-one (76%) pts had a complete response (CR) to frontline treatment. Among these pts, 6 relapsed. Sixteen (24%) pts had refractory disease. Among pts with relapsed or refractory disease, 18 received additional therapy. In the whole cohort, 3-year EFS was 68% and 3-year OS was 85%. In a sub-group analysis of pts who received R-CHOP/R-ICE compared to pts who were treated with R-CHOP or R-EPOCH, CR rates were 95% and 70% respectively (p=0.014). The R-CHOP/R-ICE regimen was also associated with higher 3-year EFS of 86% compared to 62% (p=0.049) and a better 3-year OS of 100% compared with 79% (p=0.016). See figures 1-2. The 2 treatment groups were not significantly different with regards to baseline characteristics. Conclusions Our study demonstrates better outcomes among pts with THRLBCL compared to available historical data from the pre-rituximab era. In addition, with the limitation of a retrospective, single-center study, our data suggests that for newly diagnosed THRLBCL, treatment with a higher intensity regimen, such as R-CHOP/R-ICE, may be associated with favorable outcome. Disclosures Batlevi: Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Falchi:Roche: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Hamlin:Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy; J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding. Horwitz:Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASTEX: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board. Matasar:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; NIH: Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy. Palomba:Genentech: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Straus:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Vardhana:Other: Other: SAV has received honoraria from Agios Pharmaceuticals and Rheos Pharmaceuticals, is an advisor for Immunai and has consulted for ADC Therapeutics. von Keudell:Bayer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Moskowitz:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

PURPOSE We conducted a phase II study evaluating pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and liposomal doxorubicin (pembro-GVD) as second-line therapy for relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03618550 ). METHODS Transplant eligible patients with rel/ref cHL following first-line therapy were treated with two to four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenous [IV], day 1), gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), vinorelbine (20 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), and liposomal doxorubicin (15 mg/m2, days 1 and 8), given on 21-day cycles. The primary end point was complete response (CR) following up to four cycles of pembro-GVD. Patients who achieved CR by labeled fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (Deauville ≤ 3) after two or four cycles proceeded to high-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HDT/AHCT). HDT/AHCT was carried out according to institutional standards, and brentuximab vedotin maintenance was allowed following HDT/AHCT. RESULTS Of 39 patients enrolled, 41% had primary ref disease and 38% relapsed within 1 year of frontline treatment. 31 patients received two cycles of pembro-GVD, and eight received four cycles. Most adverse events were grade 1 or two, whereas few were grade 3 and included transaminitis (n = 4), neutropenia (n = 4), mucositis (n = 2), thyroiditis (n = 1), and rash (n = 1). Of 38 evaluable patients, overall and CR rates after pembro-GVD were 100% and 95%, respectively. Thirty-six (95%) patients proceeded to HDT/AHCT, two received pre-HDT/AHCT involved site radiation, and 13 (33%) received post-HDT/AHCT brentuximab vedotin maintenance. All 36 transplanted patients are in remission at a median post-transplant follow-up of 13.5 months (range: 2.66-27.06 months). CONCLUSION Second-line therapy with pembro-GVD is a highly effective and well-tolerated regimen that can efficiently bridge patients with rel/ref cHL to HDT/AHCT.

7560 Background: Tafasitamab (tafa) + lenalidomide (LEN) demonstrated efficacy in adult patients (pts) with R/R DLBCL ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplant in the pivotal Phase II study L-MIND (NCT02399085) and received accelerated approval in the United States in 2020 and conditional marketing authorization in Europe and Canada in 2021 in this setting. RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), an observational, retrospective cohort study, compared pt outcomes from L-MIND with matched pt cohorts treated with other NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies. Methods: Methodology for RE-MIND2 has been presented previously. Hypothesis-generating analyses were conducted for pt subgroups of number of extranodal sites (ENS) (0–1 vs ≥2) and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (yes vs no) in matched cohorts of pts receiving tafa + LEN vs systemic therapies pooled (STP), polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (pola-BR), rituximab + LEN (R2), and CD19 CAR-T therapies (CAR-T). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: Of 3,454 pts enrolled, 961, 106, 106, and 149 were treated with STP, pola-BR, R2, and CAR-T, resulting in 76, 24, 33, and 37 matched pairs for pts receiving tafa + LEN, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) for OS show a trend toward favoring tafa + LEN in most pt subgroups (Table). Conclusion: These analyses suggest that tafa + LEN may be associated with improved OS vs selected systemic therapies for certain pts with high-risk disease and may further inform physicians’ treatment choices for pts with R/R DLBCL. These analyses are not powered for statistical comparison; small sample sizes in some subgroups result in wide confidence intervals (CI) and so results must be interpreted with caution. Data for other treatment cohorts, pt subgroups, and endpoints will be presented. Funding: MorphoSys AG. Clinical trial information: NCT04697160. [Table: see text]

7575 Background: CA-4948 is a novel oral inhibitor of interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4), which is essential for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in B cell proliferation. IRAK4 forms a Myddosome complex with MYD88 adaptor protein and drives overactivation of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), causing inflammation and tumor growth. CA-4948 has been reported to be well tolerated and active as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Preclinical studies demonstrated that tumor resistance and survival via IRAK4 activation could be delayed or reversed. CA-4948 crossed the blood-brain barrier in a murine PDX model of pCNS lymphoma, resulting in tumor response and prolonged survival. In combination with Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, CA-4948 showed in vivo synergy in B-cell NHL. Here we will present an update on the preliminary efficacy data of CA-4948+ibrutinib in R/R hematologic malignancies. Methods: This is an ongoing open-label trial (NCT03328078) of CA-4948 as monotherapy and in combination with ibrutinib. Part A1 (completed) dose escalation of CA-4948 as monotherapy; the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) is 300 mg BID with continuous oral dosing. Part A2 (dose escalation in combination with ibrutinib), and Part B (a basket design of 4 expansion cohorts of CA-4948 and ibrutinib: BTK-naïve MZL, DLBCL, or PCNSL and NHL with adaptive resistance to ibrutinib). The primary endpoints of Parts A1 and A2 include safety, tolerability, and RP2D. The primary endpoints of Part B include CR or ORR, with key secondary endpoints of DOR, DCR, PFS and OS following treatment of CA-4948 at dose levels of 200 (DL1) or 300 mg BID (DL2) with ibrutinib at full prescribed dose. Results: As of December 7th, 2021, 35 heavily pretreated NHL patients have received CA-4948 monotherapy (median age 66 years, range 50-87), of which six patients have been on CA-4948 for approximately 1 year or longer, suggesting CA-4948 has a long-term acceptable safety and tolerability profile at RP2D (dose level of 300 mg BID). In Part A2, 10 patients are treated with CA-4948+ibrutinib (median age 65 years, range 56-82). Median number of prior lines of anti-cancer therapies is 3 (range 1-8). No DLTs were observed at 200 or 300 mg dose levels to date. The preliminary efficacy data of seven evaluable patients with combination therapy showed 1 CR (MCL), 2 PR (MCL and MZL), 3 SD, and 1 PD, 3 of whom had failed prior ibrutinib. The preliminary data indicate the combination therapy may overcome ibrutinib resistance. Conclusions: CA-4948 as a monotherapy and in combination with ibrutinib is well tolerated with an acceptable long term safety profile and promising efficacy. Part A2 is transitioning to Part B basket cohorts of MZL, ABC-DLBCL, PCNSL and NHL with adaptive resistance to ibrutinib. Clinical trial information: 03328078.

Context Tafasitamab+LEN, a chemotherapy-free, novel treatment for R/R DLBCL, demonstrated efficacy in ASCT-ineligible patients in the single-arm Phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085). Objective To compare outcomes in patients treated with tafasitamab+LEN in the L-MIND study with matched patient populations treated with commonly administered NCCN-/ESMO-recommended therapies for non-transplant-eligible patients with R/R DLBCL in routine clinical practice. Design RE-MIND2 (NCT04150328) is an observational, retrospective cohort study. The L-MIND tafasitamab+LEN cohort was matched with RE-MIND2 patients using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest neighbor matching balanced for nine patient and disease baseline characteristics: age ( 9 /L), anemia (cut-off upper limit of normal). Setting Academic, public, and private hospitals in Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. Patients Age: ≥18 years old with histologically confirmed DLBCL. Prior systemic therapy for DLBCL: ≥1, including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy. Interventions Data are presented for tafasitamab+LEN vs all (pooled) systemic therapies, tafasitamab+LEN vs bendamustine+rituximab (BR), and tafasitamab+LEN vs rituximab+gemcitabine+oxaliplatin (R-GemOx). Main Outcome Measures The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, complete response rate, progression-free survival, event-free survival, duration of response, and time to next treatment. Results In RE-MIND2, 3,454 patients were enrolled from 200 centers. For the comparative analysis, 76 patients from the L-MIND tafasitamab+LEN study were included in the full analysis set. Strictly matched pairs of patients (standardized mean difference ≤0.2) included: tafasitamab+LEN vs pooled therapies, n=76 pairs; tafasitamab+LEN vs BR, n=75 pairs; and tafasitamab+LEN vs R-GemOx, n=74 pairs. Tafasitamab+LEN was associated with longer OS compared with pooled therapies (HR: 0.55; p=0.0076), BR (HR: 0.42; p Conclusions Results of this analysis suggest that tafasitamab+LEN has improved OS vs commonly used regimens. Funding This study was funded by MorphoSys AG.

We reviewed pre-diagnosis clinical data of 420 patients with pathologically confirmed myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) presenting with anemia. In 232 patients with yearly pre-diagnosis complete blood counts (CBCs), we also analyzed CBC kinetics in respects to a standardized timepoint in which all patients had similar levels of hemoglobin (Hgb). At the standardized timepoint (last documented 12 > Hgb ≥ 11 g/dL), occurring months-years before diagnosis, median CBC values were Hgb 11.4 g/dL, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) 2.7 × 103 (k)/mcl, and platelets (PLTs) 181 k/mcl. Gradual changes in CBC could be observed years prior to this timepoint, for the most part while within normal/near-normal limits. During this time, most patients had a coexisting alternative etiology for anemia. Patients with high-risk cytogenetic/blast features had a rapid and steeper decrease in counts in the last year before developing a concerning anemia (decrease in: Hgb 0.75 g/dL vs 0.55 g/dL; PLT 29.5 vs 4.5 k/mcl; ANC 0.86 vs 0.4 k/mcl, P = .03). Low-risk patients had a high rate of longstanding mild anemia (31% vs 16%, P = .05). Rate of development of cytopenia and number of involved hematopoietic lines were prognostic. In 65% of patients, with near normal CBC at the standardized timepoint, but in whom there was a decrease in multiple hematopoietic lines over the preceding year, the 5-year overall survival (5yOS) was 53% compared to 71% in patients with isolated slowly progressing anemia (20% of patients). In 15% of patients with mild cytopenia developing after both a rapid decrease and multiple involved lines, prognosis was dismal (5yOS 34%). In conclusion, kinetics of pre-MDS CBC values correlate with disease risk and survival.

Very low-dose radiotherapy (4 Gy; VLDRT) is an effective treatment for indolent lymphomas and offers the advantage of a shorter course and improved side effect profile compared to full dose RT regi...

A non-invasive myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) diagnostic model would allow for care while avoiding invasive bone marrow examinations (BME). BME-established MDS patients were compared to non-MDS (BME-excluded) patients. Variables (gender, age, hemoglobin (Hb), mean red blood cell corpuscular volume (MCV), platelet (PLT), and white blood cell (WBC)) were combined with multivariate logistic regression; a probability score (Y) was calculated. MDS (n = 48) and non-MDS (n = 63) patients were used to establish the model. The ROC was drawn, giving an AUC of 0.748 (95% CI: 0.656-0.84). Two cutoff values were used for Y. Y ≥ 0.633: high likelihood (positive predictive value (PPV) = 85%); Y ≤ 0.288: low likelihood (negative predictive value (NPV) = 81%) of MDS. The first group is defined as probable MDS (pMDS); the second, probably not MDS (pnMDS). The model was validated with 40 additional patients (20 with and 20 without MDS). Using clinical and lab data, we could diagnose or exclude MDS in about half of the patients, avoiding BME. Future work will use larger cohorts of patients to improve and further validate the model.

Purpose/Objective(s) Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL), such as follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) are highly radiosensitive. Previously untreated patients with localized disease are potentially curable (PC) with RT. While standard of care remains 24Gy, de-escalation to very low dose radiotherapy (VLDRT) of 4Gy reduces toxicities and treatment duration. Use of VLDRT outside of palliation remains controversial, however, we hypothesize it may be sufficient for most lesions. Materials/Methods We present the largest single institution VLDRT experience of adults with FL/MZL treated between 2005-2018 with modern principles including PET staging and involved site radiotherapy (ISRT). Outcomes include best clinical/radiographic response using Lugano criteria between 1.5-6 months post-VLDRT, and cumulative incidence of local progression (LP), distant progression and overall progression, all using death as competing risk. Outcomes were stratified by VLDRT intent; lesions considered PC were localized sites without prior treatment. All other sites were considered non-curable. Competing risk regression was used to identify potential histologic/clinical predictors of LP. Results In total, 250 patients were treated to 299 lesions including 52 potentially curative (PC) sites (Table 1). Post-VLDRT, overall response rate was 90% for all treated sites with 68% achieving complete response (CR). With median follow-up of 2.4y, the 2y cumulative incidence of LP was 25% for the entire cohort. PC patients had considerably lower 2y-LP of 9% (95% CI 3-19%) compared to 29% (95% CI 23-34%) for the non-curable. Lesion size > 6cm was associated with lower odds of CR and greater risk of LP relative to lesions 0-2cm. There was no suggestion of inferior outcomes for PC patients relative to non-curable. The probability of receiving additional RT to the same site 2y post VLDRT is 15% (95% CI 11-19%), and subsequent response after additional RT was 68% CR (n = 30/45), 18% partial response (n = 8), and 14% non-response (n = 6). Conclusion We demonstrate that modern VLDRT approaches utilizing PET staging and ISRT result in excellent ORR with nearly 70% CR. Importantly, the cumulative incidence of LP at 2 years post VLDRT is low at 25%, highlighting the possibility of durable remissions. Given clinical versatility and apparent efficacy for PC patients, we support an adaptive ISRT stepwise strategy where patients will be treated initially with VLDRT, reserving full dose treatment for those with suboptimal response. A prospective, multicenter study by ILROG has been developed to compare PC patients randomized to standard 24 Gy versus this proposed response-adapted approach.

Decreased absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) following frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia may be associated with disease control, even in patients without evidence of minimal residual disease. We studied the prognostic significance of ALCs during the first year following treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR). We evaluated 99 patients who achieved a partial response without lymphocytosis ( 1.8 vs not reached for ALC ≤ 0.7 at 9 months, P

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a multi–subclonal malignancy with relatively high heterogeneity. Patients who initially presented with both monoclonal-protein (MP) and free light chain (FLC) secretion but then relapsed with a light chain escape pattern have been shown to reflect disease clonal evolution and to bare a worse prognosis. We hypothesized that a discordant MP/FLC pattern at diagnosis may reflect a similar clonal evolution that had occurred prior to diagnosis of active myeloma, conferring a worse outcome. We analyzed 255 consecutive newly diagnosed MM patients who received first line bortezomib-based therapy between 2007 and 2014, hypothesizing that their MP/FLC fingerprint at diagnosis reflects clonal heterogeneity and, therefore, affects outcome. An involved FLC level ≥ 700 mg/L and MP ≥ 2.5 g/L were used as cutoffs for low vs high FLC and MP levels, respectively. Patients were divided into 4 subgroups according to their involved FLC and MP blood levels at diagnosis: HiLC and HiMP for patients with either a predominant FLC or a predominant MP, respectively, and HiLC-MP and LoLC-MP when both FLC and MP were increased or decreased, respectively. There were 68 (27%) patients with HiLC, which presented more often with International Staging System-3 stage (P

e19201 Background: Automated extraction of key clinical features from imaging reports, such as the site, size and FDG avidity of lesions would allow for automatic determination of disease stage, response to treatment and relapse. Since the language used in clinical notes is domain and often task-specific, generic Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools are of limited utility. We describe a strategy for a rapid construction of task-specific NLP algorithms. As a test case, we aimed to identify bone involvement with lymphoma from PET/CT reports. Methods: We use an adaptive-learning approach to facilitate the generation of task-specific lexicons by a domain expert. In the case of identifying bone lymphoma, these include words describing the primary aspect (PA: e.g., “ uptake”, “SUV”); the secondary aspect, in this case, osseous sites (SA: e.g., “skeleton”, “T5”); modifiers such as context-specific affirmation/ negation/ uncertainty (e.g., “increased”/ “likely reactive”/ “possibly disease”) and generic negation (e.g., “no evidence of”). Presented with sentences containing seed PA terms, an expert is tasked with an exhaustive identification of terms for the other lexicons. In an iterative process, unseen sentences that do not include terms previously identified are presented for lexicon expansion. The process is repeated until no further expansion is possible. An explicit rule-based algorithm is built based on the lexicons to classify sentences as supporting, negating or inconclusive (i.e., requiring manual review) for the feature of interest. We used 500 reports to develop the algorithm, evaluated performance against 516 unseen reports that were independently classified by a blinded annotator, and measured the amount of effort (number of iterations) required to complete the PA and SA lexicon expansion. Results: Of 44 reports with bone involvement identified by the algorithm, 43 had an actual involvement and 1 was a negative case (PPV: 98%). Of 380 reports flagged as negative, 379 were truly negative and 1 was positive (NPV: 99.7%). Sensitivity was 64% (43/67); specificity 84% (379/449); 18% (93) reports were flagged for manual review. It took 13 and 5 iterations to build the PA and SA lexicons, each involving the review of up to 10 sentences. Conclusions: With minimal effort, we were able to construct a high-accuracy NLP system specific for identifying bone lymphoma. This approach can be extended to other contexts (e.g., lung involvement), domains (e.g., pathology reports), or to be utilized in machine learning.

e20017 Background: FDG avidity above liver on interim PET (PET2) during frontline ABVD is considered a marker of impending treatment failure and an indication to switch to an intensified regimen. However, in clinical practice the utility of PET2 for treatment decisions is less clear. We describe outcomes of patients with positive PET2 who continued treatment with ABVD in the clinical setting. Methods: A retrospective study of all patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with frontline ABVD at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2008-2017. Eligibility criteria were set to correspond with the RATHL inclusion criteria (stage IIB - IV, or IIA bulky or ≥ 3 involved sites). We identified all PET2 reports indicating suspected residual uptake. All positive PET2 images were then reviewed by a single study radiologist. To increase reproducibility and avoid selection of borderline cases, we defined as PET2 positive only those cases with a lesion-to-liver (mean) SUV ratio ≥ 1.3. We also used a recently published stringent criterion of lesion-to-liver (max) ratio ≥ 1.4 (mPET2+). Progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) were calculated from the date of initial treatment until progression or death of any cause. Consolidative radiation was not considered a PFS event, and all progressions were verified by biopsy. Results: We identified 227 patients fitting RATHL inclusion criteria treated with ABVD. Median age was 34, with 25% (58) ≥ 45 years, 12% (26) had an IPS ≥ 4; 28% (64) stage II (5% II-X) and 38% (87) with extranodal involvement. 57 (25%) patients had a PET2 report indicating suspected residual lymphoma (PET2+), however, only 32 (14%) met the more stringent mPET2+ criterion. Most patients with PET2+ continued ABVD (84%, 48), and 9 switched to escBEACOPP (this subset of patients had substantially worse disease and are not the focus of this analysis). 21 (9%) patients received consolidative radiation. With a median follow-up of 47 months (42-54m), PET2+ patients who continued ABVD had a 3yPFS of 70% (58-85%, n = 48); mPET+ had a 3yPFS of 71% (55-92%, n = 24). Overall survival was excellent regardless of PET2 status (5yOS 97%). Conclusions: The outcome of PET2+ patients in this analysis was better than previously reported and the continuation of ABVD was appropriate for most patients. Use of a confirmatory biopsy is important for identifying true progressions. Patients with PET2+ had an excellent OS. Evaluation of the superiority of alternative regimens in PET2+ patients requires an ABVD comparator arm.

8062 Background: Immunotherapy with anti CD20 is often associated with mild easily manageable infusion reactions. In rare cases, patients experience severe drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) serum sickness or anaphylaxis. These in turn may lead to discontinuation of the drug. In our experience, switching to a different anti-CD20 agent is a feasible alternative to discontinuation or desensitization protocols. Methods: From our pharmacology database we identified all the patients that received rituximab and/or obinutuzumab, and/or ofatumumab, and/or all the patients who received a flat dose of less than 50 mL of the same drugs and were followed at our institution. From the medical record, we identified all the cases where the anti-CD20 antibody was changed due to allergy, serum sickness or other types of DHR, and all those who received minimal doses of anti-CD20 in the context of a desensitization protocol. DHRs were evaluated either by an allergist, or by retrospective review following the World Allergy Organization guidelines. Our primary comparison, was to assess the proportion of pts able to completed planned infusion of abs using either approach (Fisher’s exact Test). Results: Among 343 patients receiving at least two different anti-CD20 antibodies or a flat dose of < 50 mL, we identified 44 patients experiencing severe DHRs needing intervention. At the time of the reaction, 16 (36%) received the anti-CD20 as single agent, 24 (54%) in combination with chemotherapy, 4 (9%) in combination with ibrutinib or lenalidomide. In 9 (20%) patients the reaction was defined as anaphylactoid (8 rituximab; 1 obinutuzumab) and in 8 (18%) patients, all receiving rituximab, as serum sickness. Episodes of DHR were addressed with either desensitization (n = 29) or change of anti-CD20 agent (n = 25), 9 patients received both of these approaches, one patient switched anti-CD20 antibodies twice. Overall, 21 desensitizations were successful (72.4%), 8 failed; 23 changes of anti-CD20 were successful (92%) and 2 failed (p = 0.09). Conclusions: In patients with DHR use of an alternative anti-CD20 antibody is safe and is an alternative or complementary approach to anti-CD20 desensitization.

TPS8072 Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) escapes host immune responses via inhibition of the B2M and CD58 pathways and upregulation of PD-1 ligands. However, treatment results with PD-1 blockade have been disappointing. One potential mechanism is the recruitment of intra-tumoral regulatory T-cells (Tregs) which suppress anti-tumor immunity and inhibit NK cell cytotoxicity. Targeting regulatory T cells with the CCR4 antibody mogamulizumab (KW-0761) represents a molecularly informed strategy to overcome this resistance. Mogamulizumab has been safely administered in combination with pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in patients with solid malignancies and may promote CD8 T-cell dependent effector and NK cell-dependent cytotoxicity in lymphomas. Methods: This is a multi-center NIH-ETCTN phase Ib/randomized phase II study. The phase I will evaluate the safety and tolerability of mogamulizumab in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with R/R DLBCL and determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). A traditional 3+3 design with a starting dose of pembrolizumab 200mg IV on day 1 of a 21-day cycle and mogamulizumab 1mg/kg IV on days 1, 8, 15 and then 1.5 mg/kg IV every 21 days. The phase II will evaluate the efficacy of the combination by PFS (primary endpoint) ORR and CR (secondary endpoints). This will be a randomized 1:1 study with allowed crossover, comparing the combination to single agent pembrolizumab Correlative studies will evaluate the association of tumor infiltrating CD8 and NK cells with response to treatment, somatic mutations in B2M and CD58 and with MHC-I expression on DLBCL cells. Functional characterization of circulating immune cells in the peripheral blood and measurement of pro and anti-inflammatory cytokines will be used to assess the levels, activation status and effector function of Tregs and circulating T cells. Inclusion criteria include measurable disease, ≥2 prior lines of therapy including or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, ECOG ≤ 2 and normal organ function. Prior or planned allogeneic stem cell transplant, as well as prior treatment with an anti PD-1/PD-L1/CTLA4 antibody, preexisting autoimmune disease or CNS involvement by lymphoma are exclusion criteria. The study aims to enroll up to 12 patients on the phase I and up to 58 patients on the phase II and can be opened at any ETCTN participating site. To date it has been opened at two sites and is accruing the first patients for the phase I portion. Clinical trial information: NCT03309878 .

8006 Background: Venetoclax (Ven)-Obinutuzumab (O) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) achieving frequent undetectable minimum residual disease (uMRD; Fischer NEJM 2019). Ven-Ibrutinib is synergistic with frequent uMRD but with grade >3 neutropenia in 33-48% patients (pts; Tam ASH 2019; Jain NEJM 2019). Zanubrutinib (B) is a highly specific BTK inhibitor that demonstrated 100% occupancy in lymphoid tissues, so may be preferred to combine with OVen. We hypothesize that treatment (tx) with BOVen using an MRD driven discontinuation strategy will achieve frequent uMRD and durable responses. Methods: In this multicenter, investigator initiated phase 2 trial (NCT03824483), eligible pts had previously untreated CLL requiring tx per iwCLL, ECOG PS 1, PLT >75 (ANC >0, PLT >20 if due to CLL). BOVen was administered in 28D cycles: B 160 mg PO BID starting D1; O 1000 mg IV D1 or split D1-2, 8, 15 of C1, D1 of C2-8; Ven ramp up initiated C3D1 (target 400 mg QD). Tx duration was determined by a prespecified uMRD endpoint (min 8 cycles). MRD was assessed in peripheral blood (PB; flow cytometry, sensitivity >10−4) starting C7D1 then every 2 cycles. Once PB uMRD was determined and confirmed in bone marrow (BM), tx continued 2 additional cycles. Adverse events (AE) were assessed per CTCAE v5. Median (med) time to uMRD (primary endpoint) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The study accrued 39 pts (3-10/19): med age 59 years (23-73), 3:1 male, CLL IPI >4 26/39 (67%), unmutated IGHV 28/39 (72%), 17p del/ TP53 mutated 4/39 (10%), all pts were evaluable for toxicity with 37 evaluable for efficacy. At a med follow up of 8 months (mo; 3-10), 25/37 (68%) pts achieved PB uMRD. Med time to PB uMRD is 6 mo (4-8+). Another 8/37 (22%) had PB MRD < 0.1%. Of 25 with PB uMRD, 19 had BM uMRD with 10/19 completing 2 additional cycles and discontinued; 3 had BM MRD (all

We sought to define the genomic landscape of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) by using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsy specimens. We used targeted sequencing of genes altered in hematologic malignancies, including DNA coding sequence for 405 genes, noncoding sequence for 31 genes, and RNA coding sequence for 265 genes (FoundationOne-Heme). Short variants, rearrangements, and copy number alterations were determined. We studied 198 samples (114 de novo, 58 previously treated, and 26 large-cell transformation from follicular lymphoma). Median number of GAs per case was 6, with 97% of patients harboring at least one alteration. Recurrent GAs were detected in genes with established roles in DLBCL pathogenesis (e.g. MYD88, CREBBP, CD79B, EZH2), as well as notable differences compared to prior studies such as inactivating mutations in TET2 (5%). Less common GAs identified potential targets for approved or investigational therapies, including BRAF, CD274 (PD-L1), IDH2, and JAK1/2. TP53 mutations were more frequently observed in relapsed/refractory DLBCL, and predicted for lack of response to first-line chemotherapy, identifying a subset of patients that could be prioritized for novel therapies. Overall, 90% (n = 169) of the patients harbored a GA which could be explored for therapeutic intervention, with 54% (n = 107) harboring more than one putative target., Key points This study demonstrates the applicability of CLIA-compliant targeted FFPE sequencing for large-scale clinical trials.TP53mut is the main predictor of refractoriness or early relapse.

The risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma increases with age, yet elderly patients are under-represented in clinical trials. Here, we evaluate a combination regimen including ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide with or without rituximab (ICE ± R) in 32 fit elderly patients (median age 75.6 years) with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. ICE ± R was generally administered in reduced doses and was well tolerated. The overall response rate (ORR) was 53.1% with a complete response (CR) rate of 40.6%. The median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9 and 17.0 months, respectively. Patients who responded to ICE ± R achieved median PFS of 47.2 months and OS of 78.9 months. Patients ineligible for autologous transplantation who responded to ICE ± R were treated with additional cycles, and achieved a median PFS of 18.9 months and OS of 21.7 months. Previous response to first-line therapy was the strongest predictor of response, PFS and OS to second-line treatment.

Personalization of therapy to target specific molecular pathways has been placed in the forefront of cancer research. Initial reports from clinical trials designed to select patients for appropriate treatment on the basis of tumor characteristics not only have generated considerable excitement but also have identified several challenges. These challenges include the overcoming of regulatory and logistic difficulties, identification of the best selection biomarkers and diagnostic platforms that can be applied in the clinical setting, definition of relevant outcomes in small preselected patient populations, and the design of methods that facilitate rapid enrollment and interpretation of clinical trials by aggregating data across histologically diverse malignancies with common genetic alterations. Furthermore, because our knowledge of the functional consequences of many genetic alterations lags, investigators and sponsors struggle with choosing between ideal clinical trial designs and more practical ones. These challenges are amplified when more than one biomarker is used to select patients for a combination of targeted agents. This review summarizes the current status and challenges of clinical trials in the genomic era and proposes ways to address these challenges.

Automated morphological assessment of peripheral blood slides has become an important modality facilitating characterization and quantification of cells in a uniform, fast and robust manner. In this study, we evaluated the morphological diversity in peripheral blood films of 94 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients using the DM1200 CellaVision automated microscopy system. Aberrant lymphocytes and smudge cells were enumerated and correlated with CLL immunophenotype, chromosomal aberrations and prognostic parameters. Herein, we show that the percentages of aberrant and smudge cells was highly variable between patients and did not correlate with each other. Increased aberrant lymphocytes and fewer smudge cells were associated with an atypical immunophenotype including low expression of CD23, higher levels of FMC7 and bright surface levels of CD20. High fraction of aberrant lymphocytes also was associated with trisomy 12. These cells were predominantly of small/medium size, sometimes with cleft nuclei. No correlation was noted between aberrant or smudge cells and clinical stage, CD38, ZA70 or time to first treatment. Taken together, automated morphological analysis of peripheral blood leukocytes emerged as a powerful and robust tool for the quantitative morphological stratification of CLL. Integration of the automated morphological features discriminates between different CLL phenotypes and distinct chromosomal aberrations.

INTRODUCTION Despite major clinical advancements, mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains a therapeutic challenge with a considerable number of patients experiencing a dismal course. We sought to map the genomic landscape of MCL at diagnosis and at disease progression. We aimed to identify genomic drivers of aggressive phenotype, resistance and relapse and to characterize the genomic evolution of this disease. METHODS We evaluated the genetic landscape of 210 MCL patients, comparing patients sequenced pretreatment (pre-Tx) to those sequenced at disease progression (POD), including 23 patients with sequential samples. We used CLIA certified targeted sequencing platforms covering 151 genes recognized in lymphoma, including single nucleotide variants (SNV) and copy number alterations (CNA). We compared clinical characteristics, histologic features, IGHV mutational status and genomic profiles between pre-Tx and POD samples. We evaluated the association between genomic features and overall survival (OS) in pre-Tx cases. RESULTS Median age was 65 (range 31-92) with a male predominance (75%, n=172). Patients sequenced at POD were characterized by a higher rate of blastoid histology (31% n=20 vs. 10% n=16, p The most prevalent genomic abnormalities (mut) seen in the entire cohort were ATM (49%, n=111); TP53 (30%, n=69); KMT2D (22%, n=51); CCND1 (16%, n=37); WHSC1 (14%, n=33); and BIRC3 (14%, n=32). Compared to pre-Tx, POD cases had higher rates of TP53mut (49% n=33 vs. 22% n=36, p There were 110 cases with IGHV data (27% n=30 mutated and 73% n=80 unmutated). Mutated IGHV was associated with a higher rate of CCND1mut (37% n=11 vs. 8% n=6, p We evaluated pathological characteristics of the sequenced tumor biopsy. Blastoid histology (219 evaluable) observed in 16% (n=36) was associated with TP53mut (61% n=22 vs. 22% n=41, p=30% (171 evaluable) was associated with TP53mut (38% n=63 vs. 9% n=6, p=60% enriched for CCND1mut (28% n=11 vs. 15% n=10 30%>= Ki67 < 60% and 9% n=6 Ki67= Ki67 < 60% and no cases with Ki67 There were 23 patients with sequential biopsies with a median time difference of 37m (IQR 18-57) between samples. pre-Tx and POD sequential samples had strikingly similar genomic alterations (figure 2). Furthermore, the mutation landscape of these pre-Tx samples was highly similar to that seen in the overall POD samples. For example, TP53mut were observed in 48% of sequential pre-Tx samples, similar to 49% seen in overall POD samples and not to the 22% seen in overall pre-Tx samples. Genomic clustering identified four distinct clusters of patients with ATMmut (BIRC3mut; KMT2Dmut; NOTCH1/CCND1 and None) a cluster of WHSC1mut and a cluster of TP53mut associated with SMARCA4mut (figure 3). Survival analysis was limited to 151 pre-Tx patients and who had completed treatment or managed expectantly (20%, n=30). With a median follow-up of 49m, TP53mut was associated with shorter OS (HR 4.15; 1.9-9.0) corresponding to a 4yOS of 63% vs. 92% in TP53wt (figure 4). In 22 patients (15%) with BIRC3mut, no deaths were observed (p=0.03). Notably, however, the rate of BIRC3mut at POD was similar to pre-Tx and not associated with superior outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Our data suggests that the ultimate outcome of MCL is driven by clones present at diagnosis and in most cases is not the result of clonal evolution. As with former studies TP53mut is the strongest driver of poor outcome. Still a considerable subset of patients fares well. BIRC3mut seemed to confer a good prognosis, however this observation needs to be validated in a dedicated study as the rate of BIRC3mut was similar between pre-Tx and POD and not associated with a better prognosis in the latter. We identify several genomic clusters associated with targetable mutations. Figure Disclosures Kumar: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Straus:Hope Funds for Cancer Research: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Elsevier (PracticeUpdate): Consultancy, Honoraria. Palomba:Hemedicus: Other: Immediate Family Member, Speakers Bureau ; Merck & Co Inc.: Other: Immediate Family Member, Consultancy (includes expert testimony); Seres Therapeutics: Other: Immediate Family Member, Equity Ownership and Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; STRAXIMM: Other: Immediate Family Member, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate Family Member, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noble Insights: Consultancy; Evelo: Other: Immediate family member, Equity Ownership; MSK (IP for Juno and Seres): Other: Immediate Family Member, Patents & Royalties - describe: intellectual property rights . Noy:Janssen: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding. Horwitz:Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miragen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moskowitz:miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Matasar:Bayer: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses , Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses , Research Funding. Batlevi:Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. von Keudell:Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Dogan:Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Younes:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; HCM: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Curis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Xynomics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Biopath: Consultancy. Zelenetz:Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction:Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors are highly active in relapsed and refractory (RR) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), however their role as part of second-line therapy (SLT) for cHL is largely unexplored. The standard approach following front-line treatment failure is SLT, aimed to achieve complete response (CR), followed by consolidation with high dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant (HDT/ASCT). There is no one standard SLT and options include platinum-containing regimens, gemcitabine-containing regimens and more recently brentuximab vedotin (BV)-containing regimens. Due to the increasing use of BV in the front-line setting, development of SLT regimens that are both highly effective and BV-sparing are needed. In this phase II study, we aimed to establish the safety and efficacy of SLT with the PD-1 inhibitor, pembrolizumab, combined with the outpatient-administered salvage regimen, GVD (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, liposomal doxorubicin). Methods: Transplant eligible patients (pts) with RR cHL following failure of 1-line of therapy are eligible. Treatment consists of 2 to 4 cycles of pembrolizumab (200mg IV, day 1), gemcitabine (1000mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), vinorelbine (20mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8) and liposomal doxorubicin (15mg/m2, days 1 and 8), given on 21-day cycles. Response is assessed by PET after 2 and 4 cycles. Pts who achieve CR by PET (Deauville ≤3) after 2 or 4 cycles proceed to HDT/ASCT. An initial safety assessment for the first 6 treated pts was completed before continuing further enrollment. We report here the results of the safety assessment and the first stage of a Simon 2-stage design. Results:To date, 18 out of a planned 39 pts enrolled; 14 completed the first 2 cycles of treatment and underwent the first response assessment. Characteristics for the 14 evaluable pts are shown in the table. In brief, median age is 36 (range 21-43), 4 (29%) have primary refractory disease and 9 (64%) relapsed within the first year of initial treatment. No dose limiting toxicities were observed during the safety assessment and no significant adverse events were observed to date. Of the 30 cycles administered, 5 (17%) cycles were delayed due to treatment related adverse events which included grade 3 rash (3%) and grade 3 liver function test abnormalities (13%). Among the 14 evaluable pts, 13 (93%) achieved CR after 2 cycles of treatment and 1 achieved partial response. To date, 3 pts are proceeding to HDT/ASCT and 11 pts completed HDT/ASCT following 2 (n=10) or 4 (n=1) cycles of treatment. Median follow-up post HDT/ASCT is 4 mos (range 0.3-8.8 mos) and all pts remain in remission to date. Conclusion:Early trial results suggest that pembrolizumab-GVD is a highly effective and well-tolerated regimen that can efficiently bridge pts with RR cHL to HDT/ASCT. Efficacy criteria for stage one of the Simon 2-stage design was met and enrollment continues to better characterize CR rate and tolerability. Disclosures Moskowitz: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; miRagen Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Erytech Pharma: Consultancy. Shah:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kumar:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Batlevi:Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Straus:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Elsevier (PracticeUpdate): Consultancy, Honoraria; Hope Funds for Cancer Research: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rodriguez-Rivera:Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment. Colbourn:ABBV: Other: Stock; CELG: Other: Stock; BIIB: Other: Stock; SGEN: Other: Stock; JNJ: Other: Stock; LLY: Other: Stock; GILD: Other: Stock; MRK: Other: Stock; SNY: Other: Stock. Horwitz:Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kura: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy. Palomba:Hemedicus: Other: Immediate Family Member, Speakers Bureau ; Merck & Co Inc.: Other: Immediate Family Member, Consultancy (includes expert testimony); Seres Therapeutics: Other: Immediate Family Member, Equity Ownership and Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; STRAXIMM: Other: Immediate Family Member, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate Family Member, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noble Insights: Consultancy; Evelo: Other: Immediate family member, Equity Ownership; MSK (IP for Juno and Seres): Other: Immediate Family Member, Patents & Royalties - describe: intellectual property rights . Noy:Prime Oncology: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding. Matasar:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses , Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses , Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accomodation, expenses, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Vardhana:Rheos Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. von Keudell:Bayer: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Younes:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Curis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Biopath: Consultancy; Xynomics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; HCM: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moskowitz:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Pembrolizumab is not approved for second-line use for classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

Botezomib-based induction is highly effective for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We investigated the outcomes of NDMM patients who failed to respond to bortezomib-based induction in a 'real-life' clinical setting. In a cohort of 295 consecutive NDMM patients in 3 medical centers, 74 (25%) failed to achieve at least partial response after 4 induction cycles, and were classified as non-responsive. Compared to induction responders, they were older, more frequently anemic, had a higher incidence of del17p and ISS-3, and a worse performance status. In multivariable analysis, bortezomib-based induction failure occurred in 25% of patients and was the strongest independent factor predicting mortality with a 5-fold hazard ratio (95% CI 1.44-8.68). Three-year overall survival in responsive vs. non-responsive patients were 76% vs. 53%, respectively (p