Search

// Francesca Palandri 1 , Giuseppe Alberto Palumbo 2 , Massimiliano Bonifacio 3 , Mario Tiribelli 4 , Giulia Benevolo 5 , Bruno Martino 6 , Elisabetta Abruzzese 7 , Mariella D’Adda 8 , Nicola Polverelli 9 , Micaela Bergamaschi 10 , Alessia Tieghi 11 , Francesco Cavazzini 12 , Adalberto Ibatici 13 , Monica Crugnola 14 , Costanza Bosi 15 , Roberto Latagliata 16 , Ambra Di Veroli 17 , Luigi Scaffidi 3 , Federico de Marchi 4 , Elisa Cerqui 8 , Barbara Anaclerico 18 , Giovanna De Matteis 19 , Marco Spinsanti 1 , Elena Sabattini 1 , Lucia Catani 1 , Franco Aversa 14 , Francesco Di Raimondo 2 , Umberto Vitolo 5 , Roberto Massimo Lemoli 10 , Renato Fanin 4 , Francesco Merli 11 , Domenico Russo 9 , Antonio Cuneo 12 , Maria Letizia Bacchi Reggiani 20 , Michele Cavo 1 , Nicola Vianelli 1 and Massimo Breccia 16 1 Institute of Hematology “L. and A. Seragnoli”, Sant'Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, Bologna, Italy 2 Division of Hematology, AOU 'Policlinico-V.Emanuele', Catania, Italy 3 Department of Hematology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy 4 Division of Hematology and BMT, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Integrata di Udine, Udine, Italy 5 Division of Hematology, Citta della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Torino, Italy 6 Division of Hematology, Azienda Ospedaliera 'Bianchi Melacrino Morelli', Reggio Calabria, Italy 7 Division of Hematology, Ospedale S. Eugenio, Roma, Italy 8 Division of Hematology, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Brescia, Italy 9 Unit of Blood Diseases and Stem Cell Transplantation, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Brescia, Italy 10 Division of Hematology, IRCCS AOU San Martino-IST, Genova, Italy 11 Department of Hematology, A.O. Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova – IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy 12 Division of Hematology, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy 13 Division of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplant, IRCCS San Martino-IST, Genova, Italy 14 Division of Hematology, AOU of Parma, Parma, Italy 15 Department of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, A.O. of Piacenza, Italy 16 Division of Cellular Biotechnologies and Hematology, University Sapienza, Roma, Italy 17 Division of Hematology, Policlinico Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy 18 Division of Hematology, Ospedale S. Giovanni, Roma, Italy 19 Department of Life and Reproduction Sciences, Section of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Verona, Verona, Italy 20 Division of Cardiology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy Correspondence to: Francesca Palandri, email: francesca.palandri@unibo.it Keywords: myelofibrosis, splenomegaly, response, ruxolitinib, predictive factors Received: March 29, 2017 Accepted: May 15, 2017 Published: June 27, 2017 ABSTRACT In patients with Myelofibrosis (MF) treated with ruxolitinib (RUX), the response is unpredictable at therapy start. We retrospectively evaluated the impact of clinical/laboratory factors on responses in 408 patients treated with RUX according to prescribing obligations in 18 Italian Hematology Centers. At 6 months, 114 out of 327 (34.9%) evaluable patients achieved a spleen response. By multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model, pre-treatment factors negatively correlating with spleen response were: high/intermediate-2 IPSS risk ( p =0.024), large splenomegaly ( p =0.017), transfusion dependency ( p =0.022), platelet count 2 years ( p =0.048). Also, patients treated with higher (≥10 mg BID) average RUX doses in the first 12 weeks achieved higher response rates ( p =0.019). After adjustment for IPSS risk, patients in spleen response at 6 months showed only a trend for better survival compared to non-responders. At 6 months, symptoms response was achieved by 85.5% of 344 evaluable patients; only a higher (>20) Total Symptom Score significantly correlated with lower probability of response ( p

Purpose Rituximab (R) plus CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy is the standard of care in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Obinutuzumab (G) is a glycoengineered, type II, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. GOYA was a randomized phase III study that compared G-CHOP with R-CHOP in patients with previously untreated advanced-stage DLBCL. Methods Patients (N = 1,418) were randomly assigned to receive eight 21-day cycles of G (n = 706) or R (n = 712), plus six or eight cycles of CHOP. Primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results After median observation of 29 months, the number of investigator-assessed PFS events was similar between G (201; 28.5%) and R (215; 30.2%), stratified hazard ratio was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.11; P = .39), and 3-year PFS rates were 70% and 67%, respectively. Secondary end points of independently reviewed PFS, other time-to-event end points, and tumor response rates were similar between arms. In exploratory subgroup analyses, patients with germinal-center B cell–like subtype had a better PFS than did patients with activated B cell–like subtype, irrespective of treatment. Frequencies of grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs; 73.7% v 64.7%, respectively) and serious AEs (42.6% v 37.6%, respectively) were higher with G-CHOP compared with R-CHOP. Fatal AE frequencies were 5.8% for G-CHOP and 4.3% for R-CHOP. The most common AEs were neutropenia (G-CHOP, 48.3%; R-CHOP, 40.7%), infusion-related reactions (G-CHOP, 36.1%; R-CHOP, 23.5%), nausea (G-CHOP, 29.4%; R-CHOP, 28.3%), and constipation (G-CHOP, 23.4%; R-CHOP, 24.5%). Conclusion G-CHOP did not improve PFS compared with R-CHOP in patients with previously untreated DLBCL. AEs reported with G were consistent with the known safety profile. Biomarker analyses may help define a future role for G in DLBCL.

The role of both autologous (autoSCT) and allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) in the management of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains to be clarified. We conducted a consensus project using the RAND-modified Delphi consensus procedure to provide guidance on how SCT should be used in MCL. With regard to autoSCT, there was consensus in support of: autoSCT is the standard first-line consolidation therapy; induction therapy should include high-dose cytarabine and Rituximab; complete or partial remission should be achieved before autoSCT; Rituximab maintenance following autoSCT is not indicated; and omission of autoSCT in 'low-risk' patients is not indicated. No consensus could be reached regarding: autoSCT in the treatment of relapsed disease following non-transplant therapy; the value of positron emission tomography scanning and minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring; in vivo purging with Rituximab; total body irradiation conditioning for autoSCT; and preemptive Rituximab after autoSCT. For alloSCT, consensus was reached in support of: alloSCT should be considered for patients relapsing after autoSCT; reduced intensity conditioning regimens should be used; allogeneic immunotherapy should be used for MRD eradication after alloSCT; and there is a lack of prognostic criteria to guide the use of alloSCT as first-line consolidation. No consensus was reached regarding the role of alloSCT for relapsed disease following non-transplant therapy.

Purpose Image-guided intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) allows for margin reduction and highly conformal dose distribution, with consistent advantages in sparing of normal tissues. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare involved-site IG-IMRT with involved-site 3D conformal RT (3D-CRT) in the treatment of early stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) involving the mediastinum, with efficacy and toxicity as primary clinical endpoints. Methods and Materials We analyzed 90 stage IIA HL patients treated with either involved-site 3D-CRT or IG-IMRT between 2005 and 2012 in 2 different institutions. Inclusion criteria were favorable or unfavorable disease (according to European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria), complete response after 3 to 4 cycles of an adriamycin- bleomycin-vinblastine-dacarbazine (ABVD) regimen plus 30 Gy as total radiation dose. Exclusion criteria were chemotherapy other than ABVD, partial response after ABVD, total radiation dose other than 30 Gy. Clinical endpoints were relapse-free survival (RFS) and acute toxicity. Results Forty-nine patients were treated with 3D-CRT (54.4%) and 41 with IG-IMRT (45.6%). Median follow-up time was 54.2 months for 3D-CRT and 24.1 months for IG-IMRT. No differences in RFS were observed between the 2 groups, with 1 relapse each. Three-year RFS was 98.7% for 3D-CRT and 100% for IG-IMRT. Grade 2 toxicity events, mainly mucositis, were recorded in 32.7% of 3D-CRT patients (16 of 49) and in 9.8% of IG-IMRT patients (4 of 41). IG-IMRT was significantly associated with a lower incidence of grade 2 acute toxicity ( P =.043). Conclusions RFS rates at 3 years were extremely high in both groups, albeit the median follow-up time is different. Acute tolerance profiles were better for IG-IMRT than for 3D-CRT. Our preliminary results support the clinical safety and efficacy of advanced RT planning and delivery techniques in patients affected with early stage HL, achieving complete response after ABVD-based chemotherapy.

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a potentially curative treatment of lymphoma, but peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization fails in some patients. PBSC mobilizing agents have recently been proved to improve the PBSC yield after a prior mobilization failure. Predictive parameters of mobilization failure allowing for a preemptive, more cost-effective use of such agents during the first mobilization attempt are still poorly defined, particularly during mobilization with chemotherapy + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). We performed a retrospective analysis of a series of lymphoma patients who were candidates for ASCT, to identify factors influencing PBSC mobilization outcome. Premobilization parameters-age, histology, disease status, mobilizing protocol, and previous treatments-as well as white blood cell (WBC) and PBSC kinetics, markers potentially able to predict failure during the ongoing mobilization attempt, were analyzed in 415 consecutive mobilization procedures in 388 patients. We used chemotherapy + G-CSF in 411 (99%) of mobilization attempts and PBSC collection failed (

The International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group coordinated a phase II trial to evaluate the activity and safety of everolimus in marginal zone lymphomas (MZLs). Thirty patients with relapsed/refractory MZLs received everolimus for six cycles or until dose-limiting toxicity or progression. Median age was 71 years (range, 51-88 years). Twenty patients had extranodal, six splenic, four nodal MZL. Twenty-four patients had stage III-IV. Median number of prior therapies was two (range 1-5). Seventeen patients had early treatment discontinuation, in most cases due to toxicity. Median number of cycles was 4.5 (range, 1-16). Among the 24 assessable patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 25% (95% confidence interval: 10-47). Grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia (17% of patients, each), infections (17%), mucositis and odontogenic infections (13%) and lung toxicity (3%). The median response duration was 6.8 months (range, 1.4-11.1+). After a median follow-up of 14.5 months, five deaths were reported: four deaths were due to lymphoma, one was due to toxicity. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the projected median progression-free survival was 14 months. The moderate antitumour activity of everolimus in relapsed/refractory MZLs and the observed toxicity limit its therapeutical applicability in these indolent entities. Lower doses of the drug and, perhaps, different strategies including combination with additional agents need to be explored.

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) receiving conventional treatment have a poor clinical outcome. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of chemo-immunotherapy in young (⩽60 years old, Clin A study) and elderly (60 andor =75 years old, Clin B study) patients with newly diagnosed PTCL. Clin A patients (n=61) received two courses of CHOP (cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine, prednisone)-21 with alemtuzumab (AL, 30 mg) followed by two courses of high-dose chemotherapy. On the basis of donor availability, patients in response received allogeneic (allo) or autologous (auto) stem cell transplantation (SCT). Clin B patients (n=25) received six courses of CHOP-21 and AL (10 mg). Clin A responding patients were 38 of 61 (62%) and received alloSCT (n=23) or autoSCT (n=14); one complete remission (CR) patient was not transplanted. At a median follow-up of 40 months, the 4-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 49, 44 and 65%, respectively. In Clin B study, the response rate was 72%. At a median follow-up of 48 months, the 4-year OS, PFS and DFS rates were 31, 26 and 44%, respectively. In conclusion, front-line alloSCT or autoSCT is effective in prolonging DFS in young patients; AL in elderly improved response with no survival benefit.

Introduction: Our objective was to develop a prognostic model that predicts progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) to enable risk-adapted strategies in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We retrospectively investigated the value of quantitative image texture features (i.e. 'radiomics' evaluating tumor heterogeneity) using FDG PET/CT data sets in a large, prospective Phase III trial, GOYA (NCT01287741). Methods: In the GOYA trial, which compared obinutuzumab versus rituximab both in combination with CHOP chemotherapy, there was no significant treatment effect between the two arms, thus the two arms were combined for this study. Baseline PET/CT images with regions of interests (ROIs) defined by qualified physicians were analyzed for radiomics features. Image texture features (ITF) were computed using the open-source and validated PET Oncology Radiomics Test Suite (PORTS). The clinical risk factors (International Prognostic Index [IPI], Ann Arbor stage, extranodal disease, bulky disease), cell of origin (COO), standard PET-derived metrics (standard uptake value [SUV]-mean, SUV-max, total metabolic tumor volume [TMTV], total lesion glycolysis [TLG]), SUV histogram metrics (variance, skewness, and kurtosis), and ITF were evaluated for prediction of PFS and OS. TMTV was estimated using adaptive thresholding. Prognostic models were generated by means of multivariate Cox regression analysis, modeling PFS, and OS. In the absence of an independent patient cohort for external model validation, an internal validation, based on c-index and Brier score, was carried out using bootstrap resampling methods. Stratification of patients into risk groups was achieved through maximally selected rank statistics. Multivariate analysis was also carried out on a subgroup of patients with available COO information. Results: The median follow-ups for PFS and OS were 46 and 50 months, respectively. Baseline PET scans were available for 1334 patients with detectable lesions, and 1077 baseline scans were evaluable for calculating ITFs. In the univariate analysis, high TMTV, histogram mean, histogram variance, and the ITFs gray-tone spatial dependence matrices (GTSDM) difference entropy and low gray-level zone length matrix (GLSZM) small zone high gray emphasis were risk factors for PFS, while high TMTV, histogram mean, and the ITF GTSDM inverse difference moment were risk factors for OS (Table 1, showing 95% CI, HR, and p-values for both univariate and multivariate analyses). In multivariate analysis, the risk factors included IPI, Ann Arbor stage, high TMTV, histogram mean, and GTSDM inverse difference moment; results were generally consistent in the multivariate subgroup analysis on patients with COO data available (Table 1). Based on the multivariate model, the probabilities for PFS and OS at 2 and 4 years for individual patients were established (Table 2). By combining TMTV (four categorical groups) with ITF, COO, and predictive clinical factors, three prognostic subgroups of treatment failure risk were identified: low (55% of patients), intermediate (34%), and high (11%). Hazard ratios for high and intermediate risk compared with low risk were 2.16 (p Conclusion: A model including PET-derived quantitative ITF, in addition to significant clinical features, was able to predict survival probability for untreated DLBCL patients with good precision. The proposed PET-based prognostic model may help identify patients who could benefit from risk-adapted treatment modifications or novel approaches. Acknowledgments: GOYA was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Third-party editorial assistance, under the direction of Lale Kostakoglu, was provided by Katie Smith of Gardiner-Caldwell Communications and was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Disclosures Kostakoglu: F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Dalmasso:I-See s.r.l.: Employment. Pierce:Precision Sensing LLC: Equity Ownership. Vitolo: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; Novartis: 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; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: 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. Martelli:Servier: Honoraria; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria. Sehn:Janssen-Ortho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria. Trněný:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bolen:Genentech, Inc.: Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Equity Ownership. Sahin:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lee:Genentech: Employment; F. Hoffman-La Roche: Equity Ownership. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support. Mattiello:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Kinahan:Co-founded PET/X LLC: Equity Ownership; Philips Medical: Research Funding; GE Healthcare: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy. Chauvie:International Agency on Atomic Energy (IAEA): Consultancy; Co-owner of Dixit srl (spin-off University of Torino): Equity Ownership; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Cuneo (CRC): Research Funding; Italian Foundation on Lymphoma (FIL): Research Funding; Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC): Research Funding; SIRTEX: Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: The phase 3 international, randomized, double-blind ROBUST clinical trial (NCT02285062) compared progression-free survival between patients with previously untreated ABC-type DLBCL treated with placebo plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (placebo-R-CHOP) versus lenalidomide + R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) for 6 21-day cycles. HRQoL, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) and the EuroQoL 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) patient-reported questionnaires, was evaluated as a secondary endpoint for the 2 treatment arms. Methods: For each treatment group, FACT-Lym and EQ-5D-3L scores were measured at baseline (BL), mid-, end-of-treatment (EOT), and post-treatment, in 12-week intervals from Week 34 onward. Patients were evaluated if they had completed BL and ≥ 1 post-BL calculable FACT-Lym subscale measurements. Non-inferiority (NI) of R2-CHOP versus placebo-R-CHOP was measured for 4 key FACT-Lym subscales: Physical Well-Being (PWB), Additional Concerns (AC), Functional Well-Being (FWB), and Trial Outcome Index (TOI). NI was assessed at EOT (typically 3-4 weeks after completing Cycle 6) and at post-treatment follow-up at Week 34 by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The NI margins were prespecified as 1 less than the higher published minimal important difference (MID) for each subscale. Since a range of MIDs have been published, a more conservative value was also used as a sensitivity analysis. Time to improvement (TTI), using published responder definitions, was also assessed for the FACT-Lym subscales. EQ-5D-3L scores were summarized descriptively. Results: Demographic and baseline disease characteristics were balanced across the 2 treatment arms (N = 285 per arm). The percentage of patients who completed the FACT-Lym out of the expected population remained > 85% at all time points with > 50 patients still on the study in each treatment arm up to Week 142. Completion rates and reasons for missing assessments were balanced across the 2 treatment arms. FACT-Lym subscale scores were generally higher after EOT, similar for both treatment groups, and mean changes from BL were close to or above MID (where defined), except for the Social/Family Well-Being subscale. Mean differences in FACT-Lym TOI between treatment arms are shown in Table 1. As positive treatment differences favor R2-CHOP and -10 was the predefined NI margin, NI was demonstrated for the FACT-Lym TOI subscale at both EOT and Week 34 assessments. Superiority of R2-CHOP was demonstrated at EOT as the confidence interval (CI) lies completely above 0 (P < 0.04); however, this difference was not clinically meaningful. Furthermore, NI was also demonstrated when using the sensitivity analysis margin of -4.5. ANCOVA models were also fitted for the other key subscales of PWB, AC and FWB (Table 2). NI was demonstrated for all NI margins at both time points for the PWB and AC subscales. The FACT-Lym FWB subscale demonstrated NI for both margins at EOT and Week 34 for the primary NI margin of -2 based on the MID minus 1, but did not demonstrate NI when an NI margin of -1, based on an alternative published MID, was used. The TTI curves and associated summary statistics were similar for the 2 treatment arms, with a median TTI for the FACT-Lym TOI of 21 weeks (95% CI 15-22) for patients treated with R2-CHOP and 18 weeks (95% CI 15-22) for patients treated with placebo-R-CHOP. Mean EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and Utility Index (UK weights) change from baseline scores were higher in both treatment arms and the mean changes were above, or close to, the published MID (7 for VAS, 0.1 for Utility Index) at EOT assessments. Prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses supported the conclusions from the primary HRQoL analyses. Conclusions: The predefined NI levels were met for the 4 key FACT-Lym subscales. Similar results were observed across the other HRQoL assessments, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses. Adding lenalidomide to the R-CHOP regimen did not adversely affect the HRQoL of patients with DLBCL as measured by FACT-Lym and EQ-5D-3L. These data serve as a benchmark for future clinical trials combining next-generation immunomodulatory drugs with standard R-CHOP to improve clinical efficacy while maintaining HRQoL in patients with DLBCL. HRQoL analyses should become an integral part of future clinical trials of novel combination regimens in DLBCL. Disclosures Chiappella: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Servier: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Cocks:Adelphi Values: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Endomag Ltd.: Consultancy. Greenwood:Adelphi Values: Employment. Williams:Adelphi Values: Employment. Scott:Celgene: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yamamoto:SymBio: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon: Honoraria; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Solasia Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; HUYA/IQVIA Services Japan: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jurczak:Bayer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Özcan:Sanofi: Other: Travel support; Abdi Ibrahim: Other: Travel support; BMS: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Archigen: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding, Travel support; AbbVie: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Travel support; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Belada:Roche: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Margunato-Debay:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhai:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Braverman:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Vitolo:Juno Therapeutics: 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; Celgene: 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, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Nowakowski:Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding.

Introduction: Multiple response criteria have been proposed for the assessment of treatment response in lymphoma patients (pts). The Lugano 2014 criteria have been adopted as the current standard for response assessment in lymphoma (Cheson et al. J Clin Oncol 2014), incorporating 18F fludeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT) into standard staging of FDG-avid lymphomas. For non-FDG avid lymphomas, and when PET is not available, Lugano criteria use bi-dimensional tumor measurements of up to six CT target lesions. The more recently proposed Response Evaluation Criteria in Lymphoma (RECIL) (Younes et al. Annals Oncol 2017) were developed based on the hypothesis that uni-dimensional measurements of up to three target lesions could be used to assess response at a similar level of accuracy to the Lugano criteria. The prognostic value of Lugano 2014 versus RECIL 2017 criteria has not yet been assessed in large clinical trials. We compared the prognostic performance of Lugano and RECIL criteria in pts from the Phase III GOYA study (NCT01287741), which compared the efficacy of obinutuzumab (GA101, G) and rituximab (R) in combination with CHOP (G-CHOP vs R-CHOP) in previously untreated pts with CD20-positive DLBCL. Methods: In the GOYA study, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive either G-CHOP or R-CHOP (stratification factors: number of planned chemotherapy cycles, International Prognostic Index [IPI], and geographic region). FDG-PET scans were mandatory at sites where a PET scanner was available and were performed at screening and 6-8 weeks after the last study treatment. Response was assessed prospectively based on Cheson 2007 criteria and retrospectively according to standard Lugano 2014 criteria. A retrospective analysis based on RECIL 2017 criteria was also performed. Response categories by RECIL criteria were cross-tabulated against those by Lugano criteria. Estimates of the treatment effect were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using stratified log-rank tests. The impact of covariates on PFS and OS were analyzed using a multivariate Cox model. Landmark analyses of PFS and OS according to end of treatment (EoT) complete response (CR)/non-CR status were performed, and the prognostic value of response at EoT was compared for the two methods. Results: Of the 1418 pts (intention-to-treat [ITT] population) in the GOYA study, 1334 had PET data and were evaluable for this analysis. Good agreement between Lugano and RECIL criteria was observed for EoT CR status, with 894/966 (92.5%) pts with a complete metabolic response (CMR) by Lugano classified as CR by RECIL (Table). However, 40/63 (63.5%) pts with progressive metabolic disease (PMD) at EoT according to Lugano criteria had a partial response (PR) or minor response (MR) by RECIL criteria, showing poor agreement for these variables. Of the 43 pts with PMD by Lugano and non-PD by RECIL at EoT, 15 pts had no PFS event by Lugano as assessed by CT and could be considered false positives. Concordance for PFS by CT was high between the two criteria, with a kappa estimate of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.80). EoT CR status by RECIL was highly prognostic for PFS (stratified HR, 0.32; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.43; p Conclusions: EoT CR status according to RECIL 2017 criteria showed a high concordance with CMR status by Lugano 2014 criteria and was highly prognostic for PFS and OS in previously untreated DLBCL; however, discordance was seen for the identification of PD by RECIL compared with Lugano criteria. PFS as assessed by CT by RECIL, based on uni-dimensional size measurements of up to three target lesions, showed high concordance with PFS by Lugano criteria, based on bi-dimensional size measurements of up to six target lesions. Table Disclosures Kostakoglu: F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Martelli:F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sehn:Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apobiologix: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trněný:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Vitolo: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; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Knapp:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Mattiello:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sahin:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sellam:Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ward:Hoffmann La Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. 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. OffLabel Disclosure: GAZYVA (obinutuzumab) is a CD20-directed cytolytic antibody and is indicated for the following: in combination with chlorambucil, for the treatment of patients with previously untreated CLL; in combination with bendamustine followed by GAZYVA monotherapy, for the treatment of patients with FL who relapsed after, or are refractory to, a rituximab-containing regimen; in combination with chemotherapy followed by GAZYVA monotherapy in patients achieving at least a partial remission, for the treatment of adult patients with previously untreated stage II bulky, III or IV FL.

Introduction: Up to 40% of patients (pts) with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) fail to achieve remission, or relapse, with standard-of-care rituximab (R) plus CHOP (R-CHOP). Atezolizumab (atezo) is a fully humanized anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody with a complementary mode of action to R. We present updated data from an ongoing Phase I/II study (NCT02596971) evaluating the safety and efficacy of atezo combined with R-CHOP (R-CHOP-atezo) in pts with previously untreated DLBCL. This is an updated analysis performed at the end of consolidation (EOC). Methods: This open-label, multicenter study enrolled adults with previously untreated advanced DLBCL (ECOG performance status 0-2). Pts received induction treatment with R-CHOP-atezo (8 x 21-day cycles of R [375mg/m2 i.v. on Day 1 (Cycles 1-8)] and atezo [1200mg i.v. on Day 1 (Cycles 2−8)], and 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP, as determined by the investigator [INV]). Pts who had a complete response (CR) at end of induction (EOI) received consolidation treatment with atezo 1200mg i.v. on Day 1 of Cycles 9─25, every 21 days for 12 months. Pts are followed for 12 months after EOC. Primary endpoints were safety and efficacy as determined by CR rate at EOI by an independent review committee (IRC) using Lugano 2014 criteria (modified to include required confirmation of CR at EOI by biopsy in cases with bone marrow involvement at baseline, and confirmation of a PET-based partial response [PR] by CT-based CR or PR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: As of May 2019, 42 pts had enrolled and received treatment. Of these, 7 pts discontinued study treatment prior to EOI (protocol violation [n=1], adverse event [AE; n=4], progressive disease [PD; n=1] and withdrawn consent [n=1]); 5 more pts discontinued at EOI (PD [n=2] and PR [n=3]). Of 30 pts initiating consolidation treatment, 15 discontinued (AE [n=9], PD [n=3] and withdrawn consent [n=3]). Median observation time was 21.3 (0.7-29.2) months. Key baseline characteristics included: median age, 65 years; International Prognostic Index (IPI) score ≥3, 69%; cell of origin (COO; Nanostring): ABC (34%), GCB (53%), unclassified (12.5%). Among the 40 pts who received at least one dose of atezo, and were therefore evaluable for efficacy at EOI, 31 (77.5%) had a CR and 4 (10%) had a PR by IRC; PD occurred in 2 (5%) pts; 3 (7.5%) were not evaluable. At 6, 12, 18 (EOC) and 24 months, Kaplan-Meier estimates (95% CI) of INV-assessed PFS were 97.4% (82.8, 99.6), 83.6% (67.0, 92.3), 80.6% (63.5, 90.3) and 74.9% (54.3, 87.2), respectively, and those for OS were 100% (not evaluable), 97.5% (83.6, 99.6), 89.8% (75.1, 96.1) and 86.4% (70.0, 94.2), respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for PFS and OS are shown in the Figure. All 42 pts in the safety population experienced ≥1 AE of any grade, with neutropenia (52.4%), constipation (42.9%) and fatigue (40.5%) the most common. Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 28/42 (67%) pts during induction and 15/30 (50%) pts during consolidation. Hematologic events were the most common grade 3-4 AEs (Table). One fatal AE (unconfirmed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy) was reported during follow-up. Overall, 24% of pts had an AE of special interest (AESI). The most common AESIs during induction were lipase increased (n=1), hyperthyroidism (n=1) and amylase increased (n=1), and those during consolidation were lipase increased (n=2), pancreatitis (n=2) and hepatitis (n=2). These events were generally well managed by atezo discontinuation and steroid treatment, and were largely reversible. AEs led to discontinuation of any treatment in 15 (36%) pts. AEs that led to discontinuation of any treatment in ≥1 pt were neutropenia (n=3), lipase increased (n=3) and amylase increased (n=2). Despite a relatively high number of discontinuations due to AEs during consolidation, events were generally manageable and reversible and all pts maintained response at the time of the analysis. Exploratory biomarker data and minimal residual disease data will be presented. Conclusions: The EOI PET-CR response rate and preliminary PFS with R-CHOP-atezo are encouraging and at least comparable to those previously reported for R-CHOP. The overall safety profile of R-CHOP-atezo appears manageable and as expected, with no new safety signals reported with consolidation and no overall increase in toxicity other than immune-mediated events. Disclosures Younes: BMS: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; HCM: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Xynomics: Consultancy; Biopath: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Curis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Burke:Celgene: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Cheson:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Symbios: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diefenbach:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Hahn:Roche: Other: Roche paid airfare and accommodation for attendance at ASH 3 years ago . Hawkes:Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mundi pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Khan:Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Lossos:NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vitolo:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; 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, Speakers Bureau; Kite: 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; Janssen: 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; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yuen:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding. Raval:Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shivhare:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sellam:Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sharman:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Atezolizumab (atezo) is a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blocking antibody. In the United States, atezo is approved for treatment of pts with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who are: not eligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy (chemo) and whose tumors express PDL-1, or are not eligible for any platinum-containing chemo regardless of PD L1 status; or have disease progression during or following any platinum-containing chemo, or within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemo. Atezo is also approved: in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel and carboplatin for first-line treatment of pts with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations, and for pts with metastatic NSCLC who have disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemo; in combination with paclitaxel protein-bound for the treatment of adults with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer whose tumors express PD-L1; and in combination with carboplatin and etoposide, for the first-line treatment of adults with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. Atezo is not approved for treatment of pts with multiple myeloma.

Background: Standard first-line treatment for patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the R-CHOP regimen. Despite numerous efforts to improve on this regimen, in all comers and specifically in those with activated B-cell (ABC)-type DLBCL, results from large randomized studies have failed to show a significant clinical advantage above this standard. Recently, 2 large clinical trials in previously untreated DLBCL evaluated the combination of lenalidomide/R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) vs standard R-CHOP and demonstrated discordant results. We analyzed data from these trials to identify differences that may have impacted the disparate trial outcomes while identifying patient characteristics associated with benefit from the addition of lenalidomide across the trials. Methods: The 2 trials included in this evaluation are ROBUST, an international, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III study of R2-CHOP vs placebo/R-CHOP, and the Intergroup ECOG-ACRIN 1412 (E1412) trial, a US-only, randomized, open-label, phase II study of R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP. Additional key study design differences included dosing, and subtype timing and inclusion (both studies used gene expression profiling [GEP] by NanoString). R-CHOP dosing differed only for prednisone, which was a flat 100 mg dose, d1-5 in ROBUST and 100 mg/m2, d1-5 in E1412. The lenalidomide dose and schedule varied between studies: 15 mg/d, d1-14/21 for ROBUST (210 mg/cycle) and 25 mg/d, d1-10/21 (250 mg/cycle) for E1412. ROBUST enrolled only patients prospectively identified with the ABC subtype, whereas E1412 enrolled all otherwise eligible patients and retrospectively evaluated for ABC-type with prespecified ABC-type accrual and power parameters. Both studies enrolled patients with IPI status ≥ 2, ECOG PS 0-2, and Ann Arbor stage II-IV (E1412 stage II with mass > 10 cm). The primary endpoint in both was progression-free survival (PFS; central review for ROBUST and investigator-assessed for E1412). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS; key for ROBUST), overall and complete response rates, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: ROBUST enrolled 570 ABC patients and E1412 enrolled 280 GCB, ABC, and unclassified DLBCL patients. Patient profiles in both studies (ROBUST [ABC]/E1412 [all COO]) were similar in terms of median ages (65 y/66 y), male sex (58%/61%), and ECOG PS 1-2 (55%/63%). Patients in E1412 were more high risk: IPI 2 (42% ROBUST/34% E1412), IPI ≥ 3 (58%/66%), and Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease (87%/97%). Importantly, there was a notable difference in the time from patient diagnosis to treatment: median 31 days for ROBUST and 21 days (22% > 31 d) for E1412. Only 6% of patients in ROBUST were treated within 2 weeks of diagnosis vs 30% in E1412. At a median follow-up of ~2.5 y for both studies, E1412 met its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS with 34% reduction in the risk of PD/death (2-y PFS: 76% vs 70%) for all patients, but did not reach statistical significance in ABC-DLBCL patients for 2-y PFS (71% vs 61%) or 2-y OS (88% vs 76%). ROBUST showed no significant improvement in the primary PFS endpoint (2-y PFS: 67% vs 64%) or 2-y OS (79% vs 80%) in ABC patients. Subgroup analyses of PFS comparing R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP control within each study suggested that certain baseline factors favor the R2-CHOP arm, including: female sex, high IPI score (≥ 3), non-bulky disease (< 7 cm), and high Ann Arbor stage IV disease. Conclusion: While the ROBUST study design integrated state-of-the-art, real-time GEP to prospectively identify ABC-DLBCL patients with rapid lab turnaround time, cases of logistical delays in tissue submission for central analysis and staging procedures may have resulted in accrual of patients with lower-risk DLBCL and prolonged time from diagnosis to treatment. In contrast, E1412 retrospectively stratified patients by COO through GEP and was able to accrue higher-risk patients irrespective of COO within a shorter time from diagnosis to treatment, which among other differences (eg, smaller population size, study phase), could contribute to the improvement over R-CHOP control. Our comparative findings have significant implications for the design of future biomarker-driven trials and provide momentum for studies of novel combinations with R-CHOP in DLBCL. Further investigation into other factors, including dose intensity and their correlation with outcomes, will be presented. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chiappella:Servier: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Hong:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Employment; Merck: Consultancy. Scott:Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding. Amengual:Appia Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau. Leonard:BeiGene: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kostakoglu:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Jurczak:Morphosys: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Yamamoto:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SymBio: Research Funding; HUYA/IQVIA Services Japan: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sumitomo Dainippon: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Solasia Pharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Russo:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hudak:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership; Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wade:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Vitolo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: 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; 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; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Yes, these trials discuss off-label clinical trial investigation of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Introduction: Most patients with newly diagnosed FL treated with rituximab (R) alone or R + chemotherapy will experience prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival (OS), but it remains unclear what factors have the greatest influence on FL-associated and other causes of death in this patient population. We utilized individual patient data from 13 first-line randomized clinical trials from the FLASH database to perform a comprehensive multistate survival analysis to examine and quantify the relationships between clinical characteristics, treatment response, and early, intermediate, and late FL outcomes. Methods: The multistate survival analysis model defined states for "Alive after beginning Induction Treatment (TX)", "Alive after beginning Maintenance TX", "Death due to FL", and "Death from Other Causes" (Figure 1). We used the Aalen-Johansen estimator, a generalization of the Kaplan-Meier estimator, to calculate the likelihood of being in each model state and estimate the course of FL over time. Making no assumptions on the probability distributions and capable of coping with censored observations, the Aalen-Johansen estimator is a convenient and reliable nonparametric estimator for clinical data. Results: Among 7,465 FL patients with median age 56 (range 18-90) years, 49.2% were female; 28.7% Stage I-III, 71.3% Stage IV, and FLIPI was 0-1 (20.0%), 2 (36.8%), ≥ 3 (43.2%). Following initiation of induction treatment, 2-, 5- and 10-year death rates were 1.7%, 3.8%, and 5.8% due to FL, and 0.7%, 2.1%, and 4.8% from other causes (Figure 2). Death rates at 2, 5, and 10 years due to FL and other causes for subgroups based on clinical characteristics and treatment response are shown in Table 1. Notably, patients > 70 years and patients with FLIPI ≥ 3 had worse outcomes and patients achieving CR at 18, 24, and 30 months experienced improved outcomes. Conclusion: This is the largest study using data from randomized trials to quantify the impact of clinical factors on early, intermediate and late mortality by cause of death. We demonstrated that age > 70 years and FLIPI ≥ 3 were linked to increased FL-associated death and response to TX distinguished patients with favorable and poor outcomes. Future analyses should quantify the impact of predictors on the rate/time of FL outcomes in multivariable models. Disclosures Salles: Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. Hoster:Janssen: Research Funding; Roche Pharma AG: Other: Travel Support. Hiddemann:Bayer: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vector Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Herold:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Morschhauser:Servier: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rummel:Roche Pharma AG: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Kimby:AbbVie,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Other: educational lectures. Vitolo: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; Celgene: 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; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gyan:Pfizer: Honoraria. Ladetto:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; V Foundation: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy

Introduction: The use of PET-CR as a surrogate endpoint would expedite the development of novel therapies and enable better estimates of sample size based on early outcomes of a trial. Previous studies have reported an association between end-of-therapy (EOT) PET results and long-term progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients receiving standard first-line chemoimmunotherapy. We have also previously shown that the overall predictability of PET-CR for PFS and OS in these trials is similar to that in 18 literature-based studies. (15-ICML 2019, P195). To assess the potential for PET-CR as a surrogate endpoint in registration trials, we conducted a prospectively designed individual patient-level-data meta-analysis of available clinical trials. Methods: We synthesized patient-level data from three prospective phase II and III trials (GOYA [NCT01287741], GATHER [NCT01414855], MAYO [NCT00670358]) conducted in previously untreated DLBCL patients, using a Bayesian hierarchical model. We considered the two treatment arms in GOYA (GOYA-R-CHOP [rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone] and GOYA-G-CHOP [obinutuzumab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone]) separate; hence a total of four arms, excluding patients without baseline PET scans. We investigated the relationship between PET-CR and long-term survival outcomes overall and within patient subgroups. We used Kaplan-Meier plots to compare survival endpoints by PET-CR status. We considered hypothetical RCTs that have PET-CR and PFS as endpoints to show how our model of the relationship between PET-CR and PFS can be used to predict the trial outcome. Results: We included 1496 patients (GOYA-R, GOYA-G, GATHER, MAYO, respectively: 665, 669, 100, 62). EOT PET-CR status was determined by the Lugano criteria in GOYA and by IHP in the other two studies. The overall rate of PET-CR was 72%; respectively 72%, 73%, 62% and 74% per arm. Panel A of the Figure shows Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS by PET-CR status. The Bayesian modeled hazard ratio (HR) comparing PET-CR versus nonCR was 0.13 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.15). The model can be used in planning a clinical trial as follows. Suppose a new therapy improves the PET-CR rate from 70% to 85%. Based on our model the expected HR for PFS treatment effect would be 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.84). The trial sample size required to demonstrate such an improvement with 90% power is about 650 patients, assuming an accrual rate of 50 patients per month and a minimum follow-up time of 12 months. Panel B of the Figure shows the model-based PFS HR and its CI (shaded) as it depends on the PET-CR rate of the new therapy. This plot also shows the estimated total trial sample size (in red), again assuming the relationship between PET-CR and PFS in our model. However, our model may not apply for the new therapy; and the trial could have an adaptive design with final sample size tailored to the accruing information about PET-CR and PFS and their relationship for the therapies in the trial. Conclusions: Achieving an EOT PET-CR in newly diagnosed DLBCL is highly predictive of favorable outcome in the populations we considered. The estimated HR is 0.13 for PFS, PET-CR versus nonCR, and it is 0.10 for OS. Based on our model, a treatment that improves PET-CR rate could be reasonably expected to have a benefit on PFS and OS, for the populations we considered. Whether a new therapy, with a different mechanism of action, that improves PET-CR rate will extend PFS in a clinical trial is less clear. An adaptive trial could be initiated based on our model as a hypothesis. This hypothesis can be verified or updated using accruing information in the trial itself. Our model can also help in planning clinical trials for re-estimating sample size during the trial and considering early stopping for futility. Further work should investigate the applicability of PET-CR in predicting PFS and/or OS for treatments that have different mechanisms of action and for other populations of patients. Acknowledgements: This work was funded by Genentech/Roche. Disclosures Berry: Berry Consultants, LLC: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Berry Consultants, LLC is a company that provides statistical design and analysis services to pharmaceutical companies (including Genentech/Roche), medical device companies, U.S. NIH cooperative groups, patient advocacy groups, and international consortia. Broglio:Berry Consultants LLC: Employment. Ward:Hoffmann La Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mattiello:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Sahin:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. McGlothlin:Berry Consultants, LLC: Consultancy, Employment. Elliott:Berry Consultants, LLC: Employment. Sehn:Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apobiologix: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trněný:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Vitolo:Novartis: 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; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau. Martelli:Servier: Honoraria; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kostakoglu:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding.

Special thanks to Marcella Origgi, Selene Vasco & Andrea Emancipato from Janssen Cilag S.p.a. Introduction: Onco-hematological diseases are ones of the most widespread worldwide types of cancer. Affected people usually manifest different forms of distress, such as the physical, psychological, spiritual and existential ones. So, a strategic way to fully take care onco-hematological patients is to identify their unmet needs in all their quality of life dimensions and to target them with adequate interventions. In the last years, Internet has represented a revolution respect to health because it has become the principal tool used by patients to research information. Furthermore, through the Social Network, it represents a powerful communication tool, through which users can interact each other. Being online on Facebook patients can play an active role in their care process, researching information, sharing own needs, and interacting each other. Especially in the oncological field, E-health represents an opportunity for patients to narrate their illness stories and experiences in a virtual context of emotional acceptance and sharing. At the same time, E-health could be used as a precious instrument to target a wide range of patients' unmet needs and improving the quality of their care and life. Objective: To analyze the contents of a social network page dedicated to the onco-hematological diseases, developed by Insight Generation Project, and its users' utilization, in order to evaluate their unmet needs and approach to the page. Materials and Methods: The page contents, such as users' responses to the posts published on the page, were analyzed. Contents of the page, from its opening in January 2016 to June 2019, were considered. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were performed. Users' comments were clustered and categorical variables were created, according to the emerging themes. Statistical analysis was executed with software SPSS Statistics Version 24.0. Results: A total of 348 comments to posts were analyzed. 117 users were identified as patients, who were most affected by multiple myeloma and acute myeloid leukemia in acute phase. Seventy-two users were caregivers, and 43 of them were caregivers of deceased patients. The most emergent unmet needs were relational (n=234), psychological (n=232) and informative/communicative (n=113). The most affected quality of life spheres were the psychological (n=237), the relational (n=228) and the physical one (n=100). Users expressed most angry, sadness and concern. They tended to address most other users with motivational messages of support, encouragement and relief. So, most were comments of sharing and support, while others were informative/communicative. The most required information regarded the course of the disease, the treatments and the lifestyles. Posts most liked, shared and commented were on chronic lymphatic leukemia, on acute myeloid leukemia, on hematological cancer diagnosis and therapies, but also on patients needs and on the management of negative emotions. Conclusions: The social network page represents a virtual place for sharing experiences, emotions and psychological suffering, creating interpersonal relationships and group interchanges and providing reciprocal emotive support in a commonality context. Respect to palliative care, it could be also a useful resource for bereaved caregivers. Moreover, users benefited from the page to obtain medical/assistance information, playing an active role in their care process. So, the page resulted a powerful communicative tool offering opportunities of learning, interaction, and sharing of experiences and feelings. It well represents the E-health contribute to patients with life-threatening diseases and their caregivers. Finally, the analysis of the contents of virtual communities could contribute to the process of care through targeting patients' unmet needs and satisfying them with the promotion of adequate interventions. Disclosures Vitolo: Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: 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, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: 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; Kite: 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.

Introduction: The standard first line treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is rituximab (R) plus CHOP (R-CHOP). However, approximately 35-40% of patients (pts) relapse following such treatment, and outcomes with salvage therapy remain poor. Obinutuzumab (GA101; G) is a fully humanized, glycoengineered, type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. It has demonstrated greater direct cell death induction and antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity/phagocytosis activity than R, and has shown activity and an acceptable safety profile when combined with CHOP (G-CHOP) in first-line treatment of pts with advanced DLBCL (Sharman et al. Leuk Lymphoma 2019). GOYA (NCT01287741) was a randomized, open-label, multicenter Phase III study that compared the efficacy and safety of G-CHOP with R-CHOP in pts with previously untreated DLBCL. In the primary analysis (median observation period: 29 months), G-CHOP did not significantly improve investigator (INV)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) compared with R-CHOP (Vitolo et al. J Clin Oncol 2017). Here, we present results from the final analysis of GOYA. Methods: Pts were aged ≥18 years, had histologically documented, previously untreated, CD20-positive DLBCL, with adequate hematologic function, ≥1 bi-dimensionally measurable lesion, an ECOG performance status of ≤2, and were classified as being in an International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk group of high, high-intermediate, or low-intermediate risk. Low-risk pts with an IPI score of 1 (not due to age alone) or 0 with bulky disease (1 lesion ≥7.5cm) were also eligible. Pts were randomized (1:1) to 8 (21-day) cycles of G (1000mg i.v. on Days [D]1, 8 and 15, Cycle [C]1 and D1, C2-8) or R (375mg/m2 i.v. on D1, C1-8) in combination with 6 or 8 cycles of CHOP. Preplanned radiotherapy was allowed for bulky or extranodal disease. The primary endpoint was INV-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints included independent review committee-assessed PFS (primary analysis only); overall survival (OS); complete response (CR) and overall response rate (ORR) with or without PET (according to modified Cheson 2007 criteria); event-free survival; disease-free survival; duration of response; time to next anti-lymphoma treatment; PFS according to cell of origin (COO; germinal center B cell [GCB] or activated B cell [ABC]), as an exploratory endpoint; and safety. Results: In total, 1418 pts were randomized in GOYA; of these, 704 pts who received G-CHOP and 710 who received R-CHOP were included in this final analysis (clinical cut-off date: January 31, 2018). Overall median follow-up was 47.7 months. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the G-CHOP and R-CHOP arms. INV-assessed PFS was similar between G-CHOP and R-CHOP (5-year PFS, 63.8% vs 62.6%; stratified HR, 0.94; 95% CI: 0.78, 1.12; p=0.48; Table). There was no significant difference in 5-year OS between the G-CHOP and R-CHOP groups (77.0% vs 77.7%) or in CR or ORR (Table). In the subgroup analysis of pts with ABC, GCB and unclassified DLBCL, no significant reductions in risk of disease progression were observed (stratified HR for INV-PFS, 0.91 [95% CI: 0.61, 1.36], 0.80 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.12] and 1.10 [95% CI: 0.65, 1.88], respectively). No new safety signals were identified. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs; 75% vs 66%) and serious AEs (44% vs 38%) were more common with G-CHOP than R-CHOP. Grade ≥3 AEs of particular interest (≥2% of pts in either treatment arm) were more frequent in the G-CHOP arm: infusion-related reactions (10% vs 3%), neutropenia (57% vs 47%), infections (20% vs 16%), cardiac events (5% vs 3%), thrombocytopenia (6% vs 2%), and hemorrhagic events (3% vs 1%); secondary malignancies occurred in 3% and 2% of the R-CHOP and G-CHOP arms, respectively. AEs resulting in treatment withdrawal (12% [87/702] G-CHOP; 8% [58/701] R-CHOP) and AEs with fatal outcome (6% [43/702] G-CHOP; 4% [31/701] R-CHOP) were slightly more common with G-CHOP. The most common grade 5 AEs were pneumonia (n=5 both arms) and sepsis/septic shock (G-CHOP, n=7; R-CHOP, n=3). Conclusions: Consistent with the primary analysis, G-CHOP did not significantly improve INV-assessed PFS compared with R-CHOP in previously untreated pts with DLBCL. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in 5-year OS between the treatment arms. No unexpected safety signals were identified. Further investigation of outcomes is ongoing, including the prognostic value of COO and BCL2 positivity. Disclosures Sehn: F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apobiologix: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Martelli:F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria. Trněný:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Liu:Roche Pharma Development, Shanghai, China: Employment. Bolen:Genentech, Inc.: Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Equity Ownership. Knapp:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Sahin:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sellam:Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. 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, Speakers Bureau; 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. OffLabel Disclosure: GAZYVA (obinutuzumab) is a CD20-directed cytolytic antibody and is indicated for the following: in combination with chlorambucil, for the treatment of patients with previously untreated CLL; in combination with bendamustine followed by GAZYVA monotherapy, for the treatment of patients with FL who relapsed after, or are refractory to, a rituximab-containing regimen; in combination with chemotherapy followed by GAZYVA monotherapy in patients achieving at least a partial remission, for the treatment of adult patients with previously untreated stage II bulky, III or IV FL.

Background. The outcome of relapsed/refractory diffuse large-B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients after first line chemoimmunotherapy is poor, and the choice of the best salvage treatment is challenging. Acisplatin-containing regimen (DHAP, cisplatin, high-dose citarabine, dexamethasone) is worldwide accepted as induction pre-stem cell transplantation (SCT). Bortezomib had proven activity in aggressive lymphomas. On these bases, the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi designed the FIL-VERAL12 trial, aimed at evaluating whether the addition of bortezomib to rituximab-DHAP (BR-DHAP) increases complete response rate (CR, according to Lugano 2007 criteria) prior SCT compared to standard R-DHAP. Methods. FIL-VERAL12 was a prospective, multicenter, two-arm randomized phase II trial (NCT01805557).The primary study endpoint wasCR after 4 courses of R-DHAP or BR-DHAP, assuming a 30% CR for the standard arm and a 50% CR in experimental arm. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged 18-65 years with relapsed/refractory DLBCL after first line chemoimmunotherapy, eligible to high-dose therapy. A centrally histological review and classification according to cell of origin profile was planned. Patients were stratified by relapsed or refractory and randomized 1:1 to receive: a) the standard salvage therapy R-DHAP every 28 days for 4 cycles and b) subcutaneous 1.5 mg/sqm bortezomib on days 1 and 4 of each 4-week cycle in addition to the same regimen. Restaging, mobilization and harvesting of peripheral stem cell were performed after the second course. Results. From January 2013 to November 2018, 114 patients were screened; 108 eligible patients were enrolled into the trial and randomized to receive R-DHAP or BR-DHAP (54 patients in each arm). Principal clinical characteristics were: median age 57 years (IQR: 48;62); stage III/IV 81 patients (75%); IPI risk >3 32 (30%). All patients received rituximab and anthracycline-based regimens as first line treatment. Considering the time at relapse, 52 patients (48%) were registered as relapsed (median time at relapse 10.8 months, IQR: 6.9;20.9) and 46 (43%) as refractory (0.9 months, IQR 0.52;1.3); in the remaining 10 patients the data is missing at the time of this analysis. 51 (47%) patients completed the planned 4 cycles of therapy; 57 did not, due to progressive disease in 20, adverse events in 2, unknown causes in 35 cases. Intermediate response after 2 courses was: CR 16 (15%), partial response (PR) 37 (34%), stable disease (SD) 16 (15%); 24 (22%) were in progression (PD) and 15 (14%) were not available for response. At the end of treatment, the pre-ASCT response was: : CR 30 (28%), PR 10 (9%), SD 13 (12%), PD 38 (35%), NA 17 (16%). According to arm of randomization, the primary end point was not met, with CR 30% for R-DHAP and 26% for BR-DHAP (Pr 0.667). 38 patients performed a consolidation SCT, autologous SCT in 38, allogeneic SCT in 4. The addition of bortezomib to standard R-DHAP did not impact the mobilization: only one patient was poor mobilizer and the median number of CD34+ collected was 6.9 x 10^6 cells CD34/kg (IQR: 4.8; 9.7), with no differences between the two arms. No toxic deaths were recorded into the trial. On 294 cycles with data available, haematological and extra-haematological toxicities were: grade 3-4 neutropenia in 152 of 294 courses (52%), g 3-4 thrombocytopenia in 209 (71%); g 3-4 febrile neutropenia in 4 (1%), g3-4 infection in 5 (2%), g3-4 neurotoxicity in 5 (2%); the incidence of adverse events were similar in the two arms. At a median follow-up of 9.8 months, 12-months PFS was: overall 48.8% (38.4-58.4), 44.6% (30.4-57.8) and 53.1% (37.9-66.1) for R-DHAP and BR-DHAP, respectively (log rank, p 0.464). At a median follow-up of 15.9 months, 12-months OS was: overall 69% (58.2-77.7), 62.7% (46.4-75.3) and 75.1% (59.6-85.4) for R-DHAP and BR-DHAP, respectively (log rank, p 0.628). Conclusions. In the FIL-VERAL12 phase II randomized trial, the addition of bortezomib to R-DHAP did not improve the outcome of relapsed/refractory DLBCL patients eligible to high-dose therapy plus SCT. This series of patients is mainly represented by true refractory patients after first line chemoimmunotherapy and the results underline the poor outcome of such patients. The treatment for these patients is still an unmet clinical need. The role of immunotherapies such as the integration of CAR-T therapy in this setting of patients should be investigated. Disclosures Chiappella: Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau. Corradini:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Servier: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Jazz Pharmaceutics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Costs; BMS: Other: Travel Costs. Liberati:Novartis: Other: Clinical trial support; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical trial support; Roche: Other: Clinical trial support; 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; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy. Nassi:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Vitolo:Janssen: 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; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: 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; Novartis: 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. OffLabel Disclosure: the use of subcutaneous bortezomib is not registered in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Bortezomib was provided free by Janssen

The risk of CNS dissemination and CNS prophylaxis strategies in aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is still debated. CNS dissemination is a rare but fatal event. A CNS prophylaxis is common for Burkitt and B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma; however, in other NHLs, prophylactic treatments are not systematically warranted. Current risk models showed low sensitivity in predicting CNS involvement, implying overtreatment in roughly 70% of high-risk patients. Risk models in the rituximab era were modulated for the detection of occult CNS disease at diagnosis using flow cytometry. The optimal regimen for CNS prophylaxis in aggressive lymphoma patients has not been established thus far and should be modulated at different levels of 'intensity' such as standard intrathecal chemotherapy, 'active' intrathecal chemotherapy with liposomal cytarabine or more aggressive systemic treatment with high doses of drugs having good CNS bioavailability reserved for patients who are truly at high risk of CNS dissemination.

The safety and activity of obinutuzumab (GA101) plus chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma was explored in 56 patients. Participants received obinutuzumab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (G-CHOP; every 3 weeks for 6 to 8 cycles) or obinutuzumab plus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (G-FC; every 4 weeks for 4 to 6 cycles). Patients were randomly assigned to either obinutuzumab 1600 mg on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 followed by 800 mg on day 1 of subsequent cycles or 400 mg for all doses. Treatment responders were eligible for obinutuzumab maintenance every 3 months for up to 2 years. Grade 1/2 infusion-related reactions (IRRs) were the most common treatment-related adverse event (AE) (all grades: G-CHOP, 68%; G-FC, 82%). Grade 3/4 IRRs were rare (7%) and restricted to the first infusion. All patients received the planned obinutuzumab dose. Neutropenia was the most common treatment-related hematologic AE for G-CHOP (43%) and G-FC (50%). At induction end, 96% (27/28) of patients receiving G-CHOP (complete response [CR], 39% [11/28]) and 93% (26/28) receiving G-FC (CR, 50% [14 of 28]) achieved responses. G-CHOP and G-FC had an acceptable safety profile with no new or unexpected AEs, but G-FC was associated with more AEs than G-CHOP. Obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy resulted in 93% to 96% response rates, supporting phase 3 investigation. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00825149.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the outcome of 94 adult patients with myelodysplasia (MDS) who received an allogeneic stem cell transplant between January 1995 and September 2010 in two Italian hematology centers. At the time of transplant, 53 patients (56%) had relapsed/refractory disease. The cumulative incidence of grades II-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and chronic GVHD was 33% (95% confidence interval [CI] 21-45%) and 78% (95% CI 66-90%), respectively. The cumulative incidence of transplant-related mortality (TRM) at 100 days was 13% (95% CI 6-21%). The 2-year progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 41% (95% CI 31-51%) and 49% (95% CI 38-59%), respectively. On multivariate analysis, advanced disease stage at transplant was the major independent variable associated with an inferior 2-year PFS (HR 3.66, 95% CI 1.98-6.76) and OS (HR 3.68, 95% CI 1.95-6.93). Use of an alternative donor was an independent variable associated with TRM (HR 3.18, 95% CI 1.31-7.72). In conclusion, our data suggest that disease status at the time of transplant is the major predictor for improved PFS and OS, and treatments required to reach this goal may have value in leading to an improved outcome.

SummaryCurrent data suggests that the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is comparable to that observed in patients with solid tumours, although more robust confirmatory analyses are required. With that in mind, we investigated the occurrence of VTE in a pooled analysis of 12 “Fondazione Italiana Linfomi” (FIL) prospective clinical studies. Specifically, we wished to assess the cumulative incidence of VTE in NHL patients, evaluate the predictive value of the Khorana Score (KS), and identify other potential risk factors for VTEs. Data for VTE occurrence were retrieved from study databases and pharmacovigilance reports. Our analysis includes 1717 patients from 12 prospective phase II and III trials, including newly diagnosed NHL. We observed 53 VTEs (any grade) in 46 patients, with 20 severe VTEs in 17 patients. The cumulative incidences for „all-grade” or grade ≥3 VTEs were 2.9% (95% CI: 2.1–3.8) and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6–1.6), respectively. KS categories were positively associated with the risk of VTE of any grade, and with severe events (i. e. grade ≥3; Gray’s test p-values = 0.048 and 0.012, respectively). Among NHL patients, those with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) showed a greater risk of (any grade) VTE (HR: 3.42, 95% CI: 1.32–8.84, p-value = 0.011). Our study indicates that 1) VTE is a relevant complication for NHL patients, 2) KS is predictive of VTE events and 3) DLBCL histotype is an independent risk factor for VTE incidence, for which preventative interventions could be considered.Supplementary Material to this article is available at www.thrombosis-online.com.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) represents the most common lymphoid malignancy in adults, with a median age of 60 to 70 years. Clinical behavior is usually rapidly aggressive, with extranodal involvement in 40% of cases. Chemoimmunotherapy administered every 21 days is still the standard of care in the advanced stage. Optimization of frontline therapy and the amelioration of salvage strategies remain the most important targets in the treatment of patients with DLBCL. Novel drugs directed to specific molecular targets have been introduced as single agents or in addition to standard chemoimmunotherapy for the treatment of DLBCL.

Treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) requires chemotherapy regimens with significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). For patients at ≥20% FN risk, guidelines recommend primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). This study assessed whether G-CSF use in NHL was in line with recommendations in routine practice. This was a retrospective, observational study of adult NHL patients receiving first-line (R)CHOP-like chemotherapy and G-CSF support between June 2010 and 2012, in Italy. The primary outcome was whether G-CSF was provided as PP, which was defined as G-CSF initiation on days 1–3 after chemotherapy, ≥3 days’ use for daily G-CSFs and continued prophylaxis from cycle 1 across all cycles. Secondary prophylaxis was defined as continued prophylaxis from cycle 2 or later, and all other use was defined as Suboptimal. The analysis included 199 patients, 61% of whom had diffuse large B cell lymphoma and 21% follicular lymphoma. (R)CHOP-21 was given to 52% of patients and (R)CHOP-14 to 32%. Overall, 29% of patients received PP, while two-thirds received Suboptimal G-CSF. Of patients receiving daily G-CSF, 3% received PP and 94% received Suboptimal use; with pegfilgrastim, 65% received PP and 26% Suboptimal use. FN occurred in 13 patients (7%) and grade 3/4 neutropenia in 43%. Chemotherapy dose delays occurred in 22% and dose reductions in 18% of patients. Delivery of G-CSF, particularly daily G-CSFs, was not in accordance with guideline or product label recommendations in a large proportion of NHL patients receiving chemotherapy in Italy.

Introduction We investigated for a possible role for peritransplantation involved-field radiotherapy (IFRT) by comparing patients who received IFRT before after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and patients who received salvage chemotherapy (CT) alone. Patients and Methods We retrospectively evaluated 73 consecutive patients with Hodgkin lymphoma treated with ASCT between 2003 and 2014. Twenty-one patients (28.8%) received peritransplantation radiotherapy. A Cox regression analysis (multivariate analysis; MVA) was performed to evaluate the prognostic role of any risk factor. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated from the date of ASCT. Response to CT and ASCT were evaluated with positron emission tomography (PET) scan. Results Median follow-up was 41 months (range, 1-136 months). Overall, no significant difference appeared between patients who received IFRT and patients treated with CT alone; however, patients who were treated with IFRT had worse prognostic factors. In the MVA, advanced stage at relapse and persistent disease before ASCT (evident on PET scan [PET+]) were related to worse PFS and OS. In patients with limited stage disease at relapse and PET+, peritransplantation radiotherapy showed higher 3-year OS rates (91.7% vs. 62.3%) and PFS rates (67.5% vs. 50%) compared with patients treated with CT alone, although this difference was not significant ( P = .14 and P = .22, respectively). Conclusion IFRT used before or after ASCT might partially compensate for worse prognostic factors among the overall population; subgroup analysis showed a trend for survival benefit at 3 years in patients with limited stage disease at relapse and PET+ before ASCT.

This randomized, multicenter study evaluates the addition of bortezomib (13 mg/m(2)) to IGEV (B-IGEV) in patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL). Patients received either four courses of IGEV alone (n = 40) or B-IGEV (n = 40). The primary endpoint was the complete response (CR) proportion, evaluated by FDG-PET, after induction chemotherapy. CR proportion was 39% with B-IGEV and 53% with IGEV. PFS and OS were similar between the two groups (two-year PFS: 58% vs 56%; two-year OS: 93% vs 81%). The PET-negative status after treatment was the only variable favorably influencing both PFS (two-year PFS: 77% vs 40%; p = 0.002) and OS (two-year OS: 100% vs 76%; p

Introduction. The application of Pediatric-Type Therapy (PTT) programs to adults with ALL can improve outcome significantly despite higher age-related toxicity. Recent series reported survival rates ≥ 50%, but only few combined PTT with Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) study for risk-oriented Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) and/or explored the value of specific PTT element such as higher dose, lineage-targeted MTX up to 5 g/m2. Methods. To improve over prior data, NILG protocol 10/07 (Clinical.Trials.gov NCT-00795756) for unselected adult patients aged 18-65 years combined PTT together with MRD study for risk/MRD-based HCT. The 8-course program consisted of a 5-drug complete remission (CR) induction (cycle no. 1; imatinib added if Ph+) followed by 3 modified BFM blocks (no. 2, 4 and 6), 3 lineage-targeted MTX blocks (no. 3, 5 and 7; MTX 5 g/m2 for T-ALL and 2.5 g/m2 for B-ALL [1.5 g/m2 if age > 55 years or Ph+]; no. 3 and 7 with high-dose Ara-C 2 g/m2 x4, no. 5 with L-Asp 10,000 IU/m2 x2) and reinduction (no. 8). CNS prophylaxis was with triple intrathecals or liposomal cytarabine (Haematologica 2015;100:786). MRD was studied molecularly with sensitive probe(s) (sensitivity 10-4 or greater) on marrow samples obtained at end of induction (week 4, w4) and after cycles 3 (w10), 5 (w16), 7 (w22) i.e. after 1st, 2nd and 3rd lineage-targeted MTX block. Patients were risk-stratified at diagnosis and after MRD analysis for the purpose of allocation to HCT or conventional maintenance. The HCT allocation cohort consisted of predefined very high-risk patients (vHR: WBC >100, highly adverse cytogenetics, pre-T/mature T-ALL) regardless of MRD, of HR patients without MRD study (HR: late CR; B-ALL with WBC >30 or pro-B phenotype), and of HR or standard-risk (SR) patients with MRD ≥ 10-4 at w10/16 or positive at w22. Conversely, the maintenance allocation cohort consisted of SR and HR patients with MRD < 10-4 at w10/16 and negative at w22 and of SR patients without MRD study. A family related/unrelated donor search was activated at diagnosis in order to proceed to HCT soon after cycle no. 3 when needed. Results. 205 patients were enrolled, with a median age of 41 years (range 17-67 years, 11% > 60 years). 55% were male, 42 had Ph+ ALL, 119 Ph- B-ALL and 44 T-ALL. Of 163 patients with Ph- ALL, 45% were SR, 13% HR and 42% vHR. CR rate was 98% in Ph+ ALL and T-ALL, and 83% in Ph- B-ALL (88% vs 58% in patients ≤ vs > 60 years, P .0013). The MRD study was successful in 109/142 CR patients with Ph- ALL (77%), contributing to the final risk classification in 63 patients, of whom 41 were MRD responsive (65%) and 22 MRD resistant (35%). Altogether, 55 CR patients constituted the maintenance allocation group (39%) and 87 the HCT allocation group (61%), which included mainly vHR patients (n=61, 43%) selected for HCT independently of MRD study results. According to intention-to-treat, median OS is not reached (53% at 5 years, figure) and median DFS is 4.8 years (48% at 5 years). In Ph- ALL, 5-year OS/DFS are 74%/61% in T-ALL (medians not reached) and 48% each in B-ALL (medians 3.9 and 4.7 years). Median OS is not reached in both HCT and maintenance allocation groups (58% and 73% at 5 years, respectively, P .078), with a median DFS of 4.7 years (48% at 5 years) versus not reached (59% at 5 years) (P .19). Treatment adherence was good with some exceptions in maintenance allocation group (6 HCT, 11%) and a transplant realization of 68% (53 allogeneic; 6 autologous) in HCT allocation group. With HCT, 5-year incidence of nonrelapse mortality was 17%. The MRD analysis proved that DFS of patients achieving an MRD response Conclusion. The current PTT and MRD-based risk-oriented strategy was applicable to adults with ALL in a wide age range, with some limitations in patients > 60 years. 5-year OS and DFS of 55% and 52% respectively in Ph- patients aged up to 65 years represent an improvement over prior NILG study (5-year OS and DFS of 36% and 35% respectively). MRD was essential in orientating the HCT choice in SR and HR patients and retained a major prognostic role in all patients. Optimizing the early MRD response with new immunotherapeutics and clarifying the role of HCT in MRD responsive vHR patients are some relevant topics of future research. Figure Figure. Disclosures Ciceri: MolMed SpA: Consultancy. Vitolo:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gallamini:Millenium Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

In recent years, it became clear that diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) should be primarily considered a disease of the elderly, with a median age at diagnosis of 70 years old [1] and an incide...

Background: Response to ruxolitinib (RUX), the only JAK1/2 inhibitor commercially available for the treatment of Myelofibrosis (MF) may vary among patients (pts) and is largely unpredictable at therapy start. Therefore, pts' selection is based only on clinical needs. Aims: To evaluate the impact of pre-treatment clinical/laboratory factors, as well as RUX dose, on response to RUX in a cohort of "real-life" MF pts. Methods: A multicenter observational study on WHO-defined MF was conducted in 18 Italian Hematology Centers. Data were extracted from a database that included retrospective data on pts treated before January 2015. Subsequently, data were prospectively collected and updated at a 6-month interval.Response to RUX was evaluated according to IWG-MRT criteria. Results: Between June 2011 and Apr 2016, 408 pts with PMF (54.4%), or postET (27.7%) / post-PV (17.9%) were treated with RUX. At RUX start, baseline characteristics were (median): age, 68.5 y (range, 26.5-89); ≥65 y, 63.5%; male, 56.4%; hemoglobin (Hb), 10.7 g/dL (7-16.7); transfusion-dependence 27.9%; PLT, 256×109/L (50-1887); PLT Molecular data were available for 332 pts (81.4%) and was positive in 81% (JAK2V617F), 6.3% (CALR), 1% (MPLW515K/L); 2.7% (triple negative). 30 pts (9%) were JAK2V617Fnegative but did not receive further molecular evaluation. Karyotype was abnormal in 55 (26%) out of 210 evaluable pts (unfavorable: 8.1%). Median follow-up from MF diagnosis was 3.8 yr (0.3-29.6) and median RUX exposure was 20 mos (3-56.2). Overall, 152 out of 365 (42%) pts with spleen ≥5cm achieved a spleen response at any time during RUX therapy. At 3 and 6 mos, the response was achieved by 26.6% and 34.4% of evaluable pts, respectively. In univariate analysis, pre-treatment factors negatively correlating with spleen response were: transfusion dependence, platelet count ≤200x109/l, spleen palpable ≥10 cm below costal margin, grade 3 marrow fibrosis, intm-2/high IPSS risk and interval between MF diagnosis and RUX start ≥2y. Three variables remained significant in multivariate regression logistic analysis: large splenomegaly (HR: 2.05, 95%CI: 1.1-3.7; p=0.02), time-interval ≥2y (HR: 1.78, 95%CI:1.0-3.1; p=0.04) and transfusion dependency (HR: 1.95, 95%CI:1.0-3.7; p=0.04). Spleen response significantly correlated with the average RUX dose in the first 12 wks, with pts treated with doses ≥10 mg BID having better response rates (47.3% vs 26.6% if dose 360 pts had a TSS >10 at RUX start and 319 (88.6%) achieved a symptom response. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with worse responses were: transfusion dependency (HR: 3.15, 95%CI 1.5-6.4, p=0.001) and a baseline TSS >20 (HR: 6.7, 95%CI 3.2-13.8, p Drug-related anemia (acquisition of transfusion dependency or Hb 80 (19.6%) pts discontinued RUX because of: lack/loss of response (28.8%); drug-related toxicity (27.5%, specifically: thrombocytopenia, 16.2%; infection, 6.3%; anemia, 5%); disease progression with/without acute evolution (8.8%); death (13.8%); allogeneic transplant (8.8%); 2ndneoplasia (3.8%); other unrelated causes (8.5%). Summary/Conclusion: In a real-life setting, IWG-MRT-defined spleen and symptoms response rates were observed in 42% and 88.6% of evaluable pts, respectively. Disease severity (in terms of transfusion dependency and large splenomegaly) and a delay in RUX start ≥2yr from diagnosis identified pts with lower spleen response rates. Titrated doses Disclosures Palumbo: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bonifacio:Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Tiribelli:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Latagliata:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria. Vitolo:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Gilead: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Takeda: Other: Honoraria for lectures. Fanin:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Merli:Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Breccia:Ariad: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria.

BACKGROUND: Early-interim fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET scan after two ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) chemotherapy courses (PET-2) represents the most effective predictor of treatment outcome in classical Hodgkin's lymphoma. We aimed to assess the predictive value of PET-2 combined with tissue biomarkers in neoplastic and microenvironmental cells for this disease.METHODS: We enrolled 208 patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma and treated with ABVD (training set), from Jan 1, 2002, to Dec 31, 2009, and validated the results in a fully matched independent cohort of 102 patients with classical Hodgkin's lymphoma (validation set), enrolled from Jan 1, 2008, to Dec 31, 2012. The inclusion criteria for both the training and validation sets were: the availability of a representative formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sample collected at diagnosis; treatment with ABVD with or without radiotherapy; baseline staging and interim restaging after two ABVD courses with FDG-PET; no treatment change based solely on interim PET result; and HIV-negative status. We used Cox multivariate analysis classification and regression tree (CART) to compare the predictive values of these markers with that of PET-2 and to assess the biomarkers' ability to correctly classify patients whose outcome was incorrectly predicted by PET-2.FINDINGS: In multivariate analysis, PET-2 was the only factor able to predict both progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 33·3 [95% CI 13·6-83·3]; pINTERPRETATION: The CART algorithm correctly predicted the response to treatment in more than a half of patients who had a relapse or disease progression despite a negative PET-2 scan, thus increasing the negative predictive value of PET-2. In keeping with preliminary results from interim PET response adapted clinical trials of patients with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma, there might be a non-negligible proportion of treatment failures in the interim PET negative group treated with standard ABVD.FUNDING: Italian Association for Cancer Research, Bologna Association against leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma, and Bologna University.

No abstract available

BACKGROUND: Indolent nonfollicular non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphomas (INFLs) are clonal mature B-cell proliferations for which treatment has not been defined to date. METHODS: In this phase 2 study of patients with advanced INFL, the authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide (FCR) as induction immunochemotherapy (rituximab 375 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of each cycle and on days 1 and 14 of cycles 4 and 5; fludarabine 25 mg/m2 intravenously on days 2-4, cyclophosphamide 250 mg/m2 intravenously on Days 2-4) every 28 days for 6 cycles followed by a maintenance phase with 4 infusions of rituximab (375 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1) every 2 months for responders. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were enrolled. Among 46 evaluable patients (28 men; median age, 59 years), 19 were diagnosed with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, 21 were diagnosed with small lymphocytic lymphoma, and 6 were diagnosed with nodal marginal zone lymphoma. The overall response rate after maintenance was 89.1% with a 67.4% complete remission (CR) rate (CR/unconfirmed CR) and a 21.7% partial response rate. After a median follow-up of 40.9 months, the failure-free survival and progression-free survival rates both were 90.1%, and the overall survival rate was 97.4%. The main toxicity was hematologic, and related grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was observed in 55.3% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: FCR induction therapy followed by a short maintenance phase is a highly effective regimen with acceptable toxicity. Cancer 2012. © 2011 American Cancer Society.

Specific trials on adult Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and 'unclassifiable' lymphomas with features intermediate between BL and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (BL/DLBCL) are advocated which include substantial numbers of older patients, to improve treatment feasibility, while countering risks of systemic and central nervous system (CNS) recurrences. We prospectively evaluated a modified CODOX-M/IVAC (CODOX-M: cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, high-dose methotrexate; IVAC: ifosfamide, etoposide and high-dose cytarabine) regimen by the addition of rituximab (R) and liposome-encapsulated cytarabine (D) to increase antitumour activity and halve the number of intrathecal treatments. Thirty adults (40% >60years) with BL (n=15) and BL/DLBCL (n=15) were accrued. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), CNS recurrence, and liposomal cytarabine-associated toxicity. Eighty percent of patients received the whole treatment programme, the remaining cases received at least three full courses. Application of the RD-CODOX-M/IVAC regimen resulted in remarkable 4-year PFS (78%) and complete remission (CR) rates (93%). However, PFS was significantly lower in patients older than 60years as compared to younger ones (49%vs 93%, P=0·03; median, 36months), despite high actual dose-intensity, CR rate and tolerability. Reduced-intensity intratechal prophylaxis through liposomal cytarabine was effective because the CNS failure rate was low (3·4%) and without severe neurological toxicities. The RD-CODOX-M/IVAC strategy is feasible and highly effective, but improving outcomes in elderly patients remains a priority.

The 11th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML), the main international forum devoted to basic and clinical research in lymphoid neoplasms, took place in Lugano, Switzerland, from 15 to 18 June 2011. In 2011, 3200 experts in lymphoma from 76 countries attended the meeting. ICML represents the most important forum for the discussion of all aspects relating to basic research, clinical data and results of trials in the treatment of malignant lymphoma worldwide. The incidence of Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is increasing. Treatment of lymphoma is heterogeneous, with effective results seen with standard chemotherapy, immunotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy with transplantation and radiotherapy. The biological basis of the growth of lymphoma explains the rationale for the introduction of experimental new drugs in monotherapy or in combination with consolidate schemes. The results have been promising and these issues were discussed during the meeting. On this basis, the ICML report was focus...

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.