Search

Summary The manageable toxicity profile of obinutuzumab (GA101; G) alone or with chemotherapy in first‐line (1L; fit and non‐fit) and relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) was established in the primary analysis of the Phase IIIb GREEN trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01905943). The final analysis (cut‐off, 31 January 2019) is reported here. Patients received G (1000 mg) alone (G‐mono; fit and non‐fit patients) or with chemotherapy [fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (FC; fit patients); chlorambucil (non‐fit patients); bendamustine (any patient)]. Study endpoints were safety (primary) and efficacy (secondary). Subgroup analyses were performed on prognostic biomarkers in 1L CLL. Overall, 630 patients received 1L and 341 received R/R CLL treatment. At the final analysis, no new safety signals were observed [Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): 1L 82·7%, R/R 84·5%; serious AEs: 1L 58·1%, R/R 62·5%]. Neutropenia (1L 50·5%, R/R 53·4%) and thrombocytopenia (1L 14·6%, R/R 19·1%) were the most common Grade 3–5 AEs. G‐mono‐, G‐bendamustine and G‐FC‐treated patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy chain trended towards shorter progression‐free survival. Achievement of minimal residual disease negativity was greatest in 1L patients treated with G‐FC. In this final analysis of the GREEN trial, the safety profile of G was consistent with current risk management strategies. Biomarker analyses supported efficacy in the specific subgroups., publishedVersion

This was an open-label, multicenter, phase-1 study to evaluate the drug interaction between steady-state ibrutinib and moderate (erythromycin) and strong (voriconazole) CYP3A inhibitors in patients with B-cell malignancies and to confirm dosing recommendations. During cycle 1, patients received oral ibrutinib 560 mg qd alone (Days 1-4 and 14-18), and ibrutinib 140 mg (Days 5-13; 19-27) plus erythromycin 500 mg tid (Days 5-11) and voriconazole 200 mg bid (Days 19-25). Twenty-six patients (median [range] age: 64.5 [50-88] years) were enrolled. Geometric mean ratio (90% confidence intervals) after co-administration of ibrutinib 140 mg with erythromycin and voriconazole was 74.7 (53.97-103.51) and 143.3 (107.77-190.42), respectively, versus ibrutinib 560 mg alone. The most common (≥20%) adverse events were diarrhea (27%) and neutropenia (23%). The results demonstrate that ibrutinib 140 mg with voriconazole or erythromycin provides exposure within the clinical range for patients with B-cell malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Initial results from the ongoing GALLIUM trial have shown that patients with follicular lymphoma have a longer progression-free survival after first-line immunochemotherapy with obinutuzumab than with rituximab. The aim of this secondary analysis was to evaluate the prognostic value of PET-CT responses after first-line immunochemotherapy in the GALLIUM study.METHODS: GALLIUM is an open-label, parallel-group randomised, phase 3 trial, which recruited previously untreated patients with CD20-positive follicular lymphoma (grades 1-3a; disease stage III/IV, or stage II with largest tumour diameter ≥7 cm) who were aged 18 years or older and met the criteria for needing treatment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous administration of obinutuzumab (1000 mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycle 1, then day 1 of subsequent cycles) or rituximab (375 mg/m2 on day 1 of each cycle), in six 21-day cycles with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (known as CHOP; oral administration) followed by two 21-day cycles of antibody alone, or eight 21-day cycles cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (known as CVP; oral administration), or six 28-day cycles with bendamustine, followed by maintenance antibody every 2 months for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint of the trial, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, has been reported previously. This secondary analysis reports PET and CT-based responses at end-of-induction therapy and explains their relation with progression-free and overall survival outcomes in patients with available scans. As per protocol, during the trial, PET scans (mandatory in the first 170 patients enrolled at sites with available PET facilities, and optional thereafter), acquired at baseline and end of induction (PET population), were assessed prospectively by investigators and an independent review committee (IRC) applying International Harmonisation Project (IHP) 2007 response criteria, and retrospectively by the IRC only applying current Lugano 2014 response criteria. IRC members (but not study investigators) were masked to treatment and clinical outcome when assessing response. The landmark analyses excluded patients who died or progressed (contrast enhanced CT-based assessment of progressive disease, or started next anti-lymphoma treatment) before or at end of induction. GALLIUM is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01332968.FINDINGS: 1202 patients were enrolled in GALLIUM between July 6, 2011, and Feb 4, 2014, of whom 595 were included in the PET population; 533 (IHP 2007; prospective analysis), and 508 (Lugano 2014; retrospective analysis) were analysed for progression-free survival (landmark analysis). At end of induction, 390 of 595 patients (65·5% [95% CI 61·6-69·4]) achieved PET complete response according to IHP 2007 criteria, and 450 (75·6% [95% CI 72·0-79·0]) obtained PET complete metabolic response according to Lugano 2014 criteria. With a median of 43·3 months of observation (IQR 36·2-51·8), 2·5-year progression-free survival from end of induction was 87·8% (95% CI 83·9-90·8) in PET complete responders and 72·0% (63·1-79·0) in non-complete responders according to IRC-assessed IHP 2007 criteria (hazard ratio [HR] 0·4, 95% CI 0·3-0·6, pINTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that PET is a better imaging modality than contrast-enhanced CT for response assessment after first-line immunochemotherapy in patients with follicular lymphoma. PET assessment according to Lugano 2014 response criteria provides a platform for investigation of response-adapted therapeutic approaches. Additional supportive data are welcomed.FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

High-dose therapy followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation is standard of care for patients with relapsed or primary refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma. Roughly 50% of patients might be cured after autologous stem-cell transplantation; however, most patients with unfavourable risk factors progress after transplantation. We aimed to assess whether brentuximab vedotin improves progression-free survival when given as early consolidation after autologous stem-cell transplantation.We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 78 sites in North America and Europe. Patients with unfavourable-risk relapsed or primary refractory classic Hodgkin's lymphoma who had undergone autologous stem-cell transplantation were randomly assigned, by fixed-block randomisation with a computer-generated random number sequence, to receive 16 cycles of 1·8 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin or placebo intravenously every 3 weeks, starting 30-45 days after transplantation. Randomisation was stratified by best clinical response after completion of salvage chemotherapy (complete response vs partial response vs stable disease) and primary refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma versus relapsed disease less than 12 months after completion of frontline therapy versus relapse 12 months or more after treatment completion. Patients and study investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review, defined as the time from randomisation to the first documentation of tumour progression or death. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01100502.Between April 6, 2010, and Sept 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 329 patients to the brentuximab vedotin group (n=165) or the placebo group (n=164). Progression-free survival by independent review was significantly improved in patients in the brentuximab vedotin group compared with those in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·81; p=0·0013). Median progression-free survival by independent review was 42·9 months (95% CI 30·4-42·9) for patients in the brentuximab vedotin group compared with 24·1 months (11·5-not estimable) for those in the placebo group. We recorded consistent benefit (HR1) of brentuximab vedotin consolidation across subgroups. The most frequent adverse events in the brentuximab vedotin group were peripheral sensory neuropathy (94 [56%] of 167 patients vs 25 [16%] of 160 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (58 [35%] vs 19 [12%] patients). At time of analysis, 28 (17%) of 167 patients had died in the brentuximab vedotin group compared with 25 (16%) of 160 patients in the placebo group.Early consolidation with brentuximab vedotin after autologous stem-cell transplantation improved progression-free survival in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma with risk factors for relapse or progression after transplantation. This treatment provides an important therapeutic option for patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation.Seattle Genetics and Takeda Pharmaceuticals International.

Background Studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis have shown that the rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 (Celltrion, Incheon, South Korea) has equivalent efficacy and pharmacokinetics to rituximab. In this phase 3 study, we aimed to assess the non-inferior efficacy and pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P10 compared with rituximab, when used in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) in patients with newly diagnosed advancedstage follicular lymphoma. Methods In this ongoing, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled study, patients aged 18 years or older with Ann Arbor stage III-IV follicular lymphoma were assigned 1: 1 to CVP plus intravenous infusions of 375 mg/m(2) CT-P10 or rituximab on day 1 of eight 21-day cycles. Randomisation was done by the investigators using an interactive web or voice response system and a computer-generated randomisation schedule, prepared by a clinical research organisation. Randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks and was stratified by country, gender, and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score (0-2 vs 3-5). Study teams from the sponsor and clinical research organisation, investigators, and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The study was divided into two parts: part 1 assessing equivalence of pharmacokinetics (in the pharmacokinetics subset), and part 2 assessing efficacy in all randomised patients (patients from the pharmacokinetics subset plus additional patients enrolled in part 2). Equivalence of pharmacokinetics was shown if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio of CT-P10 to rituximab in AUC tau and C-maxSS were within the bounds of the equivalence margin of 80% and 125%. Non-inferiority of response was shown if the one-sided 97 center dot 5% CI lay on the positive side of the -7% margin, using a one-sided test done at the 2 center dot 5% significance level. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an overall response over eight cycles and was assessed in the efficacy population (all randomised patients). The primary pharmacokinetic endpoints were area under the serum concentration-time curve at steady state (AUCt) and maximum serum concentration at steady state (C-maxSS) at cycle 4, assessed in the pharmokinetic population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT02162771. Findings Between July 28, 2014, and Dec 29, 2015, 140 patients were enrolled. Here we report data for the eight-cycle induction period, up to week 24. The proportion of patients with an overall response in the efficacy population was 64 (97 . 0%) of 66 patients in the CT-P10 treatment group and 63 (92 . 6%) of 68 patients in the rituximab treatment group (4 . 3%; one-sided 97 . 5% CI -4 . 25), which lay on the positive side of the predefined non-inferiority margin. The ratio of geometric least squares means (CT-P10/rituximab) was 102 . 25% (90% CI 94 . 05-111 . 17) for AUCt and 100 u 67% (93 . 84-108 . 00) for C-maxSS, with all CIs within the bioequivalence margin of 80-125%. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported for 58 (83%) of 70 patients in the CT-P10 treatment group and 56 (80%) of 70 in the rituximab treatment group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in each treatment group was neutropenia (grade 3, 15 [21%] of 70 patients in the CT-P10 group and seven [10%] of 70 patients in the rituximab group). The proportion of patients who experienced at least one treatment-emergent serious adverse event was 16 (23%) of 70 patients in the CT-P10 group and nine (13%) of 70 patients in the rituximab group. Interpretation In this study, we show that CT-P10 exhibits non-inferior efficacy and pharmacokinetic equivalence to rituximab. The safety profile of CT-P10 was comparable to that of rituximab. CT-P10 might represent a new therapeutic option for advanced-stage follicular lymphoma.

7532 Background: CT-P10 is a biosimilar candidate to the innovator rituximab (RTX). In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, CT-P10 has demonstrated equivalence in pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy (Yoo, ACR 2016). This study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of efficacy and PK equivalence between CT-P10 and RTX in patients with newly diagnosed advanced follicular lymphoma (AFL) (NCT02162771). PK equivalence was confirmed (Coiffier, ASH 2016). Methods: A total of 140 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive CT-P10 or RTX (375 mg/m2 i.v) plus CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone) every 3 weeks over 8 cycles. Overall response rate (ORR) according to the 1999 IWG criteria over 24 weeks was assessed by the independent review committee. Results: Noninferiority of CT-P10 to RTX was shown for the primary efficacy endpoint of ORR. The ORR difference was 4.3% (Table) and the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was -4.25%. B-cell depleted after the 1st infusion and remained as depleted over 8 cycles in both groups. Overall safety profile of CT-P10 was consistent with that of RTX and the proportion of patients with positive anti-drug antibody was similar in both groups (4.3% and 2.9%) for 24 weeks. Neither progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy nor Hepatitis B virus reactivation was reported in each group. Conclusions: This study demonstrates noninferiority of efficacy of CT-P10 to RTX combined with CVP in previously untreated AFL. CT-P10 was well-tolerated and the safety profile including immunogenicity of CT-P10 was comparable to that of RTX over 8 cycles of induction period. Clinical trial information: NCT02162771. [Table: see text]

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma with poor outcome, especially after failure of first-line treatment. Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug with antineoplastic and antiproliferative effects, has shown activity in single-arm phase II studies of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL. The present controlled randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide vs investigator’s choice (IC) in patients with R/R MCL. Methods: MCL-002 (SPRINT), a European multicenter, open-label, phase II study enrolled patients with up to 3 relapses or who failed prior therapy and were ineligible for intensified treatment or stem cell transplantation (NCT00875667). Oral lenalidomide was given at 25 mg/day on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle until progressive disease (PD) or intolerability. The IC treatment consisted of single-agent therapy with cytarabine, rituximab, gemcitabine, fludarabine, or chlorambucil. Patients who progressed on IC per investigator judgment were allowed to crossover to lenalidomide. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), time to first response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Response assessments were centrally reviewed using the modified IWG criteria. Results: 254 patients with R/R MCL were randomized 2:1 to lenalidomide (n=170) or IC (n=84). Patients had median age 68.5 years, were predominantly male (73%), and had received a median of 2 prior therapies. 91% had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis, with 34% high-risk MIPI, 43% high tumor burden, and 20% bulky disease at baseline. Overall, patients on the lenalidomide arm had a worse prognostic profile than the IC arm due to higher tumor burden and disease risk (>5 percentage points for a number of parameters). After a median time of 2.9 months, 39 patients (46%) from the IC arm crossed over to lenalidomide due to PD. Overall, 84 patients remain on lenalidomide (15 having crossed over from IC) and 11 patients on IC without PD. At a median follow-up time on study of 15.9 months, the risk reduction for PFS was 39% (HR=0.61 [95% CI, 0.44-0.84]; P=0.004; Table) in favor of lenalidomide (median PFS: 8.7 months lenalidomide vs 5.2 months IC). ORR was significantly improved for lenalidomide vs IC (40% vs 11%; CR/CRu 5% vs 0%). Median time to first response was 4.3 months for lenalidomide (not reached for IC). Median DOR (16.1 vs 10.4 months) and OS on mature data (27.9 vs 21.2 months) were longer for lenalidomide vs IC. Efficacy results were consistent among subgroups. Safety data in 250 patients receiving ≥1 dose showed more dose reductions in lenalidomide-treated patients (41%) vs IC (17%), due in part to a longer median duration of lenalidomide treatment vs IC, and to strict dose modification rules for lenalidomide. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (lenalidomide 44% vs IC 34% [without increased risk of infection]), thrombocytopenia (18% vs 28%), and leukopenia (8% vs 11%). Tumor flare reaction occurred in lenalidomide patients only (10%; 2% grade ≥3); 1 patient in each arm experienced tumor lysis syndrome. Invasive second primary malignancies were identified in 4% and 5% of lenalidomide and IC treated patients, respectively. Conclusions: The MCL-002 study demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS for lenalidomide over best IC monotherapy in patients with advanced R/R MCL despite a worse prognostic profile in the lenalidomide arm at baseline. In addition, ORR and CR rates, TTR, DOR, and OS were improved for lenalidomide over IC. The DOR has been remarkably consistent in various studies with lenalidomide in MCL patients. The safety profile for lenalidomide was as expected and no new safety signals were identified. The results of this first randomized, controlled study of lenalidomide showed superior efficacy compared to IC in patients with R/R MCL with a manageable toxicity profile. Table Efficacy of lenalidomide vs IC in R/R MCL Efficacy Lenalidomide (n=170) IC (n=84) P PFS (Lenalidomide vs IC) Median PFS, mo (95% CI) 8.7 (5.54-12.14) 5.2 (3.67-6.95) Sequential HR (95% CI) 0.61 (0.44-0.84) Sequential log-rank test p-value 0.004 ORR, n (%) 68 (40) 9 (11) Disclosures Trneny: Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding. Walewski:Celgene: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy; Mundipharma : Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Jurczak:Celgene, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Spectrum, Takeda, Teva: Research Funding. Belada:Celgene: Research Funding. Mayer:Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Biyukov:Celgene: Employment. Patturajan:Celgene: Employment. Casadebaig Bravo:Celgene: Employment. Arcaini:Celgene, Roche, Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background:Ibrutinib, a potent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, is indicated for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (including 17p deletion), and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia. Because ibrutinib is extensively cleared by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, concomitant treatment with CYP3A inhibitors has been shown to increase ibrutinib exposure in healthy adults. However, sparse PK data from uncontrolled phase 2 studies with moderate CYP3A inhibitors showed a lower magnitude of drug-drug interactions (DDI) than observed in studies with healthy subjects or in silico simulations under nonfasted conditions (data on file). This phase 1 study was conducted to evaluate potential DDIs between ibrutinib and CYP3A inhibitors in patients with B-cell malignancies and to confirm recommended dose adjustments. Methods: This was an open-label, multicenter, DDI study of ibrutinib with erythromycin (moderate CYP3A inhibitor) and voriconazole (strong CYP3A inhibitor) in patients (≥ 18 years) with relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancy. During the first treatment cycle, patients received an oral dose of 560 mg ibrutinib on days 1-4 (steady-state) and days 14-18. On days 5-13 and 19-27, the dose was reduced to 140 mg ibrutinib and combined with erythromycin (500 mg tid on days 5-11) and then with voriconazole (200 mg bid on days 19-25). On PK sampling days (days 4 [alone], 11 [with erythromycin], and 25 [with voriconazole]), ibrutinib was administered 30 min before a standard breakfast. On these PK sampling days, the morning doses of voriconazole and erythromycin were administered 1 hr prior to ibrutinib and together with ibrutinib, respectively. PK samples were taken pre- and up to 24 hr postdose; key PK parameters were summarized for ibrutinib, PCI-45227 (ibrutinib metabolite), erythromycin, and voriconazole. After completion of the DDI assessment during cycle 1, patients continued treatment with ibrutinib monotherapy at therapeutic doses. Safety was evaluated throughout the study. Results:All patients (N = 26) completed the PK assessments in cycle 1; 54% were men, and the median age was 65 years. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) for dose-normalized maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hr (AUC24h) for ibrutinib was 3.35 and 2.99, respectively, when given in combination with erythromycin (Table). When ibrutinib was coadministered with voriconazole, the GMR for Cmax and AUC24h was 6.71 and 5.74, respectively (Table). Four out of 26 patients showed either no interaction between ibrutinib and erythromycin or a lower ibrutinib exposure (AUC ratios 0.27-0.99). Three of these 4 patients also displayed minimal interaction with voriconazole (AUC ratios 1.08-1.96); baseline ibrutinib AUCs for the 3 patients were at the high end of the range, indicating lower CYP3A abundance and thus less impact from CYP inhibition. Physiologically-based PK modeling under fed conditions predicted a 5.5- and 7.1-fold increase in the GMR for ibrutinib Cmax and AUC, respectively, when dosed with erythromycin and an increase of 6.3- and 7.6-fold, respectively, when dosed with voriconazole. The simulated interaction factor for voriconazole is contained in the 90% CI of the observed GMRs (borderline for AUC), whereas the model over-predicted Cmax and AUC by ~50% and ~130%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 22/26 patients (85%); The most common TEAEs (all causality, ≥ 10% of patients) were diarrhea (27%); neutropenia (23%); abdominal pain, fatigue, pyrexia, and thrombocytopenia (15% each); anemia, dry mouth, cough, dyspnea, and hypertension (12% each). Drug-related TEAEs ≥ grade 3 were neutropenia (15.4%); hypertension (7.7%); and diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, herpes zoster, cough, dyspnea, atrial fibrillation, and cardiac failure (3.8% each). Conclusions:PK data indicate that 140 mg ibrutinib, when combined with a moderate or strong CYP3A inhibitor, achieved exposures generally consistent with those after a 560 mg dose given alone. Coadministration of 140 mg ibrutinib with erythromycin or voriconazole demonstrated an acceptable safety profile, and the adverse event profile was consistent with the ibrutinib safety profile at therapeutic doses. These findings support the 140 mg/day ibrutinib dose when given in combination with erythromycin or voriconazole. Disclosures de Jong: Janssen: Employment. Hellemans:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. De Wilde:Janssen: Employment. Patricia:Janssen: Employment. Masterson:Janssen: Employment. Osmanov:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cordoba:Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Panizo:Roche Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de Zwart:Janssen: Employment. Snoeys:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chauhan:Janssen: Consultancy. Jiao:Janssen: Employment. Sukbuntherng:Pharmacyclics, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership; Global Blood Therapeutics: Equity Ownership. Ouellet:Janssen: Employment.

Background: While first line therapy for FL with chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy produces durable responses, most patients (pts) with FL eventually relapse. Those who become resistant to chemoimmunotherapy have limited treatment options. Ibrutinib, an inhibitor of BTK (Bruton's tyrosine kinase) and ITK (interleukin-2-inducible T-cell kinase), has demonstrated robust clinical activity in various B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Previous Phase 1 and 2 studies have shown promising results with single-agent ibrutinib in pts with relapsed or refractory FL (Bartlett NL. Blood. 2014; 800 & Fowler N. Blood. 2015; 2706). The aim of the DAWN study was to provide additional efficacy and safety data with single-agent ibrutinib in a chemoimmunotherapy-refractory FL pt population. Methods: The DAWN study (FLR2002) was an open-label, multicenter, single-arm, Phase 2 study of ibrutinib in pts with chemoimmunotherapy-refractory FL (NCT01779791). Eligible pts had ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy with documented progressive disease (PD) within 12 months after last dose of chemotherapy in a chemoimmunotherapy regimen comprising an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. All pts received 560 mg oral ibrutinib once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. A protocol amendment allowed clinically stable patients with radiographic PD to remain on ibrutinib to allow for the possibility of tumor flare and delayed responses. The primary objective was Independent Review Committee (IRC)-assessed objective response rate (ORR; complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]). Secondary/ exploratory objectives included duration of response (DoR), time to next treatment (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), resolution of lymphoma-related symptoms, and safety. Results: The final analysis included 110 pts enrolled at 45 centers in 10 countries. The median age was 61.5 years, median number of prior therapies was 3; 40.9% of pts had refractory disease (defined as failure to achieve at least PR to the last prior regimen). Median follow-up is 27.7 months and median (range) ibrutinib exposure was 7.0 (1-37) months. The mean (SD) ibrutinib exposure was 11.2 (9.9) months. The ORR by IRC was 20.9% (23/110) and CR rate was 10.9% (12/110) with a median duration of response of 19.4 months; of the 23 pts who responded, 5 had refractory disease. ORR was 24.7% in pts with non-bulky disease (longest diameter ≤6 cm). The disease control rate (CR + PR + stable disease [SD for ≥ 6 months]) was 56.3% (62/110). 30 pts were allowed to remain on ibrutinib after initial radiographic PD (termed pseudo-progression); 7 pts had IRC-confirmed response when allowed to remain on therapy. Median TTNT on ibrutinib was 16 months compared with 10 months on the last line of treatment prior to enrollment. Median PFS was 4.6 months. The median OS has not been reached; the 24-month OS was 63% (95% CI, 0.53-0.72). Of 39 pts who had lymphoma-related symptoms at baseline, resolution of symptoms was seen in 26 pts (66.7%), including 10 whose best response was SD and 8 pts who had PD. The median duration of symptom resolution was 10.4 months. The most common adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (50.9%; 51/56 pts had grade 1/2), fatigue (40.0%; 38/44 pts had grade 1/2), and cough (35.5%; all were grade 1/2). Serious AEs were reported in 48.2% of pts. Major hemorrhage and atrial fibrillation were consistent with previous reports at 3.6% and 9.1%, respectively. Seven pts (6.4%) discontinued ibrutinib because of an AE (none due to AF); 1 pt required a dose reduction due to AE. Biomarker analyses identifying classifiers for response or progression are ongoing. Conclusion: Treatment with single-agent ibrutinib in pts with chemoimmunotherapy-refractory FL achieved durable responses of 20.9%. The clinical benefit for these pts is also supported by disease control rate, resolution of symptoms, TTNT and OS. Safety results in this study were consistent with the current known profile of ibrutinib; the majority of events reported were grade 1/2. In pts with chemoimmunotherapy-refractory FL who have limited treatment options, treatment with ibrutinib resulted in a clinical benefit with acceptable safety and good tolerability. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Gopal: Paid Consultancy- Gilead, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Spectrum, Research funding- Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, Merck, Teva, Takeda, Spectrum, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Schuster:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Research & Development: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Fowler:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hess:Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche, CTI, Pfizer, Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Yacoub:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Martin:Novartis: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Vitolo:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jurczak:Morphosys: Consultancy; Acerta, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Gillead, Janssen, Celtrion, Bayer, Morphosys, Takeda, Servier, Teva, and Roche: Research Funding; Sandoz - Novartis, Morphosys, Roche: Speakers Bureau. Osmanov:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Gartenberg:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Vermeulen:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Balasubramanian:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Wang:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Deshpande:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Salles:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: CT-P10 is a biosimilar candidate to the reference rituximab product, EU-approved MabThera® and US-licensed Rituxan®. CT-P10 has an identical amino acid sequence and highly similar physicochemical and in vitro functional properties to its reference drug. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, CT-P10 has demonstrated compelling similarity in pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), efficacy, safety and immunogenicity (Yoo DH, et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(10):1736). Objective: The goal of this study was to demonstrate PK similarity of CT-P10 to rituximab, each administered in combination with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) in patients with newly diagnosed Advanced Follicular Lymphoma (AFL) (NCT02162771) (Kim WS et al. Blood. 2015;126(23): 5111). The results of PK, PD, safety and immunogenicity up to Core Cycle 4 (12 weeks) are presented here from this ongoing study. Methods: Patients with AFL were randomized 1:1 to receive infusion (375mg/m2) of either CT-P10 or rituximab, at a 3-week interval, in combination with CVP. PK analysis was conducted in terms of AUCtau and Cmax at steady state, Core Cycle 4, as primary PK endpoints. PK parameter values considered as outliers determined by robust regression outlier testing were excluded from the pharmacokinetic primary analysis. Results: In total, 121 patients were randomly assigned to receive either CT-P10 (n=59) or rituximab (n=62) in combination with CVP. Result of CT-P10 PK at Core Cycle 4 was similar to that of rituximab. The ratios (90% CI) of geometric least square means (CT-P10 to rituximab treatment group) were 102.3% (94.1%-111.2%) for AUCtau and 100.7% (93.8%-108.0%) for CmaxSS at Core Cycle 4. The 90% CIs of ratio of geometric LS means for both AUCtau and CmaxSS were entirely contained within the equivalence margin of 80% to 125% (Table 1 and Figure 1). Mean serum concentrations of the study drug were highly similar for the 2 treatment groups at each time point (Core Cycle 1 to 4). The B-cell kinetics was similar up to Core Cycle 4 in the 2 treatment groups. Median number of B-cells decreased to below the lower limit of quantification (LLoQ) (20 cells/μL) 1 hour after the end of infusion at Core Cycle 1 and remained below the LLoQ at each subsequent cycle, up to and including Core Cycle 4. The proportion of patients with a positive anti-drug antibody up to Core Cycle 4 at post-treatment visits was similar between the 2 treatment groups; 3/59 (5.1%) patients and 2/62 (3.2%) patients in the CT-P10 and rituximab groups, respectively. In addition, CT-P10 was well tolerated and the safety profile of CT-P10 up to Core Cycle 4 was similar to that of rituximab. The number of patients who experienced at least 1 treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) was 43 (72.9%) patients and 41 (66.1%) patients in CT-P10 and rituximab treatment groups, respectively. The proportion of patients who experienced at least 1 treatment emergent serious adverse event considered by the investigator to be related to the study treatment was similar between the 2 treatment groups; 2/59 (3.4%) patients and 2/62 (3.2%) patients in the CT-P10 and rituximab groups, respectively. The frequencies of adverse events special interest (AESI) were similar between the 2 treatment groups (Table 2). Conclusion: This study demonstrated similarity of PK in terms of AUCtau and CmaxSS between CT-P10 and rituximab in AFL patients. The B-cell kinetics and immunogenicity were comparable between the two treatment groups. CT-P10 was well tolerated with a safety profile comparable to that of rituximab up to and including Core Cycle 4 (12 weeks). Table 1 Statistical Analysis of Rituximab Pharmacokinetic Primary Endpoints for Core Cycle 4 at Steady State: Pharmacokinetic Population Table 1. Statistical Analysis of Rituximab Pharmacokinetic Primary Endpoints for Core Cycle 4 at Steady State: Pharmacokinetic Population Figure 1 Mean (±SD) Serum Concentration of Rituximab Versus Time for Cycle 4 at Steady State (Linear Scale): Pharmacokinetic Population Figure 1. Mean (±SD) Serum Concentration of Rituximab Versus Time for Cycle 4 at Steady State (Linear Scale): Pharmacokinetic Population Table 2 The Incidence Rates of Adverse Events Special Interest: Safety Population Table 2. The Incidence Rates of Adverse Events Special Interest: Safety Population Disclosures Coiffier: Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sancho:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion, Inc: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Jurczak:Celltrion, Inc: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kim:Celltrion, Inc.: Research Funding. Nagarkar:Celltrion, Inc.: Research Funding. Zhavrid:Celltrion, Inc.: Research Funding. Hernandez Rivas:Celltrion, Inc.: Research Funding. Prokharau:Celltrion, Inc.: Research Funding. Zodelava:Celltrion, Inc.: Research Funding. Osmanov:Celltrion, Inc.: Research Funding. Ogura:SymBio Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Buske:Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kwak:Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy. Kim:Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction The AETHERA trial is a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01100502), which evaluated whether post-ASCT consolidation treatment with brentuximab vedotin (BV) could prevent disease progression in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients at high risk for relapse. The study met its primary endpoint: significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review with BV versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57, P=0.001) (Moskowitz, 2015). The 2 most common adverse events (AEs) in the BV- treatment group were peripheral sensory neuropathy (56%) and neutropenia (35%). We are presenting updated efficacy and safety data after approximately 1 additional year of follow-up after the primary analysis. Methods Patients were randomized to receive BV 1.8 mg/kg q3wk or placebo for 16 cycles (approximately 12 months), 30-45 days after transplantation. Randomization was stratified by response to frontline therapy and by best clinical response to pre-ASCT salvage therapy. Patients whose disease had progressed after salvage treatment were not eligible. Patients received CT scans quarterly for the first year and then at 18 and 24 months during long-term follow-up (LTFU). Clinical lymphoma assessments were performed at each cycle of treatment, quarterly during the first year of LTFU, and every 6 months thereafter. AEs were collected for 30 days after the end of treatment, except for peripheral neuropathies and secondary malignancies, which were followed throughout LTFU. Clinical responses to subsequent BV treatment received after progression were also recorded. Results A total of 329 patients were randomized to the BV- (n=165) or placebo- (n=164) treatment arms. Median PFS per investigator assessment was not reached (95% CI not estimable [NE]-NE) in the BV arm and was 15.8 months (95% CI 8.5-44.0) in the placebo arm (HR=0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.71). A sustained plateau with substantial separation is evident between both treatment groups, with improved PFS at 3-years post-randomization with BV consolidation versus placebo (Figure). The 3-year PFS rate was 61% (95% CI 52-68) for the BV arm and 43% (95% CI 36-51) for the placebo arm. Six PFS events (2 progressions and 4 deaths) were recorded after the 24-month evaluation period in the BV arm and 3 in the placebo arm (2 progressions and 1 death). The HR for PFS per independent review was 0.58 (95% CI 0.41-0.82). No new secondary malignancies have been observed since the primary analysis. The number of cases were comparable between the 2 treatment arms (n=4 BV, n=2 placebo). Malignancies on the BV arm included bladder cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). In the placebo arm, secondary malignancies included mantle cell lymphoma and myelodysplastic syndrome (n=1 each). Among the 112 patients on the BV arm who experienced treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy based on a Standardised Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Query (SMQ) analysis, 99 patients (88%) experienced some improvement (23%) or complete resolution (65%) of neuropathy symptoms at the time of analysis. Discontinuation of treatment due to an AE occurred in 54 patients (33%) on the BV arm, most commonly due to peripheral sensory and motor neuropathies (14% and 7%, respectively). Patients who discontinued treatment as a result of an AE received a median of 9.5 cycles (range, 1 to 15) on the BV arm. The 2-year PFS rate in these patients was 69% (95% CI 54-79) versus 82% (95% CI 71-89) for patients who completed all 16 treatment cycles. Conclusions Consolidation treatment with BV in HL patients at high risk of relapse after ASCT showed an improvement in PFS versus placebo, approximately 3 years since the last patient was randomized. Kaplan-Meier analysis of PFS per investigator assessment showed a continued benefit of BV consolidation. No additional secondary malignancies have been observed in either treatment arm and most patients experienced resolution of peripheral neuropathy symptoms. We are currently analyzing clinical responses to BV treatment after disease progression. Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival per Investigator Assessment Disclosures Sweetenham: Seattle Genetics Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated in the US for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. This study investigates the use of brentuximab vedotin for consolidation therapy soon after ASCT. . Walewski:Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Janssen-Cilag; Mundipharma; Roche; Takeda; Teva: Consultancy; Bayer (Inst); Bayer/Onyx (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celltrion (Inst); Gilead Sciences (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); Mundipharma (Inst); Pfizer (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche/Genentech (Inst); Seattle Geneti: Research Funding. Nademanee:Celgene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy. Masszi:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Agura:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Holowiecki:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Travel expenses. Abidi:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Chen:Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Advisory Board. Stiff:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Viviani:Italfarmaco SpA: Consultancy; Teva Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda Italia SpA: Consultancy; Takeda International: Consultancy. Carella:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Osmanov:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sureda:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Huebner:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larsen:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunder:Seattle Genetics Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Background For the past 20 years, high-dose therapy plus autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been the standard of care for patients (pts) with chemosensitive relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), providing a cure for approximately 50% of pts (Sureda 2005). Despite optimization of salvage chemotherapy, supportive care, and pt selection, improvements in outcomes post-ASCT have plateaued, likely due to disease progression (PD) in pts with pre-salvage therapy risk factors. The majority of pts with multiple risk factors will progress post-ASCT and novel therapy is urgently needed. Brentuximab vedotin (ADCETRIS®) comprises an anti-CD30 antibody conjugated by a protease-cleavable linker to a microtubule-disrupting agent, monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), and has an objective response rate of 75% in relapsed or refractory HL. The AETHERA trial was initiated to evaluate whether early treatment with brentuximab vedotin post-ASCT can prevent progression in pts with HL (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01100502). Methods The AETHERA trial is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Pts were enrolled in 1 of 3 high-risk categories: refractory to frontline therapy: 196 pts (60%), relapse Results A total of 329 pts were randomized at 78 sites in the United States and Europe. Of the 329 enrolled pts, 327 received study treatment. The median age was 32 years (range, 18–76) and 53% were male. The median number of prior systemic therapies (frontline and salvage) was 2 (range, 2–8); 47% of pts received more than 2 prior systemic therapies. Response to salvage therapy pre-ASCT was CR: 137 pts (42%), PR: 112 pts (34%), and stable disease (SD): 80 pts (24%). Prior to pre-ASCT salvage therapy, 106 pts (32%) had extranodal involvement and 87 pts (26%) had B symptoms. Prior to ASCT, 110 pts (33%) were PET negative, 116 pts (35%) were PET-positive and PET status was unknown for 103 pts (31%). Overall, 78% of pts had multiple risk factors for progression. All pts had completed or discontinued study treatment as of August 2013. The median number of treatment cycles was 15, and 159 pts (49%) received 16 cycles. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were: PD: 93 pts (28%), adverse event (AE): 61 pts (19%), patient decision: 15 pts (5%), and investigator decision: 1 pt ( AEs of any grade in >15% of pts were peripheral sensory neuropathy (36%), upper respiratory tract infection (25%), neutropenia (24%), fatigue (21%), cough (19%), and pyrexia (17%). Grade 3 or higher AEs in ≥10 pts were neutropenia (20%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (6%), thrombocytopenia (3%), and peripheral motor neuropathy (3%). As assessed by a Standardised MedDRA Query, 144 pts (44%) had treatment-emergent events of peripheral neuropathy (PN). Grade 3 PN was reported for 23 pts (7%) and was mostly sensory; no Grade 4 events were observed. Resolution or at least 1 grade of improvement in PN has occurred in 80% of pts with neuropathy events; the median time to resolution or improvement was 11.7 weeks (range, 0.1–128.0 weeks). Conclusions Based on analysis of blinded pooled efficacy data, the estimated 2-year PFS rate was 54% and the estimated 2 year OS rate was 88%. The most common reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression. The primary analysis for the study will be performed in September 2014 and unblinded efficacy and safety data will be publicly presented for the first time at the conference. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Moskowitz: Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated in the US for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. Nadamanee:Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Masszi:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Agura:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Holowiecki:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Abidi:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Chen:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Stiff:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Gianni:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Carella:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Osmanov:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sweetenham:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sureda:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Huebner:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment, Research Funding. Larsen:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hunder:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Walewski:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda Poland: Consultancy, Travel expenses, Travel expenses Other.