Abstract: Introduction Every year, approximately 110,000 cancer patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy in the US endure at least one episode of febrile neutropenia (FN). Each FN episode will require an approximate 8-9-day admission costing $25,000 and may have associated mortality rates as high as 7% . Timely detection and awareness of severe neutropenia (i.e., Absolute Neutrophil Count (ANC) & lt;500/µL) is key to managing FN. The current gold standard relies on blood draws and analysis is hence limited to the clinical setting. We have developed PointCheck™, a noninvasive, portable technology (Fig. 1-A) that can automatically monitor for severe neutropenia and enables prompt detection in the home- as described in Bourquard et al (2018) and Pablo-Trinidad et al (2019). Methods We conducted a multicenter study to evaluate the usability and diagnostic performance of PointCheck™ in a cohort of 26 participants. The primary study objectives were to assess device usability when operated by first-time users and to meet a priori specified diagnostic performance goals in achieving 92% sensitivity (true positive rate) and 80% specificity (true negative rate). Study coordinators read a short script providing the participants with information about how to use the device. In addition, participants watched a 1-minute tutorial video, were provided with a one-page user guide before attempting to take a measurement on their own following the on-screen Graphical User Interface instructions (Fig. 1-B). They did so autonomously to simulate home usage. Usability data was collected using a combination of methods, including the think-aloud technique, a short-answer qualitative questionnaire, and a standardized quantitative System Usability Survey (SUS)- a usability evaluation method widely used in UI/UX design comprising 10 questions. Participants were also given the opportunity to document their thoughts, feelings, and experience using the device in the form of an e-questionnaire containing 4 questions about their perceptions. Design and functionality issues were primarily identified by the research staff through observation of participants and documentation of missed or incorrectly completed steps. Participants also had their blood drawn for a comparison with their complete blood count (CBC) to assess diagnostic performance. PointCheck™ measurement results were compared with clinical standard CBC tests and assessed for accuracy in classifying subjects as severely neutropenic ( & lt;500/µL, grade IV neutropenia) or non-severely neutropenic (≥500/µL). Results Usability and diagnostic performance data was gathered from untrained cancer patients and healthy volunteers. We included patients with lymphoma and myeloma, among other tumor types, who visited either Boston Medical Center (BMC) and Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre (H12O) for routine chemotherapy administration. The healthy volunteers were recruited at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Clinical Research Center (MITCRC). The PointCheck™ device detected severe neutropenia with 92% sensitivity and 83% specificity in 24 subjects (Fig. 1-C). Two out of 26 subjects were flagged and excluded by the device Quality Control system. With respect to usability, we found that 80.8% of participants scored above 80.8 on the SUS scale across all sites, with a mean SUS score of 89.1 across all sites (Fig. 1-D). The most common user errors seen were incorrect placement of the finger, hand, and arm. Discussion We have shown that PointCheck™, a novel technology for non-invasive, home-based neutropenia detection, is accurate and easy to use by first-time users in a simulated home environment with a mean SUS score of 89.1, indicating above average perception of user experience and falling within the top 10% of systems as evaluated by the SUS scale. The technology accurately detects severe neutropenia in the cohort of patients presented here, which included liquid tumors, other cancer conditions, and healthy volunteers. These preliminary results show that PointCheck™ is a promising technology to aid in the detection of severe neutropenia in the home setting. These results need to be confirmed in a larger patient cohort with a final device design. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lamaj: Leuko Labs, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties. Pablo-Trinidad: Leuko Labs, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties. Butterworth: Leuko Labs, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Bell: Leuko Labs, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties. Benasutti: Leuko Labs, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties. Verdone: Leuko Labs, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Bourquard: Leuko Labs, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties. Sanchez-Ferro: Leuko Labs, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties. Castro-Gonzalez: Leuko Labs, Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Martínez-López: Roche, Novartis, Incyte, Astellas, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen, BMS, Novartis, Incyte, Roche, GSK, Pfizer: Consultancy. Sloan: Pharmacosmos: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria; Stemline: Honoraria.

Abstract: Abstract 2027 BACKGROUND: The identification of minimal residual disease (MRD) can predict impending relapse in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. Little data exists evaluating the prognostic impact of MRD, as determined by multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC), at the time of allogeneic (allo-HCT). Although disease outcomes may be worse for MRD positive (MRD+) patients, MRD is often associated with other adverse risk factors leaving it unclear whether MRD is an independent risk factor for relapse or a surrogate marker for underlying poor risk disease features. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 97 consecutive AML patients in complete morphological remission (CR) who underwent allo-HCT with a matched related donor (MRD, n=30, 31%), matched unrelated donor (MUD, n=4, 4%) or umbilical cord blood (UCB, n=63, 65%) at the University of Minnesota between January 2005 and June 2009. Presence of MRD at allo-HCT was determined by MFC. Analyses were done separately for myeloablative (MAC) and reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) patients, testing the impact of MRD along with conditioning intensity, age, donor type and disease status on allo-HCT outcomes. RESULTS: Of 97 patients, 41 (42%) had MAC; 57 (58%) had RIC. Sixty-six were in first CR (CR1) with the rest in CR2 or later remission (CR2+). MRD at allo-HCT was detected in 7 patients after MAC (17%) and 7 after RIC (12.5%); and this frequency was similar in patients in CR1 and CR2+ (13% vs. 16%, p=0.7). MRD+ and MRD- patients had similar median age (40 vs. 44 yrs), gender, donor source (MSD or MUD vs. UCB), CMV serostatus and diagnostic cytogenetic risk group. Six of 40 (15%) intermediate and 5 of 39 (13%) high risk cytogenetics patients had MRD+ (p=0.8). Only 3 of 53 patients with a cytogenetic abnormality at diagnosis had it detected prior allo-HCT and 1 of 3 had MRD. The median follow-up of survivors was 25 months. Two-year probabilities for MAC and RIC patients were similar: Overall survival (OS), 48% and 47 % and leukemia free survival (LFS) 43% and 41% respectively. When disease outcomes were analyzed separately by MRD status (table), OS and LFS were markedly worse in MRD+ patients receiving RIC, but this difference was not statistically significant. In multivariate analysis, MRD+ was not an independent prognostic factor for OS and LFS. Although we identified no adverse prognostic factors for MAC patients, patient with RIC in CR2+ had worse OS and LFS vs. CR1 (HR 2.6, p=0.04 and HR 2.7, p=0.04 respectively). CONCLUSION: The negative prognostic impact of MRD was overcome by allo-HCT with MAC, but outcomes with MRD+ were suggestively inferior after RIC. However due to limited sample size, MRD in patients with RIC should be further investigated. Disclosures: Weisdorf: Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: T cell lymphomas (TCL) have been known to exhibit epigenetic dysregulation and aberrant cell signaling. Tenalisib (RP6530), a highly selective PI3K δ/γ+SIK3 inhibitor has shown clinically promising activity as a single agent in TCL with a differentiated and favorable safety profile. In vitro studies in TCL cell lines showed increased apoptosis when tenalisib was combined with romidepsin (Rhizen data on file). A Phase I/II study of tenalisib in combination with romidepsin was designed to assess safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy in relapsed/refractory TCL (NCT03770000). Methods: This is a multi-center, open label, Phase I/II study in patients with T cell lymphoma (PTCL and CTCL). The Phase I is a 3+3 dose escalation study to determine the MTD/optimal dose. The Phase II is an expansion cohort at the MTD/optimal dose of the combination. Tenalisib was administered orally at doses of 400, 600 and 800 mg BID in combination with romidepsin (12 & 14 mg/m2, Q3W). The objectives of the study are to establish safety, MTD/optimal dose, pharmacokinetics and anti-tumor activity of the combination. We report the dose escalation results and preliminary data from the expansion cohorts. Results: A total 15 patients were enrolled between July 24, 2019 and July 20, 2020. Baseline demographics are presented in Table 1. Patients had a median of 3 (range; 1-17) prior treatments and 11 (73%) were refractory to their last therapy. About 67% (6/9) of CTCL patients had prior mogamulizumab therapy. No DLT was reported in the dose escalation phase and Tenalisib 800 mg BID+ Romidepsin 14 mg/m2, Q3W was considered as the optimal dose for expansion cohorts. PK analysis showed linear and dose-dependent kinetics for tenalisib. Co-administration of romidepsin along with tenalisib did not significantly alter the mutual PK of either agents. Fifteen patients were assessed for safety. Most common treatment emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (33%), thrombocytopenia (33%) and fatigue (27%). Related ≥ Grade 3 AEs were seen in 5 (33%) patients. These included thrombocytopenia (7%), atrial fibrillation (7%) and pyrexia (7%) which were related to romidepsin while anemia (7%) neutropenia (7%) and rash (7%) were considered related to the combination. There were no instances of transaminitis or colitis. None of the TEAEs led to study discontinuation. Patients from the dose escalation cohorts (n=9) were evaluated for response. Three patients (3/9) showed complete response (CR), 4 patients (4/9) showed stable disease (SD) while 2 patients (2/9) had progressive disease (PD). Out of the three responders, two were PTCL (AITL) patients, one of which is planned for transplantation, while the third patient was a CTCL (Sezary syndrome) patient who had progressed on prior mogamulizumab therapy. This patient showed rapid reduction of Sezary cell count after 2 cycles of treatment. Three patients (2 CR, 1 SD) are currently ongoing with a median duration of response being 9.0 (range; 7.6-10.5+) months. The expansion cohort has 6 patients and is currently enrolling. Conclusions: The combination of tenalisib and romidepsin demonstrates a favorable safety profile and promising indicators of combined anti-tumour activity in patients with R/R TCL. The expansion cohort in CTCL and PTCL is currently underway to validate these encouraging early results. Updated results will be presented during the ASH meeting. Disclosures Iyer: Afffimed: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Curio Biosciences: Honoraria; Trillium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Target Oncology: Honoraria; Spectrum: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; CRISPR: Research Funding. Huen:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Galderma: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Helsinn: Consultancy; Medivir: Research Funding. Haverkos:Viracta THerapeutics: Consultancy. Ai:ADC Therapeutics, Kymera: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nurix Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kuzel:Eselixis, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genomic Health: Honoraria; Sanofi/Genzyme: Honoraria; Bioarray: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Marck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alderuccio:ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Family member; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Family member; Forma Therapeutics: Other: Family member; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Oncinfo: Honoraria; OncLive: Honoraria. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Feldman:Viracta: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Eisai: Research Funding. Jagadeesh:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Debiopharm Group: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Reddy:KITE Pharma, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS: Research Funding. Routhu:Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A & gt;.: Current Employment. Barde:Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Current Employment. Nair:Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A.: Current Employment.

Abstract: We examined adults with untreated Burkitt lymphoma (BL) from 2009 to 2018 across 30 US cancer centers. Factors associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in univariate and multivariate Cox models. Among 641 BL patients, baseline features included the following: median age, 47 years; HIV+, 22%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2 to 4, 23%; & gt;1 extranodal site, 43%; advanced stage, 78%; and central nervous system (CNS) involvement, 19%. Treatment-related mortality was 10%, with most common causes being sepsis, gastrointestinal bleed/perforation, and respiratory failure. With 45-month median follow-up, 3-year PFS and OS rates were 64% and 70%, respectively, without differences by HIV status. Survival was better for patients who received rituximab vs not (3-year PFS, 67% vs 38%; OS, 72% vs 44%; P & lt; .001) and without difference based on setting of administration (ie, inpatient vs outpatient). Outcomes were also improved at an academic vs community cancer center (3-year PFS, 67% vs 46%, P = .006; OS, 72% vs 53%, P = .01). In multivariate models, age ≥ 40 years (PFS, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.70, P = .001; OS, HR = 2.09, P & lt; .001), ECOG PS 2 to 4 (PFS, HR = 1.60, P & lt; .001; OS, HR = 1.74, P = .003), lactate dehydrogenase & gt; 3× normal (PFS, HR = 1.83, P & lt; .001; OS, HR = 1.63, P = .009), and CNS involvement (PFS, HR = 1.52, P = .017; OS, HR = 1.67, P = .014) predicted inferior survival. Furthermore, survival varied based on number of factors present (0, 1, 2 to 4 factors) yielding 3-year PFS rates of 91%, 73%, and 50%, respectively; and 3-year OS rates of 95%, 77%, and 56%, respectively. Collectively, outcomes for adult BL in this real-world analysis appeared more modest compared with results of clinical trials and smaller series. In addition, clinical prognostic factors at diagnosis identified patients with divergent survival rates.

Abstract: Background: BL is associated with a high risk of primary or secondary CNS involvement, warranting intrathecal (IT) and/or systemic therapy that penetrates the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The lower-intensity DA-EPOCH-R regimen has recently shown high survival rates in BL (Dunleavy, NEJM 2013), but it omits drugs traditionally used for CNS prophylaxis (like high-dose methotrexate [HDMTX]). The objective of this multi-institutional retrospective study was to examine treatments, risk factors, and CNS-related outcomes among patients (pts) with BL. Methods: We collected data from 26 US centers on adult BL pts diagnosed (dx) in 6/2009-6/2018. Using institutional expert pathology review and 2016 WHO criteria, we excluded other high-grade lymphomas (including BL-like/unclassifiable), or cases with inadequate clinicopathologic data. We studied factors associated with baseline CNS involvement (CNSinv) using logistic regression reporting odds ratios (OR). Progression-free (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence function of CNS recurrence (in a competing risk analysis) were examined in Cox or Fine-Gray models reporting hazard (HR) or subhazard ratios (SHR), respectively. All estimates report 95% confidence intervals (in square brackets). Results: Among 557 BL pts (median age, 47 years [yr], 24% women, 23% HIV+), 107 (19%) had CNSinv at dx, including 89 (16%) with leptomeningeal, and 15 (3%) with parenchymal CNS disease. In a multivariable model, factors significantly associated with CNSinv at dx included stage 3/4 (OR, 11.2 [1.47-85.9] ), poor performance status (PS; OR, 2.12 [1.22-3.69]), ≥2 extranodal sites (OR, 3.77 [2.02-7.03] ), or marrow involvement (OR, 2.44 [1.35-4.39]), whereas intestinal involvement conferred low risk of CNSinv (OR, 0.27 [0.11-0.65] ). CNSinv at dx was not significantly associated with use of specific chemotherapy regimens (Fig. A,P=.75) or receipt of IT chemotherapy (91% vs 84%, P=.065). Pts with CNSinv were less likely to achieve a complete response (62% vs 76%, P=.005), had worse 3 yr PFS (47% vs 69%; P & lt;.001, Fig. B) and OS (52% vs 75%; P & lt;.001, Fig. C). However, these associations were not significant when adjusted for other prognostic factors (age ≥40y, poor PS, LDH & gt;3x upper limit of normal [LDH & gt;3x]; see Evens AM et al, ASH 2019 for further details). With median follow up of 3.6 yrs, 33 pts (6%) experienced a CNS recurrence (82% within 1 yr from dx; 79% purely in CNS, and 21% with concurrent systemic BL). The cumulative risk of CNS recurrence was 6% [4-8%] at 3y (Fig. D). Univariate significant predictors of CNS recurrence included baseline CNSinv, HIV+ status, stage 3/4, poor PS, LDH & gt;3x, involvement of ≥2 extranodal sites, marrow, or testis. However, in a multivariate model only baseline CNSinv (SHR, 3.35 [1.53-7.31]) and poor PS (SHR, 2.24 [1.03-4.90] ) retained significance. The 3 yr risk of CNS recurrence varied from 3% for pts with no risk factor, to 10% with one, and 17% with both factors (Fig. E). In addition, the risk of CNS recurrence differed according to chemotherapy regimen, and was significantly higher for pts treated with DA-EPOCH (12% at 3y [8-18%]; Fig. F) compared with CODOX-M/IVAC (4% [2-8%] ) or hyperCVAD/MA (3% [1-6%]; SHR for DA-EPOCH vs. others, 3.50 [1.69-7.22] ). All pts recurring after DA-EPOCH had received IT chemotherapy. Higher risk of CNS recurrence persisted with DA-EPOCH regardless of baseline CNSinv (Pinteraction=.70), poor PS (Pint=.14), or HIV status (Pint=.89). Baseline CNSinv was the strongest factor associated with CNS recurrence after DA-EPOCH (3 yr risk, 30% vs 8%, P & lt;.001). Of 7 pts who received HDMTX with DA-EPOCH (6 with leptomeningeal CNSinv at dx), 3 (43%) experienced CNS recurrence. Median OS among all BL pts with CNS recurrence was 2.8 months [1.9-3.9] (Fig. G). After recurrence, 67% of pts received salvage systemic and 9% IT chemotherapy, 3% radiation, and 21% hospice care. Conclusions: In adult BL, baseline CNSinv and poor PS predicted subsequent CNS recurrence, an outcome that is associated with a dismal prognosis. Furthermore, treatment with DA-EPOCH was associated with a significantly increased risk of CNS recurrence in this real-world analysis. For BL pts with baseline CNSinv treated in routine clinical practice, regimens with highly BBB-penetrant drugs (e.g. CODOX-M/IVAC, hyperCVAD/MA) may be preferred. Studies should delineate ways to mitigate the risk of CNS recurrence with lower-intensity programs. Disclosures Evens: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Affimed: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: DMC; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Smith:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding. Naik:Celgene: Other: Advisory board. Reddy:KITE Pharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Khan:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Other: Educational Content/Symposium; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers: Other: Research Funds. Alderuccio:Puma Biotechnology: Other: Immediate family member; Agios: Other: Immediate family member; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncLive: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Other: Immediate family member. Yazdy:Bayer: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. 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. Karmali:Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Martin:Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy. Magarelli:Tevan Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; University of Colorado: Employment. Portell:Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding. Olszewski:Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract: In the pivotal study ECHELON-1, brentuximab vedotin (BV), doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) demonstrated superior efficacy compared to bleomycin+AVD (ABVD) for the treatment of advanced-stage classic Hodgkin's lymphoma (cHL). However, there is minimal available data regarding the frequency of dose reductions or omission of BV during curative therapy and the potential impact on patient outcomes. In a real-world analysis, we retrospectively reviewed the characteristics and outcomes of 179 stage III and IV cHL patients treated with frontline A+AVD from January 2010 through April 2022. Treatment consisted of up to 1.2 mg/kg of BV and standard dose AVD intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. At the time of treatment, the median age was 37 years, and high-risk International Prognostic Score was observed in 46% of patients. Overall, 91% of patients received six cycles of AVD; 55% of patients did not receive the intended cumulative dose of BV (CDB); 28% of patients received two-thirds or less than the planned CDB. At a median follow-up time of 27.4 months (95% CI: 24.8 - 29 months), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached, and the 12-month PFS was 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.9-95.0). The impact of CDB on PFS was not significant (p-value=0.15), nor was high CDB significantly associated with increased adverse events (AE). In real-world experience, A+AVD is a highly effective treatment for patients with advanced-stage cHL, including for patients with prominent dose reductions of BV.

Abstract: Data addressing prognostication in patients with HIV related Burkitt lymphoma (HIV-BL) currently treated remain scarce. We present an international analysis of 249 (United States: 140; United Kingdom: 109) patients with HIV-BL treated from 2008 to 2019 aiming to identify prognostic factors and outcomes. With a median follow up of 4.5 years, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 61% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55% to 67%) and 66% (95%CI 59% to 71%), respectively, with similar results in both countries. Patients with baseline central nervous system (CNS) involvement had shorter 3-year PFS (36%) compared to patients without CNS involvement (69%; P & lt; .001) independent of frontline treatment. The incidence of CNS recurrence at 3 years across all treatments was 11% with a higher incidence observed after dose-adjusted infusional etoposide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, cyclophosphamide (DA-EPOCH) (subdistribution hazard ratio: 2.52; P = .03 vs other regimens) without difference by CD4 count 100/mm3. In multivariate models, factors independently associated with inferior PFS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 2-4 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87; P = .007), baseline CNS involvement (HR 1.70; P = .023), lactate dehydrogenase & gt;5 upper limit of normal (HR 2.09; P & lt; .001); and & gt;1 extranodal sites (HR 1.58; P = .043). The same variables were significant in multivariate models for OS. Adjusting for these prognostic factors, treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate, ifosfamide, etoposide, and high-dose cytarabine (CODOX-M/IVAC) was associated with longer PFS (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.45; P = .005) and OS (aHR 0.44; P = .007). Remarkably, HIV features no longer influence prognosis in contemporaneously treated HIV-BL.

Abstract: Introduction: There are few data about prognostication and outcomes in patients (pts) with HIV-BL treated in the cART era. Optimal treatment strategies to minimize treatment-related mortality (TRM) remain unclear and current recommendations are based on small studies. We conducted a multicenter international analysis to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in pts with HIV-BL treated in the cART era. Methods: This retrospective analysis included a subcohort from a recent study across 30 US sites (Evens et al. Blood 2020) augmented by data from 5 UK centers treated 2009-2018. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier & differences assessed by log-rank test. Univariate (UVA) associations were derived via Cox model and multivariable (MVA) models were constructed by forward selection of significant variables with P & lt;0.05. Results: 249 (US: 140 & UK: 109) pts with newly diagnosed HIV-BL were included. Clinical features included median age 43 (IQR 35-50 years [yrs]); male sex: 84%; ECOG PS: 2-4: 48%; elevated LDH: 85% ( & gt; 3x upper limit of normal (ULN) 49% & & gt;5xULN 39%); & gt;1 extranodal (EN) site: 60%; any CNS involvement (CNSinv) 25%; and +bone marrow (BM) 46%. MYC rearrangement was reported in 93% of pts with t(8;14) in 49%, break-apart probe in 41% and MYC-light chain in 3%; the rest had classical BL with negative MYC testing (4%) or missing result (3%) (otherwise classical BL). Median CD4 count was 217 (IQR 90-392 cells/µL) with 68% pts having CD4 & gt;100 cells/µL. At BL diagnosis, HIV viral load was detectable in 55%; 39% of pts were on cART. Baseline features were similar between the US & UK cohorts with significant differences only in ECOG PS 2-4 (32% vs 65%; P & lt;0.001) & baseline CNSinv (30% vs 17%, respectively; P=0.02). Tx regimens included: CODOX-M/IVAC (Magrath) 60%, DA-EPOCH 25%, HyperCVAD/MA 13%, & other 1%; most pts (87%) received rituximab (R). Similar regimens were used in pts with baseline CNSinv: Magrath 64%, DA-EPOCH 24% & HyperCVAD 12%. In the US, pts most frequently received DA-EPOCH (42%) followed by Magrath (32%) & HyperCVAD/MA (24%), whereas in the UK, 96% received Magrath. R was more frequently given in the US (94% vs 79%, P & lt;0.001). Similar baseline features were seen in US pts selected for DA-EPOCH as those selected for Magrath or HyperCVAD/MA except for lower median CD4 count (144 vs 260 cells/µL; P=0.04). Overall response to Tx was: CR 70%, PR 9%, PD 14%, not evaluable 7%. TRM was 18% following HyperCVAD/MA, 13% after DA-EPOCH & 7% in patients treated with Magrath. Overall, 33% of pts had a relapse of HIV-BL with 23% systemic only & 10% CNS. With median follow-up of 4.5 yrs, 3-yr PFS & OS were 61% & 66%, respectively, and nearly identical in both countries (Fig A). Pts with CD4 & gt;100 cells/µL had better 3-yr PFS (Fig B) & OS (68% vs 57% P=0.03). We observed significantly worse outcomes in pts with baseline CNSinv (3-yr PFS 36% vs 69%, P & lt;0.001; OS 41% vs 73%, P & lt;0.001; Fig C). Magrath was associated with the highest 3-yr PFS (66%) compared with 63% after HyperCVAD/MA & 51% after DA-EPOCH, but the difference was not significant (P=0.13; Fig D). Pts receiving R had numerically higher PFS, but also not statistically significant (63% vs 53% P=0.16). We observed poor outcomes in pts with baseline CNSinv regardless of frontline Tx (3-yr PFS HyperCVAD/MA 40%, Magrath 39%, DA-EPOCH 32%; P=0.93; Fig E). The incidence of CNS recurrence at 3 yr across all Tx was 11%. Higher incidence was observed with DA-EPOCH (P=0.032 vs other regimens; Fig F) with no difference according to CD4 count. Variables associated with PFS & OS on UVA included: ECOG PS 2-4, & gt;1 EN, +BM, baseline CNSinv, LDH & gt;ULN, CD4 & lt;100 cells/µL. On MVA, the variables independently associated with inferior PFS were ECOG PS 2-4 (HR 1.87 P=0.007); baseline CNSinv (HR 1.70, P=0.023); LDH & gt;5xULN (HR 2.09, P & lt;0.001); and & gt;1 EN sites (HR 1.58 P=0.043). The same variables were significant on MVA for OS. Adjusting for all of the prognostic variables, Tx with Magrath was associated with longer PFS (adjusted HR, 0.45, P=0.005). Conclusions: These data represent the largest analysis of HIV-BL to date. There were favorable tolerance and outcomes with intensive R-containing regimens with Magrath being associated with lower TRM and the highest PFS. In addition, prognostic factors for pt outcomes were associated with lymphoma characteristics rather than with HIV-related features. Pts with baseline CNSinv represent a high-risk group with unmet therapeutic needs. Disclosures Alderuccio: Oncinfo: Honoraria; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Family member; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive: Honoraria; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Family member; Forma Therapeutics: Other: Family member; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member. Olszewski:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Evens:Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Collins:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Taekda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses , Speakers Bureau; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Danilov:Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Nurix: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Jagadeesh:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Debiopharm Group: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Research Funding. Reddy:Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; KITE Pharma: Consultancy. Farooq:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Bond:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Khan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Yazdy:Bayer: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Karmali:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding. Diefenbach:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: 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. Klein:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Haverkos:Viracta THerapeutics: Consultancy. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Caimi:Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Bayer: Other: Advisory Board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; ADC Therapeutics: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Feldman:Eisai: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Trillium: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Viracta: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Smith:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Ayala: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Ignyta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; De Novo Biopharma: Research Funding. Portell:Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Naik:Celgene: Other: advisory board; Sanofi: Other: advisory board. Lossos:Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; NCI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other. Cwynarski:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau.