Abstract: Introduction: Previous phase II studies have suggested that a combination of FCR may increase the outcome of both untreated and relapsed CLL pts. In order to validate this concept the German CLL study group (GCLLSG) initiated a multicentre, multinational phase III trial, CLL8, to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of FCR versus FC for the first-line treatment of pts with advanced CLL. Methods and Patients: 817 pts with good physical fitness as defined by a cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score (Extermann et al., JCO 1998) of up to 6 and a creatinine clearance (cr cl) □d 70 ml/min were enrolled between July 2003 and March 2006. Pts were randomly assigned to receive 6 courses of either FC (N=409; F 25mg/m2 i.v. d1–3 and C 250 mg/m2 i.v. d1–3; q 28 days) or FC plus R (N=408; 375 mg/m2 i.v. d 0 at first cycle and 500 mg/m2 d1 all subsequent cycles; q 28 days). Both treatment arms were well balanced with regard to age, stage, genomic aberrations and VH status. 64% were Binet B, 32% Binet C and 5% Binet A. The median age was 61 years (range 30 to 81), the median CIRS score was 1 (range 0–8). The overall incidences of trisomy 12 and abnormalities of 13q, 11q23, and 17p13 detected by FISH were 12%, 57%, 25%, and 8%, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between treatment arms. A mean number of 5.2 courses was given in the FCR arm versus 4.8 courses in the FC arm (p=0.006). 74% (FCR) and 67% (FC) of pts received 6 cycles. Dose was reduced by more than 10% in at least one treatment course in 43% (FCR) and 30% (FC) of pts, and in 21% (FCR) and 17% (FC) of all treatment courses given. 17 pts did not receive any study medication, 10 due to violation of enrolment criteria (4 decreased renal function, 2 active secondary malignancies, 2 active infections, 1 autoimmune thrombocytopenia, 1 pt not requiring treatment), 3 due to withdrawal of consent, 2 due to worsened concomitant diseases. 2 pts were lost before start of treatment. 56 pts were not evaluable for response: 17 did not receive any study medication, 16 withdrew consent before interim staging, 7 due to violation of enrolment criteria, 4 discontinued treatment due to toxicity and 12 due to early death (caused by toxicity, progression or secondary malignancy). Prophylactic use of antibiotics or growth factors was not generally recommended in the protocol. Results: At the time of analysis, June 2008, the median observation time was 25.5 months (mo). 761 pts (FCR 390; FC 371) were evaluable for response, 787 pts (FCR 400; FC 387) for PFS and all for OS. The overall response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in the FCR arm (95%; 370/390) compared to FC (88%; 328/371 (p=0.001). The complete response rate of the FCR arm was 52% as compared to 27.0% in the FC arm (p & lt;0.0001). PFS was 76.6% at 2 years in the FCR arm and 62.3% in the FC arm (p & lt;0.0001). There was a trend for an increased OS rate in the FCR arm (91% vs 88% at 2 years p=0.18). Hazard Ratio for PFS was 0.59, for OS 0.76. The largest benefit for FCR was observed in Binet stage A and B with regard to CR, ORR and PFS (A: p=0.01, B: p & lt;0.0001). FCR treatment was more frequently associated with CTC grade 3 and 4 adverse events (47% of FC vs 62% of FCR treated pts). Severe hematologic toxicity occurred in 55% (FCR) versus 39% (FC) of all patients. Significant differences were observed for neutropenia (FCR 33,6%; FC 20,9% p=0.0001) and leukocytopenia (FCR 24%; FC 12,1% p & lt;0.0001) but not for thrombocytopenia (FCR 7,4%; FC 10,8% p=0.09) and anemia (FCR: 5,4% FC 6,8% p=0.42). The incidence of CTC grade 3 or 4 infections was not significantly increased in the FCR arm (18,8% versus 14,8% in the FC arm, p=0.68). Tumor lysis syndrome (FCR 0,2% FC 0,5%) and cytokine release syndrome (FCR 0,2% FC 0,0%) were rarely observed in both arms. Treatment related mortality occurred in 2.0% in the FCR and 1.5% in the FC arm. Multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate factors predicting outcome. Amongst these variables age, sex, Binet stage, CIRS score, renal function (cr cl & lt; 70 ml/min) were independent prognostic factors predicting OS or PFS. Conclusion: Treatment with FCR chemoimmunotherapy improves response rates and PFS when compared to the FC chemotherapy. FCR caused more neutropenia/leukopenia without increasing the incidence of severe infections. These results suggest that FCR chemoimmunotherapy might become the new standard first-line treatment for physically fit CLL patients.

Abstract: Background: Prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and other aggressive lymphoma entities has improved with the advent of Rituximab, and R-CHOP-21 and variants is SOC. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of patients fail first line treatment. Salvage therapies are often effective. However, no more than 25-50% achieve a long term remission even when consolidative high dose chemotherapy (HDT) followed by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is applied. In case of failure or intolerance to HDT, regimen like Gemcitabine/Oxaliplatin are applied but show limited efficacy, indicating the need for new treatments. Obinutuzumab (GA101) is a type II anti-CD20 antibody. Superiority of Obinutuzumab could be demonstrated in xenograft models of mantle cell lymphoma and DLBCL. Although desirable, cumulative dose-related, progressive cardiotoxicity eliminates anthracyclins from higher treatment lines. With Pixantrone, a drug structurally related to anthracyclines and especially anthracenediones, a re-exposition against this drug class has been shown to be feasible. In 70 heavily pre-treated patients, a best ORR of 40% (20% CR/CRu) was observed (Pettengell et al). Experiences from further antibody drug combinations lead to the assumption that the effects of Pixantrone will be augmented by a monoclonal antibody without increasing toxicity. We thus initiated a trial combining both agents for the first time. The trial has opened in Q4/2015 and recruitment is ongoing. Overall, a total of up 70 patients will be enrolled for a number of 64 evaluable patients. Primary endpoint will be the objective overall response rate, with secondary endpoints being safety, PFS and OS. Methods: this is a multicenter, national, prospective trial. Inclusion criteria: patients were eligible if they had histologically proven DLBCL, FL grade IIIb or transformed indolent lymphoma, CD20 positive disease, no curative option available, relapsed disease, measurable disease, ECOG 〈 3, sufficient bone marrow reserve, no severe concomitant diseases and given informed consent. There was no upper limit or prior treatment lines. Treatment consisted of Pixantrone 50mg/m² day 1, 8 and 15 of each cycle, Obinutuzumab 1000 mg flat dose day 1, 8 and 15 of cycle one and day 1 of each subsequent cycle. A total of 6 cycles was planned with interim staging after 3 cycles. Results: 24 patients (pts) have been included until now. Concerning clinical characteristics, all were caucasian, 12 were female and the other 12 male and median age was 75 years. Most of the patients suffered from DLBCL (18 pts, 82%). Median number of prior therapies was 2 (1 to 6). Until now 55 evaluable cycles of chemotherapy (median 2 cycles (0 to 6)) have been performed. At this time, the treatment seems to be well tolerated, with no unforeseen side effects. Observed toxicity was predominantly hematologic. The following hematologic adverse events of grade 3/4 were noted: leukopenia (4 pts, 17%), neutropenia (6 pts, 25%), granulocytopenia (1 pts, 4%), as well as thrombocytopenia (2 pts). Non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were observed in at least two patients: hypertension (2 pts) and pelvic pain (2 pts). Response: currently, best responses were 4 PR, 1 SD, and 8 PD in 13 patients evaluable so far. Four patients died, all after progression of lymphoma. Summary: the combination of Obinutuzumab and Pixantrone seems to be feasible and safe with early signs of efficacy. Updated results of this trial in progress with a focus on safety will be presented. Disclosures Hess: Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche, CTI, Pfizer, Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria. Marks:Pfizer: Honoraria. Witzens-Harig:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dreyling:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Viardot:Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Other: travel support; Pfizer: Honoraria. Keller:Spectrum Pharmaceutical: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract: Abstract 51 Background Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo SCT), a treatment modality based on transfer of immunocompetent donor lymphocytes offers curative potential to subjects with a variety of hematological cancers. In multiple myeloma (MM), high-dose melphalan followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (auto SCT) is adopted as a standard of care. However, it remains palliative since virtually all patients (pts) relapse and renders allo SCT an option of interest. Deletion of chromosome 13q14 (13q-) in MM has been shown to negatively impact prognosis. Therefore, improvement of therapy for 13q- pts is highly desirable. Patients and methods A prospective two-arm multi-center trial (DSMM V) was set up by our group to compare tandem high-dose melphalan 200 mg/m2 (HD Mel) with a reduced intensity conditioning allo-SCT after one cycle of HD Mel for 13q- MM. Eligibility criteria were 13q- on bone marrow FISH analysis; age up to 60 years; newly diagnosed MM in Salmon and Durie stages II and III; and measurable disease. Allocation to either treatment arm was by availability of an HLA-matched (one mismatch allowed) volunteer related (VRD) or unrelated donor (VUD). Initially, all pts received four cycles of anthracycline/dexamethasone-based induction followed by chemomobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCT) and one cycle of HD Mel. Allogeneic SCT was performed after preparation with fludarabine (30 mg/m2 for 3 consecutive days) and melphalan 140 mg/m2. ATG was administered for VUD transplants. Results 199 pts with a median age of 53 (range, 30 – 60) years were enrolled between October 2002 and March 2007 and included in this interim analysis. Sixty-seven percent had stage III disease. Allo SCT was performed in 126 of 199 pts (63%), 76 of whom (60%) received VUD allografts. The remaining 73 subjects uniformely received tandem HD Mel. Pts following allo SCT were more likely to achieve CR (59%) when compared to tandem HD Mel (32%; p=.003) within one year after end of therapy. Similarly, overall response rate was significantly higher with allo SCT (91% versus 86%; p=.003). Of note, depth of response to allo SCT was not associated with presence of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD): 62% CR with grades II to IV GVHD vs 58% CR with grades 0 and I (p=.75). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) at 2 years from allo SCT was 16/126 (12.7%). At a median follow up of 25 months for tandem HD Mel and 34 months for allo SCT, projected 3-year overall survival is 72% (auto) and 60% (auto/allo SCT; p=0.22), respectively. Conclusions This is the largest trial on first-line allogeneic stem cell transplant in MM so far. Our interim results show a higher CR rate in FISH 13q- subjects undergoing allo SCT when compared to tandem HD Mel. Despite a majority of allografts in our study being delivered from unrelated donors, TRM was comparable to trials confined to sibling transplants. At a relatively short follow-up, there is not yet a difference between both arms regarding OS, albeit longer follow-up may be important as previously described. This as well as analysis of the impact of donor type and chronic GVHD on outcome will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract: Background In multiple myeloma (MM), the introduction of novel compounds into first-line intensive treatment pathways has clearly improved patients’ prognosis. Very recently however, specific molecular cytogenetic abnormalities, lactate dehydrogenase elevation and International Staging System 3 disease were identified to be associated with dismal prognosis despite upfront autologous (auto) stem cell transplant (SCT). Consolidative allogeneic (allo) following initial auto SCT was shown to extend progression-free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS) in some prospective studies on newly diagnosed MM patients (pts). Relatively little is known on the impact of cytogenetic features other than chromosome 13q deletion (del13q) on the outcomes of pts undergoing upfront auto followed by allo (auto/allo) SCT. Patients and methods When the DSMM V treatment program was designed del13q detected by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) was accepted as one of the distinct risk factors in MM. We therefore used FISH del13q to define the study’s “high-risk” group and aimed to compare tandem high-dose melphalan 200 mg/m² (Mel) with one cycle of Mel followed by reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allo SCT. Allocation to either transplant regimen was by availability of an HLA-matched (at least 9/10 matches) related (MRD) or unrelated donor (MUD). Initially, all pts underwent non-novel compound cytoreduction and chemomobilization of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC). RIC allo SCT was prepared by fludarabine and melphalan (plus ATG in MUD cases). PFS was the primary endpoint. The study was powered to detect an improvement of 2-year PFS from 20% (tandem Mel) to 40.3% (HR, 1.769). Results 199 out of 225 del13q pts with a median age of 53 (range, 30 – 60) yrs who had been enrolled between 10/2001 and 03/2007, were included in the intent-to treat population. Allo SCT was performed in 126/199 pts (63%), 74 of whom (59%) received MUD allografts. At a median follow-up of 49.2 months (mo), 2-year PFS (calculated from day 1 of second SCT) was 59% with auto/allo SCT versus 47% with tandem Mel. Median PFS with auto/allo SCT was 34.5 mo versus 21.8 mo, respectively (p=.005). Two-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) associated with auto/allo SCT was 11.9%. As of yet, there is no difference in OS between the groups, with the median not yet reached for either transplant modality. PFS/OS in auto/allo SCT were independent of donor source (MRD vs MUD). As definitions of cytogenetic risk have evolved over time, we analyzed further FISH abnormalities in pts’ baseline samples: in addition to uniform del13q, 13.6% of pts displayed del17p. Median PFS for del13q/del17p pts after HD Mel was 6 mo versus not reached with auto/allo SCT, respectively (p=.0002). Median OS in del13q/del17p after HD Mel was 23.4 mo versus not reached, respectively (p=.011). In translocation (4;14)/del13q pts (20.7%), median PFS with tandem Mel was 19.3 mo versus 19.1 with auto/allo SCT, respectively (p=.251). Conclusions This prospective trial shows auto/allo SCT to significantly extend PFS when compared to tandem HD Mel in a large cohort of del13q MM pts. It is the first study to demonstrate allo SCT in MM can be safely performed from matched unrelated donors at a reasonable rate of NRM. Utilizing a comprehensive set of FISH cytogenetics, our data for the first time demonstrate allo SCT to specifically benefit patients with high-risk features (del13q/del17p). Incremental gain of PFS when compared to tandem Mel was more than 20 months. Extended OS data on the whole study will be presented. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract: Abstract 535 Introduction: In 2008, first results of a multicenter, international randomized phase III trial (CLL8) were presented, showing superiority of FCR chemoimmunotherapy for response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) when compared to FC chemotherapy. We now report updated results with a longer median observation time of 37.7 months (mo). Methods and Patients: 817 treatment-naïve patients (pts) with good physical fitness and CD20-positive CLL randomly (1:1) received treatment with 6 courses of either FCR or FC therapy. Both treatment arms were well balanced with regard to sex, age, stage, genomic aberrations and IGVH gene status. The median age was 61 years (range 30 to 81), 25.7% pts were female in both arms, 64.1% were Binet B, 31% Binet C and 4.9% Binet A. The median cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score was 1 (range 0-8). The overall incidences of trisomy 12 and abnormalities of 13q, 11q23, and 17p13 detected by FISH were 12%, 57%, 25%, and 8%, respectively. A mean number of 5.2 treatment courses were delivered in the FCR arm vs 4.8 courses in the FC arm (p=0.006). Dose reductions by more than 10% in at least one treatment course were performed in 47% (FCR) and 27% (FC) of pts (p 〈 0.001), respectively. 74% (FCR) and 67% (FC) of pts received 6 cycles (p=0.02). The total median cumulative dose applied per pt was 775 mg for F and 7712 mg for C, with no statistically significant difference among the two treatment arms. Pts in Binet stages A and B received more treatment cycles (5.31) than Binet C pts (4.52; p 〈 0.001). Only 57.1% (FC) and 60.3% (FCR) Binet C pts received 6 cycles. Dose reductions by more than 10% were observed in 49% of FCR pts (vs 28% FC (p=0.001). Results: As of June 2009, the median observation time was 37.7 (mo). 761 pts (FCR 388; FC 371) were evaluable for response, 790 pts (FCR 401; FC 389) for PFS and all for OS. FCR induced a higher overall response rate than FC (95.1 vs 88.4%) and more complete remissions (44.1 vs 21.8%; p 〈 0.001). Median PFS was 32.8 mo for FC and 51.8 mo for FCR pts (p 〈 0.001, Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.56, CI 95% 0.460-0.689). The largest benefit for FCR was observed in Binet stage A and B for CR, ORR and PFS (Binet A: p=0.08, HR 0.423 CI 95%, 0.157-1.135, Binet B: p 〈 0.001 HR: 0.504 CI 95%, 0.390-0.651, Binet C: p=0.08, HR 0.732 CI 95%, 0.514-1.041). In Binet C, the median PFS was 14 mo for pts treated with up to 3 courses FC, but 44 mo for pts that received 4 courses or more (p 〈 0.001). Median PFS for pts treated with up to 3 cycles FCR was 12.5 mo, while for pts with 4 cycles or more, median PFS has not been reached (p 〈 0.001). Statistically significant differences were observed in OS between the two treatment arms. The OS rate at 37.7 mo was 84.1% in the FCR arm versus 79.0 % in the FC arm (p=0.01). In both arms, the median OS has not been reached. Only patients in Binet stages A and B showed a superior OS after FCR treatment (Binet A: HR 0.19, CI 95%, 0.023-1.613 p=0.09; Binet B: HR 0.45, CI 95%, 0.296-0.689, p 〈 0.001; Binet C HR1.4, CI 95%, 0.843-2.620, p=0.168). As previously reported more hematologic adverse events, particularly neutropenia, were observed with FCR treatment, but this did not result in an increased infection rate. More deaths have occurred in the FC arm (86/396, 21.7%) than in the FCR arm (65/404, 16.1%). In the majority of cases, the underlying cause of death was progressive disease (FC 48/86, FCR 33/65), secondary malignancies (FC 13/86, FCR 5/65) or unrelated causes of death such as myocardial infarction (FC 15/86, FCR 17/65). Treatment related mortality occurred in 8 (2.0%) of pts in each arm. Of these, 7 FC-treated pts and 5 FCR-treated pts died from infections related to treatment. In 7 pts (3 FC vs. 4 FCR), treatment was discontinued before the third treatment course due to fatal toxicity. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate factors predicting outcome. Age, sex, FCR-treatment, response, number of cycles (0-3), 17p-deletion, increased serum levels of thymidine kinase and β2-microglobulin and unmutated IGVH genes were independent prognostic factors predicting OS or PFS. Conclusion: Treatment with FCR chemoimmunotherapy is more effective than FC chemotherapy. The partial failure to demonstrate a benefit for FCR in Binet stage C patients may be related to an insufficient treatment intensity in these patients with higher tumor load. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a randomized trial is able to demonstrate that a specific first-line treatment for CLL results in an improved overall survival. The results corroborate the recommendation to use FCR as standard therapy in physically fit pts with CLL requiring therapy. Disclosures: Hallek: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Fingerle-Rowson:Roche: Honoraria, travel grants. Fink:Roche: Travel grants. Mayer:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Fresenius: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Hensel:Roche: Honoraria, Travel Grants; Bayer: Honoraria. Hopfinger:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hess:Roche: Honoraria. Bergmann:Roche: Honoraria for monitoring and CRFs. Catalano:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel grants. Seymour:Bayer Schering: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Travel grants; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Travel Grants. Berrebi:Roche: travel grants. Jaeger:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Travel grants. Trneny:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Westermann:Roche: Travel Grants. Wendtner:Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Eichhorst:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Hospira: Honoraria. Staib:Roche: Research Funding. Boettcher:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Travel grants. Ritgen:Roche: Research Funding. Mendila:Roche: Employment. Kneba:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding. Doehner:Roche: Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, travel grants. Fischer:Mundipharma: Research Funding; Roche: travel grants.

Abstract: The antibody-drug conjugate polatuzumab vedotin (pola) has recently been approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (pola-BR) for patients with refractory or relapsed (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). To investigate the efficacy of pola-BR in a real-world setting, we retrospectively analyzed 105 patients with LBCL who were treated in 26 German centers under the national compassionate use program. Fifty-four patients received pola as a salvage treatment and 51 patients were treated with pola with the intention to bridge to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (n = 41) or allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (n = 10). Notably, patients in the salvage and bridging cohort had received a median of 3 prior treatment lines. In the salvage cohort, the best overall response rate was 48.1%. The 6-month progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) was 27.7% and 49.6%, respectively. In the bridging cohort, 51.2% of patients could be successfully bridged with pola to the intended CAR T-cell therapy. The combination of pola bridging and successful CAR T-cell therapy resulted in a 6-month OS of 77.9% calculated from pola initiation. Pola vedotin-rituximab without a chemotherapy backbone demonstrated encouraging overall response rates up to 40%, highlighting both an appropriate alternative for patients unsuitable for chemotherapy and a new treatment option for bridging before leukapheresis in patients intended for CAR T-cell therapy. Furthermore, 7 of 12 patients with previous failure of CAR T-cell therapy responded to a pola-containing regimen. These findings suggest that pola may serve as effective salvage and bridging treatment of r/r LBCL patients.

Abstract: Abstract 131 Introduction. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) after cytoreductive induction is considered standard of care for younger patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM). The previous standard of induction, the Vincristin-Adriamycin-Dexamethasone (VAD) combination, achieves inferior results compared with induction regimens which combine the proteasome inhibitor Velcade (V = Bortezomib) with Dexamethasone (D)(=VD) and a cytostatic drug such as Doxorubicin (PAD = VD plus Doxorubicin). Velcade-based induction therapy was shown to translate into better myeloma control after high dose melphalan and to lead to prolonged progression-free survival. In order to find a more efficacious and safer drug combination for induction therapy in MM, we tested the combination of Velcade with Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone (VCD). Methods. This trial was designed as an open, prospective, multi-center, uncontrolled, combined phase II/III study. As previously reported (Kropff M et al., Ann Hematol 2009), in the first 30 pts the optimal dose of iv Cyclophosphamide in combination with V and D was defined as 900 mg/m2 on d1. Between 03/2006 and 03/2009 we enrolled an additional 370 pts up to 60 years of age with untreated MM to receive three 3-week cycles of induction treatment with V 1.3 mg/m2 iv d1,4,8,11; D 40 mg/d orally d1,2,4,5,8,9,11,12; and C 900mg/m2 iv d1 before scheduled high dose melphalan and ASCT. The primary endpoint of the study is response rate on day 63 after 3 cycles of VCD according to EBMT and IMWG criteria. Results. Final data from 400 pts from 39 German centers will be presented at the meeting. In the currently evaluable 300 pts (mean age 52.3 years; 1.7% stage I, 21.3% stage II, 77.0% stage III) molecular cytogenetic analysis showed a prevalence of 13q- in 38%, of t[4;14] in 13% and of 17p- in 12% of pts (no changes in 35%). All 300 pts (88.3% of whom completed three cycles) were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Overall response rate (ORR = CR+PR) was 84%, with 10% CR and 74% PR, 5.7% MR, 7.3% NC and 2.3% PD. The negative prognostic impact of 13q- or t[4;14] was abrogated (ORR normal 87.3%, 13q- 83.7%, t[4;14] 90.0%), the unfavorable influence of p53 loss in the 17p- subgroup was still detectable (ORR 69.2%) but this did not reach statistical significance. VGPR rates will be reported at the meeting. Serious adverse events were documented in 78/300 (26.0%) patients. Death rate was remarkably low (1.3%, of which one was not related to the trial medication). 155/300 (52%) of pts experienced grade 3/4 non-serious AEs and of these leucopenia (93/300 pts= 31%), thrombocytopenia (7%), neutropenia (6%), anaemia (5%) were the most frequent events. 80 AEs grade 3 or 4 and 45 SAEs were of infectious origin and occurred in 47/300 pts. 80/130 SAEs (61.5%) were at least possibly related to Velcade. 101/300 pts (34%) developed episodes of peripheral neuropathy. PNP was grade 1 in 62/300 pt (20.7%), grade 2 in 31/300 pt (10.3%) and grade 3 in 7/300 pts (2.3%). Conclusion. This analysis demonstrates that proteasome inhibition by Velcade in combination with Dexamethasone and iv Cyclophosphamide (VCD) is an induction regimen for newly diagnosed MM which is highly effective in a short period of time, has a rather low toxicity profile and is feasible for administration in an outpatient setting. Based on these characteristics, VCD qualifies to become a new standard for MM induction therapy. Disclosures: Einsele: OrthioBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Bortezomib is licensed as monotherapy for use in relapsed/refractory MM and in combination with melphalan/Prednisone in the first-line treatment of MM pts ineligible for HD-MEL and ASCT. . Liebisch:OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Langer:OrthoBiotech: Consultancy. Kropff:OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kröger:OrthoBiotech: Honoraria. Ostermann:OrthoBiotech: Honoraria. Mügge:OrthoBiotech: Honoraria. Wolf:OrthoBiotech: Honoraria. Gramatzki:OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maschmeyer:OrthoBiotech: Travel Grant. Sezer:OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria. Heidemann:OrthoBiotech: Honoraria. Jäger:OrthoBiotech: Honoraria. Dechow:Celgene: Research Funding. Simon:OrthoBiotech: Honoraria. Straka:OrthoBiotech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Fingerle-Rowson:orthoBiotech: Employment. Knop:OrthoBiotech: Honoraria.

Abstract: Introduction The antibody-drug conjugate polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) has recently been approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR) for patients with r/r diffuse LBCL (DLBCL). Methods To characterize the efficacy of Pola-BR in a real-world setting, we retrospectively analyzed data from 97 patients with r/r LBCL who were treated with Pola in 24 German centers within the national CUP. Clinical baseline and follow-up (FU) data were collected by chart review and summarized descriptively. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical factors between groups of patients. Results 97 patients with LBCL (DLBCL n=90, High-grade B-cell lymphoma n=6, Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma n=1) were included as of July 22nd, 2020. 49 patients were treated with Pola as bridging concept to immunotherapies (bridging cohort: chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CART) n=39, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) n=9, bispecific antibodies n=1), and 48 patients were treated with Pola in palliative intention (palliative cohort). Within the bridging cohort the median age was 61 years (range: 22-82). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 treatment lines (range: 2-6). 84% (41/49 patients) had been refractory to their last treatment line, and 31% had failed an autologous stem cell transplantation. Notably, 14% and 10% of patients had failed prior CART and alloSCT, respectively, and were planned for the alternate cellular immunotherapy. Based on an individual decision, patients were treated with Pola-Rituximab (Pola-R, n=20), Pola-chemotherapy (Pola-chemo, BR n=25; R-CHP n=1) or Pola-monotherapy (Pola-mono, n=3). With a median of 2 Pola cycles (range 1-6), overall response rate (ORR) of all evaluable patients was 33% (15/46 patients) including patients with complete response (CR n=1), partial response (PR n=9) and clinical response (n=5). Although not significant, ORR tended to be better in patients treated with Pola-chemo versus Pola-R/Pola-mono (ORR: 42% versus 20%, Fishers test p=0.1). 11 of these 15 responders (24% of the entire bridging cohort) proceeded to CART or alloSCT, while 4 responders (8% of entire bridging cohort) experienced fast progression after their initial response and were referred to best supportive care. 15 of 31 non-responders (33% of entire bridging cohort) underwent immunotherapy with either stable disease (n=6), mixed response (n=2), or progression on Pola (n=7). The remaining 16 patients (35% of entire bridging cohort) were all refractory to Pola and either received alternative salvage treatments which enabled 8 further patients to proceed to the intended immunotherapy, or best supportive care. Taking the effects of CART or alloSCT into account, median OS from initiation of Pola treatment was 8.2 months (median FU 7.2 months, Fig. 1A). The palliative cohort tended to be older than the bridging cohort with a median age of 73.5 years (range: 37-86, p & lt;0.001). Patients were pretreated with a median of 3 treatment lines (range: 2-8), and 85% (41/48 patients) had been refractory to their last treatment line. Patients in the palliative cohort were treated with a median of 4 Pola cycles (range: 1-9). 65% received Pola-chemo (BR, n=30; R-Gemcitabine, n=1) and 35% Pola-R. The CR rate and ORR was 19% (9/48) and 56% (27/48), respectively. The 6-month PFS and OS from initiation of Pola was 36% and 51%, respectively (median FU of 9.7 months, Fig. 1B). Again, ORR and OS tended to be better in patients treated with Pola-chemo versus Pola-R (ORR: 61% versus 47%, Fishers test p=0.4; median OS 7.2 versus 4 months, HR 0.8, 95%CI 0.4-1.9, p=0.7). In univariate analysis, failure to respond to the last treatment line predicted inferior PFS (HR 2.4, 95%CI 1.2-5.0 p=0.02) and OS (HR 2.5, 95%CI 1.2-5.4 p=0.02). Patients with more than two prior treatment lines in total tended to have a shorter PFS (HR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9-4.5, p=0.1) and OS (HR 1.8, 95% CI 0.8-4.0, p=0.2), although significance was not reached. Conclusion Pola permits effective bridging to CART and alloSCT in r/r LBCL. In the palliative setting, Pola represents an effective salvage option for patients with transplantation-ineligible r/r LBCL. Compared to the approval study, the inferior outcome of the patients of this real-world analysis might be explained by their more advanced disease course. Disclosures Duell: Morphosys: Research Funding. Kerkhoff:BMS: Honoraria. Leng:Roche: Other: lecture fee; Celgene: Other: traveling expenses and congress attendance fee. Holtick:Miltenyi Biotec B.V. & Co. KG: Honoraria. Mayer:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Abbvie: Other: travel grants; Novartis: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Hüttmann:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Gilead: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany: Current Employment; Lead Discovery Center GmbH: Consultancy. Brunnberg:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hexal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants; Amgen: Other: Travel grants. Bullinger:Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hexal: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hess:Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mueller-Tidow:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Deutsche Krebshilfe: Research Funding; BMBF: Research Funding; Wilhelm-Sander-Stiftung: Research Funding; Jose-Carreras-Siftung: Research Funding; Bayer AG: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; BiolineRx: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag Gmbh: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: Research Funding. Lenz:Verastem: Research Funding; AQUINOX: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dreger:Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Neovii: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Dietrich:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract: Background: A substantial proportion of patients fail first line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Currently available salvage therapies are often ineffective and cannot be tolerated, especially for elderly patients. Thus, probably less than 25% of patients achieve a long lasting remission. Regimens like gemcitabine/oxaliplatin, or bendamustin, both in combination with rituximab are available for elderly or after failure of HDT, however induce only short lived responses. Obinutuzumab (GA101) is a type II anti-CD20 antibody, with preclinical evidence of superiority over rituximab in xenograft models of MCL and DLBCL. Recently a large phase III trial failed to show a benefit in patients with untreated DLBCL, although a subset analysis showed a potential benefit in a subset GCB DLBCL of patients, its value in relapsed disease is not yet finally determined. Although desirable, cumulative dose-related, progressive cardiotoxicity eliminates anthracyclines from relapse treatments. With pixantrone, a drug related to anthracyclines, a re-exposition against this drug class has been shown to be feasible, a best EOT-ORR of 37% (20% CR/CRu) was observed in a phase III trial. We thus initiated a trial combining both agents for the first time. The trial has opened in Q3/2015 and recruitment of 70 patients is completed as of 7/2018. Primary endpoint is the ORR, secondary endpoints being safety, PFS and OS. We report about available data after enrollment of the last patient. Methods: this is a multicenter, national, prospective trial. Main inclusion criteria: histologically proven DLBCL, FL grade IIIb or transformed iNHL (20% Quorum), no curative option available, relapsed and measurable disease, ECOG 〈 3, sufficient BM reserve, no severe concomitant diseases and given informed consent. There was no upper limit of prior treatment lines. Treatment consisted of up to 6 cycles of pixantrone 50mg/m² day 1, 8 and 15 of each cycle, obinutuzumab 1000 mg flat dose day 1, 8 and 15 of cycle one and day 1 of each subsequent cycle. Interim staging was scheduled after 3 cycles. Results: Basic data are available of 67 patients, all were caucasian, 37 were female the other 30 male and median age was 75 years. Most of the patients suffered from DLBCL (49 pts, 68%), 68% had advanced stage at diagnosis and the median secondary IPI was 3. Data collection is ongoing, until now data of 32 patients are fully available and updated results will be presented. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (1 to 6). Treatment seemed to be well tolerated, median number of cycles applied was 3, pre-mature stop of treatment was primarily based on progression. Response evaluation: at this time 13/32 (40.6%) evaluable patients responded with 5 patients achieving CR/CRu (15.6%) and 8 a PR. One year after initiation of treatment 54% of patients remained alive. Median follow up is 8.2 months. Median PFS and OS is 82 day and not reached, 1 year PFS and OS are 37% and 54%, respectively, no patient experienced relapse if the patient remained free from relapse at one year. Observed toxicity was predominantly hematologic. The following hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were observed: leukopenia (9.4%) neutropenia (75%), thrombocytopenia (12.5%). The febrile neutropenia rate was 6.3%. Non-hematologic grade 3/4 adverse events were very rare, no single side effect was observed with a frequency of 5% or more. Summary: the combination of Obinutuzumab and Pixantrone is feasible and safe. Early response rates are interesting. Importantly, although some patients experience progress early, a promising proportion shows long lasting remissions. Molecular analyses are ongoing, as well as a detailed analysis on the impact of factors such as of number of prior treatments, status at inclusion. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Hess: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hüttmann:Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Roche: Other: Travel expenses. Marks:BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria. Dreyling:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy. Keller:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Roche: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Ernst:Novartis: Research Funding. Viardot:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lenz:Novartis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corp.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria.