Abstract: 3 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 12:01 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June 3, 2012, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2012, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

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: 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: Abstract 405 Introduction: Promising results have been observed in two phase-II studies evaluating the combination of Bendamustine plus Rituximab (B-R) in patients with relapsed/refractory indolent or mantle cell lymphomas (Rummel et al., JCO 2005; Robinson et al., JCO 2008). In order to further investigate the role of the combination B-R we initiated a multicenter randomized phase-III study in October 2003 to compare efficacy and safety of B-R versus CHOP plus Rituximab (CHOP-R) as first-line therapy for patients with follicular (FL), indolent and mantle cell lymphomas (MCL). Patients and Methods: 549 patients (pts) in need of treatment for their disease were randomized to receive Rituximab 375 mg/m2 (day 1) plus either Bendamustine 90 mg/m2 (days 1+2) every 28 days or the standard CHOP regimen every 21 days for a maximum of 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients characteristics, including age, stage, LDH, IPI, FLIPI, bone marrow infiltration and extranodal involvement did not statistically significant differ between both arms. The median patient age was 64 years (range 31-83) (64 yrs for B-R and 63 yrs for CHOP-R). Most patients were in stage IV (76,9% in BR and 77,5 in CHOP-R) and stage III (19,2% in B-R and 18,6% in CHOP-R). Histologies were distributed equally between B-R and CHOP-R: follicular 55% and 56%, mantle cell 18% and 19%, and other indolent lymphomas 27% and 24%, respectively. Prophylactic use of antibiotics or growth factors were not generally recommended in this protocol. Results: Of the 549 pts 36 pts were not evaluable: 10 did not receive any study medication, 9 due to withdrawal of consent, 13 due to incorrect diagnosis (4 × DLBCL, 3 × CLL, 2 × MM, 1 × HD, 3 × solid tumors), and 4 for other reasons. 513 randomized pts are evaluable for the final analysis (B-R: n=260; CHOP-R: n=253). Out of these 9 pts were not evaluable for response evaluation: 4 pts (3 × CHOP-R, 1 × B-R) due to early death in neutropenic sepsis, 3 pts due to a subsequent change of therapy after severe toxicity in 1st cycle of CHOP-R, 1 B-R pt due to progress of disease, and 1 B-R due to early death. All patients were counted for evaluation of PFS, overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS; an event was defined by a response less than a partial response, disease progression, relapse, or death from any cause), and for time to next treatment (TTNT). A median number of 6 cycles was given in both treatment arms each. 82% of B-R pts and 86% of CHOP-R pts received 6 cycles. At the time of analysis in August 2009, the median observation time was 32 months. Overall response rate for pts treated with B-R was similar to the CHOP-R group (93,8% vs 93,5%, respectively). The CR rate was significantly higher with 40,1% for B-R compared to 30,8% for CHOP-R (p=0.0323). The median PFS, EFS and TTNT were significantly longer after B-R compared to after CHOP-R: PFS 54,8 months for B-R versus (vs) 34,8 months for CHOP-R (p=0.0002), Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.5765 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4292 to 0.7683); EFS 54 months for B-R vs 31 months for CHOP-R (p=0.0002, HR 0.6014 (95% CI 0.4515 to 0.7845); and TTNT median not yet reached in the B-R group vs 40,7 months in the CHOP-R group (p=0.0002; HR 0.5416, 95% CI 0.3897 to 0.7491). OS did not differ between both groups at this point of time. Thus far, 67 deaths have been observed (B-R: 34; CHOP-R: 33). CHOP-R treatment was more frequently associated with serious adverse events (SAE) (n=49 in B-R vs n=74 in CHOP-R). Significant differences in hematologic toxicities were observed for neutropenia grade 3+4 (BR 10,7% vs CHOP-R 46,5%; p 〈 0.0001) and for leukocytopenia grade 3+4 (BR 12,1% vs CHOP-R 38,2%; p 〈 0.0001). G-CSF was more often used in CHOP-R treated pts (20,0% of all cycles) than it was used in the B-R group (4,0%) (p 〈 0.0001). The B-R regimen was better tolerated by the pts as evidenced by a lower rate of alopecia (15% (only grade 1) in B-R vs 62% CHOP-R), a lower number of infectious complications (95 in BR vs 121 in CHOP-R, p=0.0403), a lower incidence of peripheral neuropathy (B-R n=18; CHOP-R n=73; p 〈 0.0001), and fewer episodes of stomatitis (B-R n=16; CHOP-R n=47; p 〈 0.0001). Only drug-associated erythematous skin reaction (urticaria, rash) was more often seen with B-R (n=42) than with CHOP-R (n=23) (p=0.0122). Conclusions: In this final analysis the combination of Bendamustine plus Rituximab improves PFS and CR rates while showing a better tolerability profile. These promising results suggest that B-R does have the potential to become a new standard first-line treatment option for patients with FL, MCL, and indolent lymphomas. Disclosures: Rummel: Roche Pharma AG: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria. Maschmeyer:OrthoBiotech: .

Abstract: 7501 Background: This multicenter, randomized, phase III study compared B-R and CHOP-R as first-line treatment in patients (pts) with indolent lymphomas or mantle cell lymphoma and was first published in The Lancet in 2013. The final analysis demonstrated a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in the B-R group compared to the CHOP-R group, with a median PFS of 69.5 vs. 31.2 months, respectively. In the current analysis, we present updated results for overall survival (OS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), and secondary malignancies (sNPL) with a median follow-up of 113 months for patients with indolent lymphomas (excluding MCL). Methods: 447 pts with indolent lymphomas were randomized to receive B-R or CHOP-R for a maximum of 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included OS, TTNT, and sNPL. Results: Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms; median age was 64 years. The difference in OS between the two treatment arms was not statistically significant, with 60 deaths in the B-R group vs 68 deaths with CHOP-R (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 – 1.15, p = 0.249). The estimated 10-year survival rates were 71% for B-R and 66% for CHOP-R. TTNT was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with CHOP-R (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 – 0.69, p 〈 0.001). Median TTNT was not yet reached in the B-R group (95% CI 124.9 – n.y.r) vs. 56 months in the CHOP-R group (95% CI 39.1 – 82.0). Patients treated initially with B-R needed fewer second-line treatments due to disease progression compared to CHOP-R treated pts: 73 pts (34%) in the B-R group received salvage treatment compared with 106 pts (52%) in the CHOP-R group. For B-R pts, CHOP-R was used as second-line therapy 26 times (36%), whereas B-R was used for pts initially treated with CHOP-R 49 times (46%). 36 pts with sNPL were observed in the B-R group compared with 39 in the CHOP-R group, with 7 hematological malignancies in both groups to date. Conclusions: In pts with previously untreated indolent lymphomas, B-R demonstrates a PFS and TTNT benefit over CHOP-R. Clinical trial information: NCT00991211.

Abstract: Abstract 856 Introduction: Promising results have been observed in two phase II studies evaluating the combination of bendamustine plus rituximab (B-R) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory follicular, other indolent or mantle cell lymphomas (MCL) (Rummel et al. JCO 2005; Robinson et al. JCO 2008). Fludarabine plus rituximab (F-R) is an established treatment option in this setting. Therefore, we initiated in 2003 a multicenter, randomized phase III study to compare the efficacy and safety of B-R versus F-R for pts with relapsed follicular (FL), indolent or MCL. Patients and methods: 219 pts with relapsed FL, indolent or MCL in need of treatment were randomized to rituximab 375 mg/m2 (day 1) plus either bendamustine 90 mg/m2 (days 1+2) or fludarabine 25 mg/m2 (days 1–3) q 28 days for a maximum of 6 cycles. Prophylactic use of antibiotics or granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was not generally recommended; however in cases of severe granulocytopenia, G-CSF use was permitted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The protocol was amended in 2006 to allow rituximab maintenance therapy (rituximab 375 mg/m2 q 3 months for up to 2 years) in both arms, following regulatory approvals in this setting. Results: 11 pts were not evaluable due to protocol violations, and were not followed further. A total of 208 pts were evaluable for the final analysis (109 B-R; 99 F-R). There were no significant differences between arms for patient characteristics, including age, stage, LDH, International Prognostic Index (IPI), follicular IPI (FLIPI), bone marrow infiltration and extranodal involvement. Most pts had stage IV (71.6% B-R; 60.6% F-R) or stage III disease (21.1% B-R and 25.3% F-R, respectively). Median patient age was 68 yrs (range 38–87). Patients had received a median of 1 prior therapy (range 1–7). Histological subtypes were distributed equally between the B-R and F-R arms: follicular 45.9 % and 47.5%, respectively; immunocytoma 11.9% and 11.1%; MCL 20.2% and 21.2%; other indolent lymphomas 23% and 20.2%. A median number of 6 cycles were given in both treatment arms, with 75.2% of B-R pts and 53.4% of F-R pts receiving 6 cycles, respectively. At the time of this analysis (June 2010), the median observation time was 33 months. Median PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with F-R (30 vs 11 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.67; p 〈 0.0001). The overall response rate was significantly higher with B-R than with F-R (83.5 vs 52.5%, respectively; p 〈 0.0001). The CR rate with B-R was also significantly higher than that with F-R (38.5 vs 16.2%; p=0.0004). Overall survival did not differ significantly between arms, with 42 and 46 deaths documented in the B-R and F-R arms, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rates of alopecia, stomatitis, erythema, allergic reactions, peripheral neuropathy or infectious episodes between groups. Hematologic toxicities were also similar between arms: 8.9% grade 3/4 neutropenia with B-R vs 9.1% with F-R; 11.8% grade 3/4 leukocytopenia with B-R vs 12.4% with F-R. The overall incidence of serious adverse events was similar for the B-R and F-R groups (17.4 and 22.2%, respectively). An unplanned subanalysis showed that rituximab maintenance therapy significantly prolonged overall survival (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.22–0.67; p=0.0008) and PFS (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.27–0.59; p 〈 0.0001) in the small group of 40 pts who received this treatment (23 B-R, 17 F-R), compared with those who did not. Although the numbers are too small in this non-randomized comparison to draw some validated conclusions, these results appear to confirm the favorable role of rituximab maintenance. Conclusions: These data confirm the efficacy of B-R in pts with relapsed FL, indolent or MCL, and, in this setting, demonstrate a superior PFS benefit for this regimen in comparison with F-R. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract: Background: Promising results have been observed in our previous phase-II study evaluating the combination of Bendamustine plus Rituximab (B-R) in patients with relapsed/refractory indolent or mantle cell lymphomas. An overall response rate (ORR) of 90%, including a 60% rate of complete remissions (CR) was documented. Objective: In October 2003, we initiated a multicenter randomized phase-III study to compare efficacy and safety of the combination B-R versus CHOP plus Rituximab (CHOP-R) as first-line therapy for follicular, indolent and mantle cell lymphomas. Methods: Patients (pts) were randomized to receive Rituximab 375 mg/qm (day 1) plus either Bendamustine 90 mg/qm (days 1+2) every 28 days or the standard CHOP regimen every 21 days for a maximum of 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). The trial was calculated to power the study to demonstrate a non-inferior EFS associated with B-R treatment, as defined by a difference in EFS between the two regimes of less than 10% after 3 years. An event was defined by a response less than a partial response, disease progression, relapse, or death from any cause. The study is closed according to the planned recruitment schedule. Results: 546 patients have been randomized. For this second interim analysis, 437 patients are evaluable for response (B-R: n=221; CHOP-R: n=212). Median patient age is 64 years. Histologies are equally distributed between arms: follicular 52%, mantle cell 20%, and other indolent lymphomas 28% in both treatment groups, each. The ORR for pts treated with B-R was similar to that associated with CHOP-R (94% vs 93%, respectively). CR was also similar at 41% for B-R compared to 33% for CHOP-R. The median follow-up time for both groups is 28 months. Thus far, 50 deaths have been observed (B-R: 25; CHOP-R: 25). Progressive or relapsed disease has been documented during the follow-up period: 58 in pts treated with B-R and 75 in the CHOP-R group. The median EFS for B-R is not yet reached, the median EFS for CHOP-R is 39 months with no statistical significant difference for the EFS between both groups. The B-R regimen appears to have a better toxicity profile, as evidenced by a lower rate of total alopecia (0% with B-R vs. 89% CHOP-R) and a lower number of infectious complications (number of patients with infections of any grade were 56 (25%) in the B-R group vs. 78 (37%) in CHOP-R group). Correlating, the CHOP-R regimen was more hematotoxic: WHO grade 3/4 leukocytopenia was reported in 36% CHOP-R treated pts compared with 19% in pts treated with B-R, while in the CHOP-R group more frequently G-CSF was used. Conclusions: In this second interim analysis, the combination of Bendamustine plus Rituximab appears to be non-inferior to the standard CHOP-R while showing a better tolerability profile. Further updated results will be presented at this time.

Abstract: 3 Background: This multicenter, randomized, phase III study compared B-R and CHOP-R as first-line treatment in indolent lymphoma and MCL and was presented at ASH 2009 including a comprehensive safety analysis. Here we present an updated analysis with a cut-off date for 31 Oct 2011. Methods: 549 patients (pts) with indolent or MCL were randomized to receive B-R or CHOP-R for a max of 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was PFS. Results: 514 pts randomized pts were evaluable (261 B-R; 253 CHOP-R). Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms; median age was 64 years. At a median follow-up of 45 months, PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with CHOP-R (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44–0.74; P 〈 0.001). Median PFS was 69.5 versus 31.2 months, respectively. The PFS benefit with B-R was maintained in all histological subtypes except marginal zone lymphoma. The PFS benefit with B-R was independent of age; HR 0.52 (P=0.002) in pts ≤60 years (n=199), and HR 0.62 (P=0.002) in pts 〉 60 years (n=315). In pts with normal LDH (62%), PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with CHOP-R (P 〈 0.001), while in the elevated LDH group (38%) PFS was numerically, but not significantly increased with B-R compared with CHOP-R (P=0.118). In patients with follicular lymphoma, FLIPI subgroups defined by 0–2 factors (favorable) and 3–5 factors (unfavorable) had a longer PFS with B-R than with CHOP-R (P=0.043 and P=0.068 for the favorable and unfavorable FLIPI subgroups, respectively). Seventy four salvage treatments had been initiated in the B-R group; compared with 116 in the CHOP-R group, of those in the CHOP-R group 52 pts received B-R as salvage regimen. Overall survival did not differ between the treatment arms, with 43 and 45 deaths in the B-R and CHOP-R arms, respectively. Twenty secondary malignancies were observed in the B-R group compared with 23 in the CHOP-R group, with 1 hematological malignancy in each group (1 MDS in B-R, 1 AML in CHOP-R). Conclusions: In patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoma, and elderly patients with MCL, B-R demonstrates a PFS benefit and improved tolerability compared with CHOP-R.