Search

Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) is a common hematological premalignant condition that is understudied in screening cohorts. MBL can be classified into low-count (LC) and high-count (HC) types based on the size of the B-cell clone. Using the Mayo Clinic Biobank, we screened for MBL and evaluated its association with future hematologic malignancy and overall survival (OS). We had a two-stage study design including discovery and validation cohorts. We screened for MBL using an eight-color flow-cytometry assay. Medical records were abstracted for hematological cancers and death. We used Cox regression to evaluate associations and estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for age and sex. We identified 1712 (17%) individuals with MBL (95% LC-MBL), and the median follow-up time for OS was 34.4 months with 621 individuals who died. We did not observe an association with OS among individuals with LC-MBL (P = .78) but did among HC-MBL (hazard ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1; P = .03). Among the discovery cohort with a median of 10.0 years follow-up, 31 individuals developed hematological cancers with two-thirds being lymphoid malignancies. MBL was associated with 3.6-fold risk of hematological cancer compared to controls (95% CI, 1.7-7.7; P < .001) and 7.7-fold increased risk for lymphoid malignancies (95% CI:3.1-19.2; P < .001). LC-MBL was associated with 4.3-fold risk of lymphoid malignancies (95% CI, 1.4-12.7; P = .009); HC-MBL had a 74-fold increased risk (95% CI, 22-246; P < .001). In this large screening cohort, we observed similar survival among individuals with and without LC-MBL, yet individuals with LC-MBL have a fourfold increased risk of lymphoid malignancies. Accumulating evidence indicates that there are clinical consequences to LC-MBL, a condition that affects 8 to 10 million adults in the United States.

Background: While HL is a highly curable cancer, patients (pts) with advanced stage disease experience increased risk of relapse. Delineation of prognosis is desired to compare cohorts and outcomes between trials, and to define groups of pts for whom reduction in treatment may be appropriate or where novel therapeutic approaches are needed. The International Prognostic Score (IPS), which was derived from a discovery set of 1,618 HL pts with complete data, was a seminal publication in the field (Hasenclever and Diehl NEJM 1998). However, these data were published >20 years ago with a significant minority of pts having received chemotherapy regimens no longer in clinical use. More contemporary analyses have shown altered utility of the IPS (e.g., Moccia JCO 2012; Diefenbach BJH 2015). In addition, prior studies identified bulk disease as an adverse prognostic factor in advanced stage HL (Laskar JCO 2004; Johnson JCO 2010). Our objective was to leverage individual pt data (IPD) from HoLISTIC (www.hodgkinconsortium.com) to discover a new, robust, and modern prognostication index for advanced-stage HL pts applicable to diverse settings across the world. Methods: We created a data repository of IPD from clinical trials for newly diagnosed HL pts, which includes 4,085 advanced-stage (III or IV) pts treated in 8 large, prospective studies completed in the modern era (ie, IIL HD9601: Gobbi JCO 2005; Italian HD2000: Federico JCO 2009; ECOG 2496: Gordon JCO 2013; SWOG 0816: Press JCO 2016; IIL HD0801: Zinzani JCO 2016; RATHL: Johnson NEJM 2016; GITIL HD0607: Gallamini JCO 2017; and COG AHOD 0831: Kelly BJH 2019) as well as prominent cancer registries (eg, the Mayo/Iowa Molecular Epidemiologic Resource (MER)). The discovery analysis herein included pts from the ECOG 2496, HD0801 IIL, GITIL HD0607, and SWOG 0816 studies. Furthermore, it was restricted to pts (n=1,279) on these trials with complete data for all 9 covariates of interest: age; sex; advanced stage (III vs IV); B symptoms; any bulk; and values of hemoglobin, white blood count (WBC), lymphocyte count, and albumin. Using Cox proportional hazard (PH) models, we evaluated univariate associations between 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the aforementioned prognostic variables. Age was categorized based on plots and optimum model fit (c statistic). Lab values were dichotomized using cut-points from the 1998 IPS. Per convention, treatment factors were not included in the model. To identify independent prognostic factors of PFS and OS, a parsimonious Cox PH model was fit using backward selection of all potential risk factors (P Results: Among all pts, characteristics included: median age of 32.9 years (IQR 25.4-44, range 15-83); 55% male; 49% stage IV; 63% B symptoms; 26% bulk >10 cm; 20% hemoglobin 50 years, stage IV disease, B symptoms, and bulky disease were associated with worse PFS; and age >50 years, stage IV disease, bulky disease, anemia, and low albumin were associated with worse OS (Fig B). KM plots for age, stage, and bulk are presented in Fig C. Conclusions. In this international, multi-study analysis of advanced stage HL in the modern era, we identified several factors that were associated with both worse PFS and OS on MVA (ie, age, stage IV disease, and bulky disease). The finding of bulky disease as a significant prognostic factor warrants further investigation. In addition, we detected an age-related U-shaped impact on PFS with inferior outcomes for pts ages 15-25 years and ≥50 years, the latter in an increasing linear fashion. Altogether, these data will serve as a training cohort for a modern HL prognostication index that will be augmented and analyzed with a large independent validation cohort (vis-à-vis the remaining HL data in the HoLISTIC consortium), which will be presented at the ASH meeting. Disclosures Parsons: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Advani:Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Federico:Spectrum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma s.r.l.: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cephalon/Teva: Research Funding. Friedberg:Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.: Other; Bayer: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy. Hutchings:Genmab: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Daiichi: Research Funding; Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Genmab: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Johnson:MorphoSys: Honoraria; Kymera: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Oncimmune: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Oncimmune: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genmab: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers: Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADCT: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: 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, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding. Evens:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) represent a relatively common group of T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (T-NHLs) that are unified by similar pathologic features but demonstrate marked genetic heterogeneity. ALCLs are broadly classified as being anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)+ or ALK−, based on the presence or absence of ALK rearrangements. Exome sequencing of 62 T-NHLs identified a previously unreported recurrent mutation in the musculin gene, MSCE116K, exclusively in ALK− ALCLs. Additional sequencing for a total of 238 T-NHLs confirmed the specificity of MSCE116K for ALK− ALCL and further demonstrated that 14 of 15 mutated cases (93%) had coexisting DUSP22 rearrangements. Musculin is a basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factor that heterodimerizes with other bHLH proteins to regulate lymphocyte development. The E116K mutation localized to the DNA binding domain of musculin and permitted formation of musculin–bHLH heterodimers but prevented their binding to authentic target sequence. Functional analysis showed MSCE116K acted in a dominant-negative fashion, reversing wild-type musculin-induced repression of MYC and cell cycle inhibition. Chromatin immunoprecipitation–sequencing and transcriptome analysis identified the cell cycle regulatory gene E2F2 as a direct transcriptional target of musculin. MSCE116K reversed E2F2-induced cell cycle arrest and promoted expression of the CD30–IRF4–MYC axis, whereas its expression was reciprocally induced by binding of IRF4 to the MSC promoter. Finally, ALCL cells expressing MSCE116K were preferentially targeted by the BET inhibitor JQ1. These findings identify a novel recurrent MSC mutation as a key driver of the CD30–IRF4–MYC axis and cell cycle progression in a unique subset of ALCLs.

Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is characterized by multiple copy number alterations (CNA) and mutations that are central to disease pathogenesis, prognosis, risk-stratification, and identification of response or resistance to therapies. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) is gold standard in the clinical laboratory for detecting prognostic CNAs in CLL (e.g. deletion 17p13 (del(17p), deletion 11q23 (del(11q), deletion 13q14 (del(13q), and trisomy 12). Most clinical FISH assays have high specificity and sensitivity, but the technique can detect a limited number of alterations per assay. Importantly, next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques have become more readily available for clinical applications and are increasingly being used for screening not only mutations, but also copy number abnormalities in multiple genes and chromosomal regions of interest in hematologic malignancies. Here, we evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) using a custom targeted NGS assay for detecting common prognostic chromosomal alterations in CLL and high-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), the precursor to CLL. Methods : We designed a SureSelect DNA targeted sequencing panel, covering all exons of 59 recurrently CLL mutated genes and additional amplicons across regions affected by clinically relevant CNAs. All CLL (N=534) and MBL (N=162) patients had pre-treatment peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) collected within two years of diagnosis. DNA was extracted in cases with purity >80% of CD5+/CD19+ cells. Clinical FISH data was available within 100 days of NGS in all untreated CLL and MBL cases. PatternCNV was used to detect clinically relevant CNAs in chromosomes 11, 12, 13 and 17. We performed a principal component analysis on the CNA calls, excluding chromosomes 11, 12, 13, and 17 to identify clusters of samples. Each cluster was then independently rerun with PatternCNV and the results from chromosomes 11, 12, 13, and 17 were extracted and further analyzed. We excluded samples with low tumor metrics identified by FISH (less than 20% of cells with del(17p), del(11q), trisomy 12 and del(13q)). Results: We sequenced a total of 696 patients of whom 162 were MBL and 534 were untreated CLL. The most commonly mutated genes were NOTCH1 (11.0%), TP53 (8.7%), SF3B1 (7.7%), ATM (4.1%), and CHD2 (3.8%). Based on CNA analyses from the NGS data, we identified 59 (9.1%) individuals with del(17p), 88 (13.4%) individuals with del(11q), 128 (20.0%) individuals with trisomy 12, and 329 (53.0%) individuals with del(13q). All 696 individuals had FISH panels conducted, with 39 (5.6%) individuals with del(17p), 68 (9.8%) individuals with (11q), 119 (17.1%) with trisomy 12, and 295 (42.4%) with del(13q). When we compared our CNA analyses with the FISH data, we found high concordance 95.0% for del(17p), 92.7% del(11p), 94.3% for trisomy 12, and 88.2% for del(13q). For del(17p) we found a sensitivity of 93.9%, specificity of 95.4%, PPV of 52.5%, and NPV of 99.7%. Del(11q) revealed a sensitivity of 88.1%, specificity of 94.0%, PPV of 59.1%, and NPV 98.8%. We found a sensitivity of 93.8%, specificity of 95.6%, PPV 82.0%, and NPV of 98.6% for trisomy 12 and for del(13q) we found a sensitivity of 92.6%, specificity of 90.9%, PPV of 91.7%, and NPV of 93.8%. We found lower PPVs in del(17p) and del(11q) likely due to lower prevalence of these chromosomal abnormalities. Conclusion: Here we show a high sensitivity, specificity, and NPV when comparing targeted sequencing with FISH. FISH panel testing is widely used in clinical practice to characterize highly prognostic chromosomal abnormalities in CLL. Comprehensive genetic profiling with NGS has become increasingly important in the work up of hematologic malignancies and provides additional prognostic and predictive information, including clinically relevant mutations such as TP53, SF3B1, and NOTCH1, tumor mutation load and mutations associated with resistance to chemo-immunotherapy and targeted therapies, such as BTK or BCL2 inhibitors, that FISH cannot offer. We show that NGS can infer clinically relevant CNA in cases without FISH testing while also providing additional clinically relevant information. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: Genentech: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: 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, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: TP53 aberrations, including mutations and deletion of 17p (del17p), are important adverse prognostic markers in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Prevalence of TP53 aberrations ranges from 7-11% in untreated CLL and increases with disease progression and treatment. Among CLL patients with TP53 aberrations, co-occurrence of TP53 mutations with del(17p) is common. CLL patients with TP53 mutations or del(17p) have significantly worse outcomes when compared to wild-type patients. Previous studies, focusing on CLL patients at time of treatment, are mixed as to whether a single or more than one TP53 aberration impacts outcomes. TP53 is less well studied in monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), an asymptomatic pre-malignant state of CLL. Del(17p) occurs in 3-4% of MBL individuals, and a study of 54 MBL individuals reported a 2% mutation frequency in TP53. Here we estimated prevalence and evaluated the impact of TP53 aberrations in a large cohort MBL or untreated CLL individuals. Methods : Patients with CLL or MBL diagnosed between 2000 and 2019 from the Mayo Clinic CLL Resource with pre-treatment peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) collected within two years of diagnosis were considered. DNA was extracted from PBMCs with purity >80% or with sorted CD5+/CD19+ clonal cells. The entire coding regions of 59 CLL driver genes were paired end sequenced. Median coverage depth was >1000x per nucleotide, allowing for detection of mutations with variant allelic fraction (VAF) as low as 1%. Somatic mutations were called using MuTect2 in tumor-only mode, and high impact mutations (frameshift, nonsense, and splicing variants) and missense mutations in CLL hot spots were selected. Somatic mutations and FISH del(17p) were used to define TP53 state for each patient: 1) wild-type [no TP53 mutations and normal del(17p)], 2) single-hit [one TP53 mutation or del(17p)], or 3) multi-hit [multiple TP53 mutations or TP53 mutation and del(17p)]. Time to first treatment (TTFT) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by TP53 state. TTFT and OS were defined as time from sample collection to first treatment or death, respectively, or last follow-up date. Median TTFT and OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals for TTFT and OS associations. The models were adjusted for known adverse prognostic factors including clinical diagnosis (CLL or MBL), age at diagnosis, Rai stage, b2 microglobulin, and IGHV mutation status. Results: Individuals with CLL (N=597) or MBL (N=285) were analyzed for prevalence of TP53 mutations and del(17p). We found 58 CLL patients (9.7%) and 15 MBL individuals (5.3%) had TP53 mutations. The median VAF in CLL was 30.9% ( Patients with any TP53 aberration had shorter TTFT than wild-type patients (median 2.3 vs 9.4 years). Among patients with TP53 aberrations, median TTFT was shorter in multi-hit patients (20 events, 1.8 years) compared to single-hit patients (24 events, 3.2 years) (Fig. 1b). In Cox regression, single-hit (HR = 1.7 [1.1-2.6]) and multi-hit (HR = 1.8 [1.1-2.9]) patients had shorter TTFT compared to wild-type patients after adjusting for covariates (Fig. 1c). Multi-hit patients also had shorter OS compared to wild-type patients, while OS in single-hit patients did not significantly differ from wild-type patients (Fig. 1d). Median OS was 5.5 years in multi-hit patients (22 deaths) compared to 15.1 years in wild-type patients (196 deaths) and 14.3 years in single-hit patients (15 deaths). In the OS model adjusted for covariates, multi-hit patients had a significant increased risk (HR = 2.6 [1.6-4.1]), but single-hit patients did not (HR = 1.4 [0.8-2.5]) compared with wild-type patients (Fig. 1e). OS HRs remained stable after censoring at time of treatment. Both TTFT and OS HRs were consistent when mutations with VAF < 10% were excluded. Conclusions: This study suggests single versus multi-hit TP53 aberrations may be important for prognostic outcomes in untreated CLL and MBL patients. Prognostic metrics may need to consider single versus multi-hit TP53 aberrations and include TP53 mutations with low VAF. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

TMB is used to guide PD-1-directed immunotherapy in solid tumor Oncology. However, it has not been systematically studied in AML, where the focus has been on cytogenetic risk and individual driver gene mutations (GM's). TMB contribution to AML epidemiology is also uncertain. We therefore studied its association with epidemiologic risk factors; driver GM's and somatic mutations (SM's) in AML risk genes which we recently demonstrated (ABCB1; CYP1A1; CYP2B6; EPHX1; ERCC1,2,& 5; MEFV; MTRR; and TERT); clinical and cytogenetic features; and outcome after therapy in the MCAEC, a highly annotated clinical epidemiology cohort of consecutive AML pts [Finn, Cancer Epidemiol 39:1084, 2015]. Methods: We obtained somatic leukemia DNA from remnant diagnostic cytogenetic pellets in 98 MCAEC patients (pts), as previously described [Foran, Blood (2017) 130:570a]. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed at depth of ~100 million paired end 100bp reads using Agilent SureSelectXT Human All Exon V5 + UTRs target enrichment kit. Reads were mapped to human genome build hg19 using BWA-MEM. Single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and small INDELs were identified using Mayo Clinic (MC) analytic pipeline GenomeGPS 4.0.1 following Broad GATK variant discovery best practices of alignment, realignment and recalibration, and multi-sample joint genotyping; and filtered using both germline whole exome and genome sequencing of ~1200 MC Biobank samples and public germline variant databases of 1000 genome project, 6500 individuals in exome sequencing project, and HapMap phase 3. Remaining variants were annotated using ANNOVAR, and functional variants of non-synonymous, truncating, frame-shift, and splice-sites were used in the statistical association analyses. TMB was defined as the number of functional mutations per Mb of coding region, heterozygous or homozygous. TMB associations with epidemiologic risk, clinical characteristics, and SM's in AML risk genes (listed above) or driver GM's (occurring in 5 or more pts: ASXL1, BCOR, CEBPA, DNMT3A, FLT3, IDH2, KRAS, MLL2-5, NF1, NPM1, NRAS, PHF6, RUNX1, SF3B1, STAG2, TET2, TP53, U2AF1) were evaluated using linear regression models; a rank transformation of TMB was utilized due to its skewed distribution. Multivariable analysis (MVA) models were adjusted for variables with p-value Results Median age at AML diagnosis was 70 yrs (Range: 19-94 yrs), and 67 pts were male. Cytogenetic risk group was favorable (7%), intermediate-normal (46%) or abnormal (20%), and poor risk (27%). 40/61 pts (66%) achieved complete remission (CR). With a median follow-up of 8.0 months (Range: 0.1 - 186), 80 pts (82%) died and 20 (20%) underwent allogeneic transplantation (AlloBMT). Median TMB was 18.2 (Range: 15.0-70.1). In MVA, significant associations with increased TMB were observed in pts with history of prior immunosuppressive therapy or solid organ transplantation (β=19.48, P=0.015), and with FLT3 (β=21.12, P=0.015), MLL2 (β=20.91, P=0.001), and MLL3 (β=11.31, P=0.031) GM's. A borderline association was observed for U2AF1 (β=16.14, P=0.057). TMB was also associated with SM's in TERT (β=25.13, P=0.028); a borderline association with SM's in ABCB1 was not confirmed in MVA (β=-17.98, P=0.069). Additionally, cytogenetic risk group was associated with TMB in MVA (P=0.005), being highest in intermediate-normal and lowest in poor risk groups. Body Mass Index was inversely associated with TMB (unadjusted β=-16.99, P=0.005), but unconfirmed in MVA (β=-8.29, P=0.12). There was no association with CR (OR=0.93, P=0.46), use of (HR=0.96, P=0.64) or relapse risk (HR=1.00, P=0.98) following AlloBMT, or survival (HR=0.97, P=0.56) (Figure). Conclusions Measurement of TMB is feasible in this AML epidemiologic cohort, and we observed important associations with AML risk factors, risk gene SM's, cytogenetic risk group, and driver GM's. We acknowledge the relatively small sample size and possibility of type II error, and therefore these observations require validation in a large prospective cohort which is planned. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Foran: OncLive: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; servier: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; revolution medicine: Honoraria; gamida: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; trillium: Research Funding; syros: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; bms: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Finn: Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration.

Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) is one of the most common pre-malignant conditions and is characterized by a circulating population of clonal B-cells with an absolute clonal B-cell count < 5x10 9/L and no evidence of lymphadenopathy, organomegaly, or cytopenias. MBL can be classified by the immunophenotype: CLL-like MBL (CD5+, CD20dim), atypical MBL (CD5+, CD20+), or non-CLL-like MBL (CD5-, CD20+), as well as by the size of the clone (low-count or high-count) with low-count MBL (LC-MBL) defined as clonal B-cell Study participants from the Mayo Clinic Biobank, a large-scale biorepository of adult patients, who had no prior history of hematologic malignancy, provided blood samples between 7/2009 to 4/2021. Stored peripheral blood mononuclear cells were screened for MBL with an eight-color flow cytometry assay capable of detecting clonal B-cell event to the 0.005% level. We classified each MBL by immunophenotype as CLL-like MBL, atypical MBL, and non-CLL-like MBL. Individuals with more than one immunophenotype were classified into one immunophenotype based on the following hierarchy: CLL-like MBL, then atypical MBL, then non-CLL like MBL. Based on previously published evidence, individuals were also classified by clonal counts using the percent clonal B-cell count We screened 8,297 individuals 40 years or older (median age 67 years, 39% male) and identified 1,326 (16%) with LC-MBL and 6,651 (80%) controls. Those individuals detected with high-count MBL (N=90, 1%) or individuals who had insufficient cells for flow cytometry interpretation (N=230, 3%) were excluded from subsequent analyses. The prevalence of LC-MBL was higher in males (21%) than females (14%; p= 65 (P=0.68). Among females, OS was longer among LC-MBL compared to controls (HR=0.61, CI=0.38-0.97, P=0.04); but no evidence of a difference in OS among males was observed (HR=1.22, CI=0.92-1.62, P=0.17). When we evaluated OS by MBL immunophenotype, we observed no statistically significant difference (Fig 1b, log rank P=0.44). When we stratified the MBLs by immunophenotype versus controls, we also did not observe a difference: CLL-like (HR=0.91, CI=0.71-1.18, P=0.5), atypical (HR=1.73, CI=0.92-3.27, P=0.09), non-CLL like (HR=0.98, CI=0.58-1.66, P=0.95). In the largest MBL screening cohort to date, LC-MBL was a common condition among adults 40 years or older reaching a prevalence as high as 29% among individuals 80 years of age or older. OS among those with and without LC-MBL was similar, regardless of immunophenotype and age. The longer survival in females with MBL versus controls requires further evaluation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Parikh: Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding. Kay: Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Introduction: Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) constitutes ~40% of hematologic malignancies and, in 2020, resulted in 19,940 deaths in the USA. The most common NHL subtypes are diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL), and follicular lymphoma (FL). Although a majority of patients respond to standard-of-care therapy, many patients with NHL eventually relapse, highlighting the need for additional treatments. Real-world data regarding the safety and efficacy of emerging therapies in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) population, and the association between treatment patterns and patient outcomes, are limited. These data could provide unique insights to clinical and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in patients with DLBCL, FL, or PMBCL treated with emerging therapies, especially novel options such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies. Methods: The Connect ® Lymphoma Disease Registry (NCT04982471) is a US-based, multicenter, prospective observational cohort study of patients with R/R NHL (DLBCL, FL, and PMBCL). Approximately 2100 patients ≥ 18 years of age from ~200 community oncology (~80%) or academic (~20%) sites will be enrolled over a ~3-year period. Patients with histologically confirmed NHL subtypes will be enrolled into 1 of 4 cohorts: first R/R DLBCL, second R/R DLBCL, first R/R FL, or first R/R PMBCL (Figure). Patients will be required to have begun second- (first R/R) or third- (second R/R) line systemic treatment within 60 days prior to enrollment. Patients receiving treatment for any active malignancy other than DLBCL, FL, or PMBCL at the time of enrollment, or who are diagnosed with any other malignancy in the 6 months prior to enrollment, will be excluded. All treatment and management decisions will be determined by the practicing clinicians. Patients may undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, CAR T cell therapy, or other treatments at other sites while participating in this study. Patients will be followed from enrollment for up to 5 years or until death, withdrawal of consent, loss to follow-up, or study termination, whichever occurs first. Data collection will occur at enrollment (baseline) and then every ~3 months. The main objectives of the Connect ® Registry are to describe patient characteristics, practice patterns, and factors associated with treatment choice, sequencing, and effectiveness in NHL subtypes. Secondary objectives include describing treatment regimen safety, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including HRQoL, and healthcare resource utilization outcomes. Exploratory objectives include tumor and blood biomarker evaluation and understanding the availability of social support and its impact on long-term treatment decision-making. Case report forms will be used to collect clinical and treatment data, including baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment details and response, and socioeconomic factors. Outcome measures for efficacy will be progression-free survival, event-free survival, objective response rate, time to next treatment, and overall survival. The availability of social support will be assessed via a specific questionnaire administered at baseline. General (EQ-5D-5L) and disease-specific (FACT-Lym) questionnaires will also be administered. Patients may also optionally agree to release tumor biopsies and blood samples for biomarker analysis. Clinicians will be required to report serious adverse events (AEs), secondary primary malignancies, and confirmed COVID-19 infections within 24 hours. Non-serious AEs of interest include grade 1-3 cytokine release syndrome, grade 1-3 neurotoxicity, grade 3 colitis, grade 3 arrhythmia, grade 3 hemorrhage. Other AEs of interest to be collected include grade 3 hypogammaglobulinemia, prolonged grade 3 cytopenia, and grade 3 infections. Data collected in the Connect ® Registry will increase understanding of the association between emerging therapies and patient outcomes for R/R DLBCL, FL, and PMBCL. Study support: Bristol Myers Squibb Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Flowers: Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; Ziopharm: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Iovance: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Andorsky: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Other: served on steering committees; Epizyme: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Burke: SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kymera: Consultancy. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration. Grinblatt: Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Toomey: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Zelenetz: Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; LFR: Other; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; MethylGene: Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Sullivan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Flick: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Kiselev: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kaplan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Ahn: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment.

Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) is an important clinical endpoint in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 with frontline immunochemotherapy have minimal loss of lifetime compared to age- and sex-matched general population. However, the prognostic role of EFS24 in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has not been well studied, possibly due to the perception of continued relapse pattern and poor survival outcome of MCL historically. A recent study from our group demonstrated evolving frontline therapy pattern from 2002-2009 ("Era 1") to 2010-2015 ("Era 2") which was associated with improved EFS and overall survival (OS) in Era 2. In the current study, we sought to explore the prognostic role of EFS24 in the two eras. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from 9/2002 through 6/2015 were identified from Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), a prospective cohort study of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. OS was defined as time from diagnosis (or the EFS24 defining event where applicable) to death from any cause and was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Expected OS accounting for age and sex was generated in R by using the general US population as the reference group. Observed versus expected OS was summarized by using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of observed to expected deaths. Cumulative incidence of lymphoma-specific death was analyzed using Gray's test, with deaths from all other causes treated as competing events. Results: A total of 343 patients were included, 175 from Era 1 (median follow-up 13.0 years) and 168 from Era 2 (median follow-up 6.9 years). Age, sex and simplified MIPI score were similar between the 2 groups. Patients diagnosed in Era 2 had better OS, with a 5-year OS of 68.4% vs 59.2% (simplified MIPI-adjusted hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93). Patients diagnosed in both eras had inferior OS compared to the general population, with an SMR of 3.26 (95% CI 2.70-3.89, P The primary cause of death after diagnosis was lymphoma-related for patients diagnosed in both eras. The 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 28.8% in Era 1 and 20.5% in Era 2. In patients who were diagnosed in Era 1 and achieved EFS24, the primary cause of death after achieving EFS24 remained to be lymphoma-related, with a 5-year rate of 19.8% compared to 6.2% for lymphoma-unrelated causes (Figure 1C). In contrast, in patients who were diagnosed in Era 2 and achieved EFS24, the rate of lymphoma-related death was no longer higher than that of lymphoma-unrelated death, with a 5-year rate of 2.1% vs 5.5%, respectively (Figure 1D). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to only patients who received standard frontline immunochemotherapy, similar results were obtained. For example, in patients who achieved EFS24, the SMR compared to the general population was 2.89 (95% CI 2.00-4.04, P Conclusions: MCL survival outcome has improved for patients first diagnosed in the more recent era (2010-2015, compared to 2002-2009), likely due to improved frontline therapy as well as better salvage treatments (such as lenalidomide and BTK inhibitors). In the more recent treatment era, patients who achieved EFS24 had survival approaching the age- and sex-matched general population. In addition, these patients had a low risk of dying from lymphoma and were more likely to die from other causes. Longer follow-up (e.g., in Era 2) and external validation in other series are necessary to confirm the prognostic role of EFS24. With more efficacious salvage treatment options and likely continued improvement of OS in MCL, EFS24 may become an important clinical endpoint in frontline therapy of MCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Link: Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy. Farooq: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background Yttrium-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan [(90)Y-IT; Zevalin] is a radio-immunoconjugate (RIC) which targets CD20. This study evaluates the utilization and cost-effectiveness of (90)Y-IT in the first line treatment for patients with previously untreated low-grade FL (UFL) and marginal zone lymphoma (UMZL) treated at our institution with (90)Y-IT. Methods We utilized the Advanced Text Explorer (ATE) and the Lymphoma SPORE databases to identify two groups of patients with UFL, WHO grade 1-2, and UMZL who received treatment with either (90)Y-IT or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between January 2003 and December 2019. We excluded all patients who had >25% bone marrow involvement with lymphoma for the BR group as this was a requirement for (90)Y-IT treatment. Inverse propensity weighting was utilized to balance the groups for baseline patients and disease characteristics. We use progression-free survival (PFS) as a denominator for the cost effectiveness/utilization evaluation. We identified meaningful and retrospectively measurable outcomes to compare between the groups. we extracted the following data; number of clinic visits in the first year after therapy, emergency room visits, number of hospital admissions, number of hospitalization days, numbers of days on the floor and ICU, number of infections, number of neutropenic fever hospitalizations, number of C-difficile events, number of blood products transfusions, overall use of growth factors due to therapy induced neutropenia, average number of times a growth factor was used, and the number of therapeutic use days. We defined days of therapeutic use as the number of days a treatment was administered on. We also calculated the average cost of the induction treatment when utilizing either (90)Y-IT or BR. The therapeutic cost included only the cost of the medications/therapies and their administration. Results Our cohort consists of a total of 143 patients - 64% (92/143) received BR and 36% (51/143) received (90)Y-IT (see Table-1 for clinical characteristics).The median follow-up from the time of therapeutic administration for the (90)Y-IT group was 5.3 years (95% CI; 4.2, 6.2) with one death and 4.7 years (95% CI; 3.9, 4.9) for the BR group with 6 deaths. The ORR was 100% in (90)Y-IT group with 94% achieving complete response (CR) while ORR in the BR group was 98% with 95% achieving CR. Rituximab maintenance was utilized in 33% of BR patients compared to only 6% in patients who received (90)Y-IT, p=0.002. After utilizing inverse propensity weighting (Figure-1), 5 years PFS was 76% for the (90)Y-IT group and 75% for the BR group, p=0.63 (Figure-2). We evaluated the average treatment effect of (90)Y-IT compared to BR on utilization outcomes, Table-2. (90)Y-IT required an average of 4.5 clinic visits less within the first year after treatment compared to BR group, p Transformation to a high grade of lymphoma was seen in 4 patients in the BR group and 2 patients in the (90)Y-IT group. There was only one case of myelodysplastic syndrome in the BR group and none in the (90)Y-IT group. Conclusion Radio-immunoconjugate therapy with (90)Y-IT is a very convenient and cost-effective treatment for low-grade UFL and UMZL. This is especially important amidst the COVID-19 pandemic as it requires less contact with the health system with decreased number of therapeutic days, clinic visits, use of growth factors and number of hospitalization days. The cost of the therapeutic agents and their administration was also significantly lower for the (90)Y-IT which could help reducing the burden on the health system. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Tun: Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding; Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: We are describing the use of Yttrium-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan in the first line setting in comparison to the bendamustine plus rituximab which is the standard of care

Introduction: Novel therapeutic agents such as immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and brentuximab vedotin (BV) are active in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), including in patients that relapse after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). However, optimal management strategy is unclear for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) cHL post-ASCT. The aim of the study is to determine the impact of novel agents relative to conventional therapy and allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) on survival outcomes of patients with cHL who relapsed after ASCT. Methods: Patients with RR cHL who underwent ASCT between 06/1993 and 10/2017 at 3 Mayo Clinic sites were included. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. For patients who relapsed after ASCT, the post-relapse progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Statistical analyses were done in JMP v15.2.1 and EZR v1.54. Results: A total of 332 patients with RR cHL who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT were identified. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 8.6 years (range 6.8-9.7), 136 (41%) patients had a relapse or disease progression after ASCT. Patient characteristics of the 136 cases are summarized in the Table. The median age at post-ASCT relapse was 34 years (range 20-73), and 77 (57%) were male. 59 (43%) relapsed within 6 months and 77 (57%) relapsed after 6 months following ASCT. 59 (45%) had an extranodal site involvement at relapse. 14 (10%) had therapy with ICI or BV as salvage therapy prior to ASCT or maintenance therapy post-ASCT. The median post-relapse PFS and OS was 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.1) and 3.2 years (95% CI 2.2-5.5) years, respectively. Compared to patients who relapse after 6 months, patients who relapsed within 6 months of ASCT had worse post-relapse PFS (median 0.5 [0.3-0.7] vs 1.3 [0.9-1.9] years, p=0.0003) and OS (median 1.3 [0.5-2.2] vs 6.4 [3.7-10.4] years, p=0.0003). Extranodal site involvement at relapse was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.7 [0.5-1.2] vs 0.9 [0.6-1.3] years, p=0.28) but was associated with worse post-relapse OS (median 2.7 [1.5-4.2] vs 6.4 [2.6-NA] years, p=0.006). Prior therapy with ICI or BV was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.6 [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] year, p=0.8) and OS (median NR [1.0-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.5] years, p=0.5). After post-ASCT relapse, the median lines of subsequent therapy were 2 (range 1-12). For first post-ASCT salvage therapy, novel agents (ICI or BV), compared to other therapies, were associated with superior post-relapse PFS (median 1.7 [0.7-3.6] vs 0.7 [0.5-1.0] years, p=0.004) and OS (median 7.6 [4.7-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.6], p=0.02). Allo-SCT following first post-ASCT relapse (n=9) was not associated with improvement in post-relapse PFS (median 2.2 years [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] years, p=0.1) or OS (median NR [0.5-NA] vs 5.1 [3.2-7.3] years, p=0.7). Patients who received ICI or BV at any point post-ASCT relapse had significantly better post-relapse OS (median 7.6 [4.3-16.7] vs 2.2 [1.4-3.7] years, p=0.004) compared to those who never received any novel agent (Figure 1A). In contrast, allo-SCT at any point post-ASCT relapse (n=27) did not improve post-relapse OS (median 5.6 [2.7-NA] vs 4.7 [2.7-7.3] years, p=0.3) (Figure 1B). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, exposure to ICI and/or BV was associated with superior post-relapse OS (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p=0.007); however, allo-SCT was not associated with improvement in post-relapse OS (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.5, p=0.5). Conclusions: Patients relapsing within 6 months of ASCT and those with extranodal involvement at relapse had inferior OS after post-ASCT relapse. Prior therapy with novel agents did not impact post-relapse survival outcomes. In the setting of post-ASCT relapse, novel therapeutic agents significantly improved survival outcomes while allo-SCT did not. Future multicenter studies are needed to explore the role of novel agents and allo-SCT in patients with RR cHL post-ASCT relapse. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InnoCare: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Tun: Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy; Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.

Introduction Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL), monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), and clonal hematopoiesis (CH) are three common premalignant hematological conditions. MBL is a precursor to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), MGUS is a precursor to both multiple myeloma (MM) and Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), and CH is a possible precursor to myeloid disease. All three conditions are independently associated with aging. Furthermore, there is evidence that all three conditions are associated with increased risk of infection. The relationship among these conditions, the prevalence with which they co-exist, and the association between the number of premalignant conditions and risk of infection is unknown. Methods Study participants from the Mayo Clinic Biobank, a large-scale biorepository of adult patients, provided a peripheral blood sample between 7/14/2009 to 06/18/2015. Individuals were screened for MBL using eight-color flow cytometry capable of detecting clonal B-cells to the 0.005% level. MGUS was screened using a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (MALDI-TOF) assay. CH was screened using a targeted sequencing panel of 42 CH-associated genes with at least 1000x read depth and the ability to detect variant allele fractions down to 1%. All study participants resided in Olmsted County, Minnesota, the county that includes Mayo Clinic. Serious infection, defined as hospitalization due to infection, was abstracted from medical records from the time of sample collection through 12/31/2020 or date of death. The medical record abstractor collecting data was blinded to condition. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between each of the conditions. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI to assess the association between number of premalignant conditions with risk of infection. All analyses were adjusted for age at sample collection and sex. Results A total of 407 individuals (55% male, median age 68 years) were screened for all three conditions. The prevalence was 19.9% (n=81) for MBL, 14.5% (n=59) for MGUS, and 25.6% (n=104) for CH. When we evaluated the association between each of the conditions, we found no evidence of an association between the prevalence of CH and risk of MBL (OR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.43-1.42), CH and risk of MGUS (OR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.66-2.27), or MGUS and risk of MBL (OR=1.32, 95% CI:0.66-2.52). The prevalence of co-existence of these conditions was assessed by grouping individuals based on their condition or conditions (Figure 1A). We found that 197 (48.4%) study participants had at least one premalignant condition and 10.6% had two or more. Individuals with 2 or more conditions were the oldest (median age 74 years), followed by 1 condition (median 69 years) and 0 conditions (median 67 years, P-trend Discussion At least one premalignant condition was present in nearly 50% of the study population, with CH being the most prevalent. No evidence of a relationship between any of the three conditions was observed. However, we found increased susceptibility to serious infections as the number of conditions increased with individuals with at least two conditions had 2.6-fold increased risk of infections. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Parikh: Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Murray: Mayo Clinic: Other: Has received patents for the Mass-Fix technology which has been licensed to the Binding Site with potential royalties.. Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Kay: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Introduction: Up to 40% of newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) will relapse after frontline rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP), with subsequent poor prognosis. Identification of patients (pts) at high risk of relapse early in the treatment can allow for development of risk adapted therapies to improve outcomes. Positron Emission Tomography scan after 2 cycles of therapy (PET2) has been evaluated as a predictor of relapse but study treatments were heterogenous and results were conflicting. A substudy of CALGB 50303 trial did not find association of PET2 response by Deauville Score (DS) with survival in RCHOP and DA-EPOCH-R treated pts. In the UK National Cancer Research Institute Prospective Study, DS of 5 on PET2 predicted worse progression free survival but not overall survival (OS) in RCHOP-21 and RCHOP-14 treated pts. Here we report impact of PET2 response on outcomes in two large independent, prospective cohorts of newly diagnosed DLBCL treated homogenously with two RCHOP-based regimens of similar efficacy. Methods: Discovery was done in adult pts with DLBCL enrolled into a single arm phase 2 trial of lenalidomide plus standard RCHOP (R2CHOP) (MC078E, NCT00670358). The validation cohort comprised of adult pts with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with standard RCHOP prospectively enrolled into the Mayo component of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER). Both MC078E and MER cohorts included patients who received at least 3-6 cycles of therapy and had a PET2. Pts who progressed on PET2 were excluded. End of treatment (EOT) PET was done 3-12 weeks after last cycle of therapy. The revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson, et al 2007) was used to assess PET in MC078E. In MER, revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson et al 2007) or Lugano classification was used, depending on era of diagnosis. Positive PET was defined as FDG uptake above background (Cheson 2007) or DS 4 or 5 (Lugano 2014). Study endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and OS by PET2 status. Results: Out of 118 pts treated on MC078E, 102 had PET2 (MC078E). The median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range 19-87), 61 (60%) were male, 89 (87%) had advanced stage disease, 46 (45%) had international prognostic index (IPI) of 3-5. 58 (57%) were PET2 Negative (PET2-ve) and 44 (43%) were PET2 Positive (PET2+ve). At EOT PET, 83 (81%) had -ve PET and 15 (15%) had +ve PET. Out of 44 PET2+ve pts, 15 remained +ve at EOT PET. Out of 58 PET2-ve pts, 56 had EOT PET available and all were -ve. Out of 866 DLBCL pts enrolled into MER between August 2005 and June 2015, 621 were treated with RCHOP for 3-6 cycles and 272 had available PET2 (MER). The median age was 65 years (range 55-73), 152 (56%) were male, 174 (64%) had advanced stage, 103 (38%) had IPI 3-5. 186 (68%) were PET2-ve and 86 (32%) were PET2+ve. Out of 235 with EOT PET available, 182 (77%) had -ve EOT PET and 25 (11%) had +ve EOT PET. PET2+ve pts had higher odds of +ve EOT PET (OR: 17.4 (CI 95 8.3-40.0), p In MC078E, 2-year EFS and OS were 69.5% (CI 95 61.1-79.1) and 88.1% (CI 95 82-94.7). In MER, 2-year EFS and OS were 71.6% (CI 95 67.7-76.8) and 82.3% (CI 95 79.3-85.3). Compared to PET2-ve, PET2+ve pts had significantly inferior EFS in both MC078E (HR 4.0, CI 95 2.1-7.88, p Conclusions: Positive PET2 was associated with increased risk of disease progression and death in newly diagnosed DLBCL. Results of our study provide robust evidence of importance of PET2 as an early predictor DLBCL pts at high risk of progression in two independent prospective cohorts. PET2-guided risk-adapted strategies using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies may potentially improve outcomes, should be explored in clinical trials and results of our study serve as a benchmark for such studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) exhibits significant clinical, cellular, molecular, and genetic heterogeneity. Our understanding of FL biology and molecular classifications of FL, to date, has largely been driven by pathologic classification (Grade 1-3b), genetic classification (m7-FLIPI), or gene expression profiling (IR-1/2; Huet-23), along with limited studies on small cohorts or targeted panels. In order to further understand the biological underpinnings and complexity of FL, large-scale and integrated whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing (RNAseq) studies are needed. Using a highly-annotated cohort of 93 FL tumors with matched RNAseq, WES, and CyTOF data, we have explored the transcriptomic signature of purified FL B cells and identified unique molecular subsets that are defined by distinct pathway activation, immune content, and genomic signatures. Methods: Frozen cell suspensions from 93 untreated FL (Grade 1-3b) patients' tumor biopsies, enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE, were used for the study. DNA was isolated from whole tumor cell suspensions, and RNA was isolated from both whole tumor and B cell-enriched cell suspensions. RNAseq and WES were performed in the Mayo Clinic Genome Analysis Core. RNAseq and WES data were processed using a standard pipeline and novel driver genes were identified using Chasm+ driver analysis. Copy number variants were identified from WES data using GISTIC 2.0. NMF clustering and single sample gene set testing for B cell lineage and tumor microenvironment (TME) signatures were performed in R using the NMF and singscore packages. Results: Unsupervised clustering of RNAseq data identified three distinct expression programs which separated patient B cell samples into 3 groups: Group 1 (G1, n=20), Group 2 (G2, n=24), Group 3 (G3, n=43). While no clinical attributes were defined by any single group, G1 consisted of cases that had less aggressive characteristics (63% Stage I-II, 79% FLIPI 0-1). To identify unique transcriptional pathways driving the three expression programs, we scored gene level contributions to NMF expression programs and employed gene set enrichment analysis. This revealed significant pathway association with type-I IFN signaling (G1), DNA repair and stress response (G2), and epigenetic modulation (G3) as differentiating programs between the 3 groups (FDR q Conclusion: In this study, we have identified three unique FL tumor B cell groups, defined by specific transcriptional programs. Pathways such as inflammation, DNA damage response, and chromatin modification contribute most to the differences between B cell samples and group membership. Additionally, each program associated with specific genetic events as well as TME composition, highlighting potential drivers of these B cell states. This study improves the understanding of the mechanisms driving FL tumors and motivates further investigation into transcriptional consequences of genetic events as well as potential tumor intrinsic factors that may influence the TME. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. King: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Novak: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding.

Background: CD20 antibody plus alkylator and/or anthracycline based immunochemotherapy (IC) is a standard frontline therapy for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) with 10-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of approximately 50% and 80% respectively in long-term follow-up of clinical trials. Currently available clinical prognostic indices for FL have been designed using PFS and OS endpoints. Early events, commonly defined as progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) or early transformation to a more aggressive histology, are associated with inferior outcomes and increased risk of death due to refractory FL. Timely identification of the minority of patients with elevated mortality risk might enhance clinical management and research strategies. The FLIPI24 Consortium was created to develop a clinical prognostic index using early events as the primary endpoint. We report the outcomes for the pooled cohort and investigate the implications of therapy patterns on potential model development. Methods: Individual patient data were pooled and harmonized from 11 prospective observational cohorts from Europe, North America, and Australia. Patients who were diagnosed with grades 1-3A FL and initiated frontline IC were eligible. EFS was defined as time from start of IC to progression, relapse, retreatment (2nd line), histologic transformation, or death due to any cause. Early events were defined using status at 24 months from start of IC. OS was defined as time from start of IC to death due to any cause. Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate outcomes by clinical features and therapy types. Results: 9006 patients were abstracted and harmonized, 6111 patients initiated frontline IC between 2002 and 2018 and were included in this analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 61 years (IQR 52-69) and 50% were male. Complete FLIPI data were available in 5637 patients (92%) and 46%, 32%, and 22% were low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. IC type was 3079 R-CHOP or like (50%) , 1529 R-CVP or like (25%), 918 R-bendamustine (B-R) or like (15%), and 585 fludarabine or other alkylator based IC (10%); 3187 received CD20 antibody maintenance (52%). Patients receiving R-CHOP were younger, more frequently grade 3A, and more frequently had elevated LDH; differences in other characteristics by IC type were not clinically meaningful. At median follow-up of 42 months (IQR 17-72), 2647 patients (43%) had an event (any) and 1494 patients (25%) died. Median survival after an early (non-death) event was 49 months (95% CI: 41-58); 5-year OS was 46% (95% CI: 43-49) compared to 89% (95% CI: 88-90) in patients without POD24. Across all IC types, EFS estimates at 2 and 10 years from start of IC were 80% (95% CI:79-81) and 49% (95% CI:48-51) and OS estimates were 92% (95% CI: 91-92) and 70% (95% CI: 69-72), respectively. FLIPI was highly associated with both EFS (c-statistic=0.61) and OS (c-statistic=0.65) from the initiation of IC (both p Treatment patterns changed significantly over the study timeframe. Use of B-R and/or maintenance increased to 30% and 70% respectively in N=2937 patients treated in 2010-2018 (Era2) compared to Conclusion: EFS and OS from this large pooled analysis of observational cohorts is similar to long-term follow-up of randomized clinical trials in the IC era and support the use of these data for model development. Modeling efforts for early events should adjust for initial IC selection and use of maintenance therapy. Utilization of bendamustine and/or maintenance therapy increased over the study timeframe from 2002-2018, and Era2 was associated with improved EFS but not OS. This cohort provides comprehensive and robust observational data to define clinical predictors in IC treated patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Flowers: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Iovance: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Ziopharm: Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Weibull: Jansen-Cilag: Other: part of a research collaboration between Karolinska Institutet and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV for which Karolinska Institutet has received grant support. Ghesquieres: Janssen: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kridel: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Gandhi: Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Cheah: Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding. Hawkes: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Seymour: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Freeman: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Teva: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Clausen: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wahlin: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Link: Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy. Ekstroem Smedby: Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Trněný: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Background: Differences in outcomes between clinical trial and real-world populations in follicular lymphoma (FL) may be partially explained by differences in characteristics between clinical trial and real-world patients. We hypothesized that certain eligibility criteria may be responsible for populations with distinct demographic/clinical characteristics. In this study, we compiled a list of eligibility criteria from front-line FL trials and evaluated their impact on the potentially eligible FL patients derived from two national cohort studies. We also evaluated whether criteria were duplicative and whether liberalizing criteria might enlarge the pool of eligible patients. Methods: Eligibility criteria were abstracted from 21 first-line clinical trials in FL in the FLASH database. We identified FL patients in two prospective cohort studies: Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patients included and excluded by various eligibility criteria. Chi-square tests and two-sample t-tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. To study the relative impact of individual criteria, we used a step-wise approach to quantify the number of additional patients excluded with each individual criterion after applying other criteria. Results: Eligibility criteria included in at least one-third of studies included stage (present in all 21 trials), renal function (18), HIV/AIDS status (17), performance status (16), history of other malignancies (16), hepatic function (16), and cardiac function (15), other serious health conditions (13), pregnancy status (10), neuro/psych function (10), age (10), metabolic disease status (9), CNS involvement (9), birth control (8), pulmonary function (8), WBC count (8), HBV status (8), platelet count (7), measurable disease (7), HCV status (7), active infection status (7), and CD20 status (7). We included 738 patients with newly diagnosed FL undergoing first-line therapy from MER and 703 patients from LEO. In MER, the median age was 60 years; 87% were White vs 2% non-White, 80% were non-Hispanic vs 2% Hispanic, and 68% were stage III/IV. In LEO, the median age was 60 years; 88% were White vs 11% non-White, 87% were non-Hispanic vs 11% Hispanic, and 67% were stage III/IV. Exclusion criteria impacting more than 10% of patients included stage (31 in LEO vs 29% in MER), self-reported serious health conditions (17 vs 31%), prior cancer diagnosis (14 vs 11%), performance status (10%), and platelet count (10%). Patients excluded due to the following criteria tended to be older: renal function (median 70 vs 60 years in MER), prior malignancy (67 vs 58 years), and self-reported serious health conditions (66 vs 58 years). This pattern was consistent in LEO (Table). No eligibility criteria significantly impacted race/ethnicity. Given the potential for multiple eligibility criteria to exclude the same patients, we used a step-wise approach to evaluate the impact of individual criteria on patients remaining after exclusion by the larger group of criteria, and whether liberalizing criteria impacted patient numbers and/or demographics. We found that only self-reported serious health conditions significantly impacted numbers (excluding 43% of patients), whereas hematologic parameters and performance status excluded only 5 and 1% of patients, respectively, with no impact on age or race/ethnicity. We also found that liberalizing stage requirement from III-IV to II-IV could increase enrollment by 14% in MER (12% in LEO), and liberalizing platelet requirement from ≥150,000 to ≥100,000 could increase enrollment by 11% (15% in LEO). Moreover, liberalizing eligibility criteria had no impact on age or race/ethnicity of the patient pool or on EFS (Figure). Conclusions: We found that excluding patients with prior malignancies, poor renal function, and self-reported serious health conditions appears to inadvertently exclude older patients. Other serious health conditions appeared to exclude a significant number of patients but did not impact patient demographics. Liberalizing certain criteria, including stage and platelet requirement, could potentially increase trial accrual, but would not likely correct the older patient deficit. These findings may serve in developing consensus eligibility criteria for future first-line FL trials. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Flowers: Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Iovance: Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Ziopharm: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Friedberg: Acerta: Other: DSMC ; Bayer: Other: DSMC ; Novartis: Other: DSMC . Cohen: Genentech, Takeda, BMS/Celgene, BioInvent, LAM, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Loxo/Lilly: Research Funding; Janssen, Adaptive, Aptitude Health, BeiGene, Cellectar, Adicet, Loxo/Lilly, AStra ZenecaKite/Gilead: Consultancy. Kahl: AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy. Lossos: Lymphoma Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; NCI: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; NIH grants: Research Funding; University of Miami: Current Employment. Nastoupil: Bayer: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: DSMC, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Denovo Pharma: Other: DSMC; Caribou Biosciences: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Honoraria. Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan: NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding. Martin: ADCT: Consultancy.

Introduction: Low-grade B-cell lymphomas (LGBCL), aside from follicular lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, account for approximately 10% of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and consist of several subtypes. While a majority of LGBCL cases have an overall favorable prognosis, we have previously shown that cases who have an event (relapse or progression, transformation, or re-treatment) within 24 months of diagnosis (EFS24) have an inferior overall survival (OS) compared to those achieving EFS24 (Tracy et al., AJH 2019;94:658-66). However, the underlying biological characteristics associated with early failure and aggressive disease across LGBCL subtypes are unknown. In this study, we used matched transcriptomic, genomic, and immune profiling data from LGBCL cases, the largest cohort to date, and asked whether there were unique biological phenotypes across different LGBCL subtypes and whether we could identify signatures associated with aggressive LGBCL. Validation of the prognostic utility of this signature was performed on a previously published, independent cohort of 63 pre-treatment LGBCL cases. Methods: Tumors from 64 newly diagnosed LGBCL patients from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence were included in this study (SMZL (n = 48), NMZL (n = 6), LPL (n = 5), B-NOS (n = 3), EMZL (n = 2)). RNA sequencing (RNAseq) data from 61 LGBCL tumors and 5 benign CD19+CD27+ memory B samples was subjected to NMF clustering to define groups. Differential expression and pathway analysis were used to identify biological characteristics of each cluster. CIBERSORT was used to identify immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on 61 tumor-normal pairs. Singscore was used to assign a single score per patient representing gene expression of the survival-associated transcriptomic signature identified in this study. Results: NMF analysis of RNAseq data identified 5 clusters of patients, denoted LGBCL1-5 (Fig 1A). Patients from the same diagnostic subtype did not exclusively cluster together, with all LGBCL clusters comprised of patients from multiple subtypes (Fig 1B). Exploring the association between patient cluster and outcome, we observed significantly inferior event-free survival (EFS) (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.01-4.98) and overall survival (OS) (HR 5.59; 95% CI 2.00-15.63) in LGBCL5 patients compared to LGBCL1-4 (Fig 1C). In addition, 80% of the transformation cases in our cohort were classified as LGBCL5 (Fig 1D). Differential expression and pathway analysis showed distinct processes significantly upregulated in each cluster (FDR < 0.05), with LGBCL5 demonstrating enrichment of cell cycle and mitosis pathways. CIBERSORT identified increased immune cell content in LGBCL3 and LGBCL5 compared to other clusters, with high frequencies of mast cells in both (p = 0.0002), increased CD8 T cells in LGBCL3 (p < 0.0001), and increased T follicular helper cells in LGBCL5 (p = 0.004). WES identified previously reported alterations in NOTCH, NFkB, and chromatin remodeling pathways and novel variants in LGBCL, including mutations in HNRNPK, CLTC, HLA-A, HLA-B and HLA-C. Assessment of alterations by cluster showed significant enrichment of TNFAIP3 (OR 5.54; 95% CI 1.20-28.14) and BCL2 alterations (OR 5.49; 95% CI 1.07-32.02) in LGBCL5 cluster. Finally, we identified a cell cycle-related transcriptomic signature of 108 genes upregulated in LGBCL5 and EFS24 failure cases. Cases with high expression of this signature showed significantly inferior EFS (HR 14.25; 95% CI 4.90-41.38) and OS (HR 7.82; 95% CI 2.40-25.44) compared to cases with low expression in our discovery cohort. This observation was reproduced in an independent validation cohort, where patients with high expression of this signature demonstrated significantly inferior EFS (HR 5.70; 95% CI 1.49-21.79) and OS (HR 10.07; 95% CI 2.00-50.61). Conclusions: In this study, we are the first to define mechanisms of pathogenesis in LGBCL with shared transcriptomic, genomic, and immune profiles present across LGBCL subtypes. We then further defined a gene expression signature associated with inferior patient outcome, with application of this signature to an independent validation cohort demonstrating proof of concept and utility of this signature as a prognostic marker in LGBCL patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Novak: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding.

Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that fails to achieve a complete response (CR) or relapses early after standard immunochemotherapy (IC, e.g., R-CHOP or similar) is referred to as primary refractory DLBCL and has a poor prognosis. The clinical course with regards to frontline IC is heterogenous, and different definitions have been used in literature, e.g., progressive or refractory during therapy (narrow definition), or not achieving complete remission at the end of IC, or relapsing within 6 or 12 months after completing IC (broad definition). A small proportion of patients may still have chemosensitive disease and be able to achieve durable disease control with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). However, it is challenging to identify such patients, with clinical and molecular predictors highly needed. In this study, we examined the association of time to refractory status with survival outcomes in patients with primary refractory disease. Methods Adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL between 2002 and 2015 and seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester were identified from the prospective Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort study of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. The current study included patients with primary refractory disease, which was defined as no response to frontline IC (primary progression), partial response (PR) at end of treatment (EOT PR), or relapse with 12 months after achieving CR at EOT (early relapse). Clinical characteristics, treatment and response data, and follow-up data were abstracted from MER and collected by medical record review if needed. Clinical characteristics between groups were compared using Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from confirmation of refractory disease to the time of death from any cause and was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Out of 949 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, 122 (12.8%) had primary refractory disease, 36 with primary progression, 36 with EOT PR, and 50 with early relapse. The baseline clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1. No significant differences in age, gender, ECOG performance status, number of extranodal sites, stage, International Prognostic Index, or cell of origin were found between the 3 groups. The proportion of MYC2 and BCL2/BCL6 rearrangements or Myc/Bcl2 double expressor was small and not different among the 3 groups. Salvage therapies were mainly platinum based high-dose chemotherapy (e.g., R-ICE, R-DHAP, or similar) for systemic disease, MTX-based therapy for CNS relapse, or radiotherapy or resection for localized disease (Table 1). The response to salvage chemotherapy was significantly different between the 3 groups. The CR/PR rate was 8.6%/28.6% for patients with primary progression, 16.7%/46.7% for patients with EOT PR, and 35.6%/33.3% for patients with early relapse (P At a median follow-up time (of living patients) of 113 months, 93 patients had died. The 2-year OS was 13.9% for patients with primary progression, which was significantly worse compared to that of patients with EOT PR (2-year OS 41.7%) or early relapse (2-year OS 44%), (P=0.001)(Figure 1A). In patients with early relapse, the 2-year OS was not significantly different among those who relapsed with 3 months, between 3-6 months, or between 6-12 months (Figure 1B). Conclusion Our data suggest that broadly defined primary refractory DLBCL has heterogenous survival outcomes. DLBCL patients with primary progressive disease represent an ultra-high risk group that has particularly poor survival outcomes with current standard salvage regimens. Novel therapies such CAR T-cell therapy or targeted agents should be studied in this patient population. In contrast, patient who only achieve PR at EOT and those who relapse within 1 year of achieving CR had better OS. A fraction of these patients may still have chemosensitive disease and benefit from salvage chemotherapy and ASCT. The survival difference in the two groups also has important implications for clinical trial design. The definition of primary refractory DLBCL in clinical trials should be carefully and clearly defined. When evaluating novel therapies in single arm trials, the benchmark for efficacy (i.e., historical outcomes) may differ according to the population included in the trial (e.g., time to refractory status). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Bennani: Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Although 5-year survival rates in the first-line setting range from 60% to 70%, up to 50% of patients become refractory to or relapse after treatment. Published analyses of large-scale outcome data from patients with refractory DLBCL are limited. SCHOLAR-1, an international, multicohort retrospective non-Hodgkin lymphoma research study, retrospectively evaluated outcomes in patients with refractory DLBCL which, for this study, was defined as progressive disease or stable disease as best response at any point during chemotherapy (>4 cycles of first-line or 2 cycles of later-line therapy) or relapsed at ≤12 months from autologous stem cell transplantation. SCHOLAR-1 pooled data from 2 phase 3 clinical trials (Lymphoma Academic Research Organization-CORAL and Canadian Cancer Trials Group LY.12) and 2 observational cohorts (MD Anderson Cancer Center and University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence). Response rates and overall survival were estimated from the time of initiation of salvage therapy for refractory disease. Among 861 patients, 636 were included on the basis of refractory disease inclusion criteria. For patients with refractory DLBCL, the objective response rate was 26% (complete response rate, 7%) to the next line of therapy, and the median overall survival was 6.3 months. Twenty percent of patients were alive at 2 years. Outcomes were consistently poor across patient subgroups and study cohorts. SCHOLAR-1 is the largest patient-level pooled retrospective analysis to characterize response rates and survival for a population of patients with refractory DLBCL.

Background MBL is a precursor to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and is subclassified into low-count (LC) MBL (absolute B-cell count Methods We genotyped 535 EA MBLs (139 HC-MBL, 396 LC-MBLs), 735 CLLs (640 EA, 95 AA), and 2,866 controls (2,631 EA, 235 AA) from the Mayo Clinic CLL Resource, Duke University, and Weill Cornell Medical College. We computed the CLL-PRS for each individual and used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals, adjusting for age and sex. To assess discriminatory accuracy, we computed the c-statistic. Among EA individuals, we calculated a trend test among LC-MBL, HC-MBL, and CLL risk using the P-value for heterogeneity from a polytomous logistic regression analysis. Moreover, we plotted a boxplot for the PRS among controls, LC-MBL, HC-MBL, and EA CLL, as well as for AA CLL cases and controls, and tested the statistical difference using the Kruskal Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test, respectively. Results We found a significant association of PRS with overall MBL risk (OR=1.87, P=1.1x10-28) with good discrimination (c-statistic=0.72). Significant associations were also found for LC-MBL (OR=1.75, P=7.5x10-19, c-statistic=0.72), HC-MBL (OR=2.22, P=1.4x10-17, c-statistic=0.74), and CLL of EA (OR=2.60, P=1.2x10-62, c-statistic=0.78), with a significant difference among these cohorts (Figure 1.A) and a significant positive trend across these cohorts (Pheterogeneity=8.4x10-6). Although we observed a 33% increased risk of CLL in AA (c-statistic=0.57), the PRS was borderline significant (P=0.07, Figure 1.B). Conclusion The CLL-PRS is a strong prediction-tool for risk of CLL and MBL among individuals of EA. Future studies are needed to improve the PRS for AAs including performing GWAS of AA in order to identify CLL-susceptibility SNPs that are more representative within known CLL loci and to discover novel CLL loci that are unique for AAs. Disclosures Parikh: GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Brander:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tolero: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; NCCN: Other; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding. Kay:Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Furman:Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Oncotarget: Consultancy. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: and other intellectual property; Genentech, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck: Research Funding.

Introduction: Lymphoma is the most common cancer among adolescents and young adults (AYAs). We examined changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and its predictors in AYA patients (pts). Patients and Methods: We identified AYA pts (aged 18-39) enrolled 2002-2015 in a prospective cohort of pts with newly diagnosed lymphoma from the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource, part of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort. Enrollment could occur prior to or after initiation of treatment. We measured HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire at baseline, 12, and 24 months. FACT-G yields five HRQoL domain scores: emotional well-being (EWB), functional WB (FWB), physical WB (PWB), social/family WB (SFWB), and total FACT-G score (a sum of the domains). Pts completing Linear mixed models with random subject intercepts estimated changes in FACT-G scores from baseline. The covariates in multivariate analysis were lymphoma subtype, stage, and treatment. Interaction effects between treatment (chemotherapy and/or radiation) and subtype were added to the model. We calculated effect sizes (ES) for the magnitude of mean change scores: 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 were considered small, medium, and large ESs, respectively. Only ESs for mean score differences with p Results: We identified 467 pts; median age at diagnosis was 30 years, median follow up was 5.9 years. 53% of pts completed the baseline FACT-G assessment pre-treatment, 47% completed after treatment began. Pts assessed after treatment initiation had lower baseline total FACT-G (ES -0.25), FWB (ES -0.27), and PWB scores (-0.46); but baseline EWB was higher in pts assessed prior to treatment (ES 0.20). There was no association between HRQoL scores at baseline or over time and lymphoma subtype, stage, or treatment type, or interactions. Total FACT-G scores modestly improved over time, ES 0.32 at 1 year and ES 0.45 at 2 years after enrollment. EWB, FWB, and PWB also improved over time (ES 0.36, 0.44, 0.30 at 1 year; and 0.49, 0.56, 0.38 at 2 years, respectively). SFWB scores slightly worsened over time (ES -0.24 at 1 year and -0.12 at 2 years). Conclusions: AYA pts with lymphoma had higher baseline total FACT-G scores, FWB and PWB prior to therapy initiation compared to after initiation. HRQoL improved from diagnosis through the first 2 years after diagnosis, except for SFWB. Neither stage, lymphoma subtype, nor treatment type affected change in HRQoL. The lack of improvement in SFWB suggests social interventions and future studies should examine factors impacting SFWB in AYA pts. Disclosures Cohen: Genentech, BMS, Novartis, LAM, BioInvent, LRF, ASH, Astra Zeneca, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo: Consultancy. Flowers:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Background: Obesity is increasing worldwide, with the highest prevalence in the United States. High or low body mass index (BMI) is a well-established risk factor for increased all-cause mortality and also has been associated with cancer-specific mortality. However, the impact of BMI on survival following diagnosis with lymphoma currently remains controversial. We leveraged a prospective cohort of lymphoma patients to assess the relationship of BMI two years prior to diagnosis (BMI-2), at diagnosis (BMI-dx), and three-years post-diagnosis (BMI+3) with lymphoma-specific survival (LSS) as the primary endpoint and with event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoints. Patient and Method: Patients were prospectively enrolled at lymphoma diagnosis to the SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort at Mayo Clinic and University of Iowa from 2002-2015. BMI-2 and BMI+3 were self-reported in patient questionnaires, while BMI-dx was extracted from the medical chart. Patients with extreme BMI (BMI -5%), and increase (>+5%). Person-time at risk was assessed from lymphoma diagnosis until death or last follow-up, except for analyses of BMI change from BMI-dx to BMI+3, which started person-time at risk when the 3-year (+/- 6 months) follow-up questionnaire was returned. Cause of death was assigned by a study clinician. For all lymphoma patients combined and in the most common subtypes, we evaluated the association of BMI at each time point and change in BMI with EFS, LSS, and OS using hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from multivariable adjusted Cox models. Results: A total of 4,009 lymphoma patients (including 670 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], 689 follicular lymphoma [FL] and 1018 chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma [CLL/SLL] and 1,632 others) with data on BMI-dx were included. Among them, 2,955 patients had BMI-2 and 2,004 had BMI+3 and were evaluable for change in BMI. The median age of all patients at diagnosis was 61 years (range 18-92 years), and 94% of patients had ECOG performance status Patients with FL who were obese at BMI-2 had significantly shorter LSS (HR: 3.02, 95%CI: 1.43-6.41, p=0.004). Associations between obesity at BMI-2 and LSS were not evident for DLBCL (HR: 1.04, 95%CI: 0.62-1.76, p=0.879) or CLL/SLL (HR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.71-1.70, p=0.668) (Table). BMI-dx was not associated with LSS in any lymphoma patients, except that DLBCL patients who were underweight at BMI-dx (n=10) experienced shorter LSS (HR: 3.52, 95%CI: 1.22-10.1, p=0.020). This correlated significantly with presence of B symptoms (p=0.004) and may signify aggressive disease. Across all subtypes, >5% decrease in BMI from BMI-2 to BMI-dx was associated with significantly shorter LSS in patients with (HR: 2.02, 95%CI: 1.65-2.48, p5% increase in BMI from BMI-dx to BMI+3 also was associated with significantly shorter LSS in subsequent years (HR: 3.74, 95%CI: 1.30-10.8, p=0.014). The associations reported for LSS generally were similar for EFS and OS. Conclusions: FL patients with obesity prior to diagnosis or who experienced increasing BMI after the diagnosis had significantly shorter LSS. The impact of weight control after the diagnosis of FL patient outcomes warrants investigation. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flowers:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding.

Introduction Due to the higher metabolic demand, malignant cells have an increased dependency on the nucleocytoplasmic trafficking of proteins, as compared to normal cells. Chromosome region maintenance protein 1 (CRM1), encoded by the XPO1 gene, is the main protein receptor which facilitates export of molecules, including tumor suppressor proteins, from the nucleus to the cytoplasm thereby making them inactive. Expression of CRM1 in tumor tissue has been shown to be an independent prognostic marker in several solid tumors and in acute myeloid leukemia; high CRM1 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) was associated with more aggressive disease and shorter survival. Importantly, selinexor, a first in class small molecule inhibitor of CRM1, was recently approved for the treatment of relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The expression of CRM1 on tumor cells and the assessment of its prognostic impact have not been studied in patients (pts) with DLBCL or primary mediastinal B-cell lymphomas (PMBCL). Methods Paraffin embedded tumor tissue from pts with DLBCL or PMBCL treated with immunochemotherapy was assessed for CRM1 expression through IHC on tissue microarray (TMA). CRM1 anti-rabbit monoclonal antibody (Cell Signaling, catalog-no: 46249) was used at 1:100 dilution. Tumor cell grading was based on CRM1 staining in tumor cells compared to background non-malignant lymphocytes and non-malignant lymphocytes in spleen and tonsillar tissue controls. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was used as a positive control [known high levels of CRM1 staining (Inoue et al, J Urol, 2012)]. Two expert hematopathologists (RLK & AJW) independently scored CRM1 nuclear staining and assigned a grade of 0-3; 0 (no definitive nuclear staining, equal to background lymphocytes), 1 (dim nuclear staining), 2 (consistent nuclear staining, nuclear detail still visible behind the stain) and 3 (strong nuclear staining obscuring most nuclear detail, staining equivalent to RCC control). The average CRM1 score per case across all available cores on the TMA was calculated. Low CRM1 expression for a case was arbitrarily defined as a score of 0-2.0; high CRM1 expression was score 2.1-3.0. Scoring reliability between reviewers and between cores was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient; score 0.75-0.90 was considered as a good scoring reliability. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, retreatment, or death. The association of CRM1 expression and risk of failing to achieve EFS at 24 months after diagnosis (EFS24) was estimated using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression models, while the association of CRM1 expression with continuous EFS and overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI from Cox regression models. Results Tumor tissue from 282 pts was studied for CRM1 staining, including 275 pts with DLBCL and 7 pts with PMBCL. Median age of the study population was 61 years (range: 18-93) and 59% were male. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 88.6 months. The first-line treatment regimens and baseline patient characteristics at diagnosis are outlined in Figure 1A. Of the 282 pts, 200 (71%) had high level of CRM1 expression and 82 (29%) had low CRM1 expression [only 4 (1.4%) had no or 0 staining]. Intra-class correlation coefficient to measure scoring reliability was 0.8. There was no difference in International Prognostic Index (IPI), ECOG performance score, lactate dehydrogenase or age at diagnosis among the groups with high CRM1 expression compared to low CRM1 expression (Figure 1A). The EFS24 failure was 29% for pts with low CRM1 expression while 26% in pts who had high CRM1 expression, OR=1.16, 95% CI 0.63-2.07; p=0.63. Null associations were also observed for EFS (HR=1.21, 95% CI 0.80-1.83; p=0.38) and OS (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.61-1.69; p=0.95), (Figure 1B, C). Results were similar when adjusted for gender and IPI. Conclusion CRM1 expression by IHC on paraffin embedded tumor tissue is feasible in DLBCL and PMBCL. These data demonstrate that the CRM1 protein, the target for selinexor, is indeed expressed in the vast majority of these tumors; only 1.4% had no staining. However, CRM1 expression by IHC is not a prognostic marker for EFS24, EFS or OS. Whether CRM1 staining predicts selinexor response has not been studied but should be included in any new studies using CRM1 inhibitors. Disclosures Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Witzig:Acerta: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Introduction: Population studies have identified genes with germline polymorphisms associated with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) risk and outcome. However, somatic mutations in these genes have not been reported in an AML clinical population and whether they are associated with epidemiologic exposures, clinical AML phenotypes and outcome after therapy. Methods: We systemically interrogated PubMed database (1998-2018), to identify genes with germline polymorphisms associated with AML risk, response to chemotherapy or outcome. To determine the prevalence and relevance of somatic mutations in these genes in an unselected AML population, we performed an analysis using Whole-Exome Sequencing (WES) on remnant diagnostic cytogenetic pellets from 98 patients from the Mayo Clinic AML Epidemiology Cohort, a detailed and highly-annotated cohort of 295 consecutive AML patients treated at Mayo Clinic Florida & Arizona between October, 2000 and December, 2011. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. Samples were sequenced at a depth of ~100 million paired-end 100bp reads using Agilent SureSelectXT Human All Exon V5 + UTRs target enrichment kit. Sequencing reads were aligned to human reference genome, and somatic mutations including non-synonymous and truncating single nucleotide variants and small INDELs were identified and filtered using Exome Sequencing Project, 1000 genome, HapMap, & Mayo Clinic internal biobank genetic variants database. Copy number aberrations were identified & filtered using public copy number polymorphism databases. The association analyses were performed at the gene level, with a primary endpoint of whether a given patient harbored a somatic mutation in any genes linked to AML risk or outcome in literature, and to determine the associations of these mutations with epidemiologic exposures, AML phenotype and clinical outcomes. Results: From the literature search, we identified 77 unique genes with known germline polymorphisms associated with AML risk, response to chemotherapy or outcome. Fifty-eight of these were found to be somatically mutated in our WES dataset, with subsequent analysis focusing on the 11 genes (ABCB1, CYP1A1, CYP2B6, EPHX1, ERCC1, ERCC2, ERCC5, JAK2, MEFV, MTRR, and TERT) that had greater than 5 patients with nonsynonymous somatic mutations in the given gene. Significant associations with epidemiologic exposures and outcomes were noted in patients with somatic mutations in ERCC2, CYP1A1 and ERCC5 genes. Table 2 shows a comparison of patient characteristics and associations according to the presence of somatic mutations in these genes. Patients with mutations in CYP1A1 had a significantly younger age at AML diagnosis (Median: 51.7 vs. 71.0 years, P=.02) and significantly shorter OS in age-adjusted analysis (HR=4.45, P=.003). The former is a novel finding, whereas the latter is consistent with previous reports. Patients with mutations in ERCC2 more commonly used statins (66.7% vs. 21.7%, P=.03). Patients with ERCC5 mutations had a lower rate of tobacco use (20.0% vs. 54.5%, P=.049). In unadjusted analysis, there was a significant association between presence of somatic mutations in JAK2 and poorer survival after AML diagnosis (HR=2.83, P=.017), but this attenuated and did not retain significance when adjusting for age at AML diagnosis (HR=2.22, P=.067). Conclusion: Our exploratory study describes a novel association of CYP1A1 somatic nonsynonymous mutations with age of AML onset, as well as novel associations of ERCC2 and ERCC5 mutations with epidemiologic exposures in an unselect cohort of patients with AML. We confirm the association of CYP1A1 with inferior overall survival after AML diagnosis. These findings suggest that some genes associated with AML risk may also harbor somatic mutations that are clinically relevant. These results will guide a planned confirmatory prospective study to determine frequency and impact of both germline and somatic mutations of risk genes in AML patients, and may contribute to a better understanding leukemia risk assessment and potentially to prevention strategies. Disclosures Finn: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Foran:Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: Indolent B-cell lymphomas are a group of neoplastic disorders that account for approximately one-third of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the Western world. They are clinically indolent but pathologically diverse and generally composed of follicular lymphoma (FL), extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL), lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL), nodal marginal zone lymphoma (NMZL), splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL), and small lymphocytic lymphoma. The overall prognosis is favorable in most patients, but others can have a more aggressive disease with associated progression, relapse, or histologic transformation. We have previously reported that the most common cause of death in FL was lymphoma. Here we report on the cause of death (COD), in other non-follicular indolent B-cell lymphomas (NFIBL) during the first decade of the rituximab era. Methods: Participants were from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). From 2002 -2015, MER offered enrollment to all patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma who were US residents and age >18 years. Patients were treated per physician choice and followed prospectively. An event was defined as progression or relapse, initiation of 2nd line therapy, or death from any cause. EFS24 was defined using event-free survival at 24 months from diagnosis. Overall survival was defined as the time from diagnosis until death due to any cause. Overall survival from EFS24 was defined as time from event defining date (achieving EFS24 or early event). For decendents, copies of the death certificate or medical records associated with death were reviewed. Cumulative incidence estimates of the cause of death in NFIBL were calculated as competing risks utilizing the cuminc function from the cmprsk package in R version 3.6.2. COD was categorized as a result of lymphoma (progression or therapy-related) vs. other causes vs. unknown/missing. Results: 820 patients with newly diagnosed NFIBL were enrolled in this study. The subtypes included extranodal marginal zone (EMZL, N = 362), unclassifiable low-grade B-cell lymphoma (LGBCL-U, N = 202), lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL, N = 92), nodal marginal zone lymphoma (NMZL, N = 80), and splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL, N = 84). The median age at diagnosis was 63 years (range 18-92), and 50.5% were male. Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics showed that the LDH was abnormal in 19.3%, hemoglobin was abnormal in 33.8%, and 62.8% had stage III-IV disease. The IPI score was 0-1 in 51%, 2 in 36.6%, 3 in 10.6%, and 4-5 in 1.8%. At a median follow-up of 83 months (range 0-193), 172 (21%) patients had died, and the primary cause of death was non-lymphoma related in 87 (50.6%), lymphoma related 48 (27.9%), and unknown in 37 (21.5%). When examining all subtypes combined, the 10-year estimate for lymphoma related death was 7% (95% CI: 5.2-9.5) which was lower than the rate of non-lymphoma related death (10 years estimate 14%, 95% CI: 11.3-17.4), Figure 1A, Table 1. The 10-year estimate of lymphoma related death varied by subtype, ranging from 2.7% in EMZL to 16.3% in LPL (table 1), while non-lymphoma related death at 10 years ranged from 10.2% in EMZL to 22.5% in SMZL; only in LPL was the lymphoma related rate higher than the non-lymphoma. Patients who failed to achieve EFS24 from diagnosis had significantly higher rates of lymphoma related death (18% at 10 years from failure, 95% CI: 11.7-29.1, Figure 1B) compared to patients who achieved EFS24 (3.9% at 10 years from achieving EFS24, 95% CI: 2.3-6.8, Figure 1C). Rates were similar by EFS24 for non-lymphoma related death (14.5%, 95% CI: 11.0-19.0 vs. 11.2, 95% CI: 6.3-19.7). Figure 1B-C. Conclusion: The most common cause of death in NFIBL at 10 years was unrelated to lymphoma, in contrast to our previous data in follicular lymphoma which showed lymphoma as the most common cause of death at 10 years. However, similar to follicular lymphoma, patients with NFIBL who failed to achieve EFS24 to frontline therapy had significantly increased risk of lymphoma related death. Further research into the cause of death in NFIBL is warranted. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Farooq:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype with a 5-year survival of ~64%. While DLBCL is treated using immunochemotherapy (IC) with curative intent, 20%-40% of patients do not reach remission or relapse post IC. Clonal somatic mutations have been associated with aging, hematologic malignancies (predominately myeloid), and reduced OS in the general population. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of clonal somatic mutations with event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods We studied newly diagnosed DLBCL cases treated with IC who were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Clinical and treatment data were abstracted from medical records and all patients were systematically followed for disease outcomes. Pre-treatment DNA was extracted from matched peripheral blood and paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, and whole exome sequencing was conducted at 100x coverage. From the peripheral blood, allele counts from GVCF files produced by HaplotypeCaller in GATK were extracted for 42 genes commonly associated with clonal hematopoiesis (e.g. DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1). Mutations were deemed clonal somatic if the population minor allele frequency was Results The study consisted of 261 DLBCL patients treated with IC. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 20-90) and 56% were male. With a median follow-up time of 5.1 years (range 0.1-15.0), there were 100 events and 80 deaths. A total of 17 (6.5%) patients had clonal somatic mutations, and16 patients were over the age of 60. A total of 8 (of 42) genes had clonal somatic mutations, with SF3B1, ASXL1, and TET2, being the most frequent (4 individuals per gene). VAFs ranged from 0.10 to 0.28 and none of the patients had multiple mutations. Additionally, the clonal somatic variants found in the peripheral blood were abscent in the tumor sample. Of the 17 patients with clonal somatic mutations, 12 had an event while 88 patients without a mutation had an event. In a univariate analysis, clonal somatic mutations were associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.55, 95% CI 1.39-4.68, p=0.002; Figure 1A). After adjusting for age, sex, and IPI, clonal somatic mutations remained associated with inferior EFS (HR=2.02, 95% CI 1.09-3.74, p=0.026). Clonal somatic mutations were also associated with inferior OS in the univariate analysis (HR=2.06, 95% CI 0.99-4.29, p=0.053), which attenuated after multivariate adjustment (HR=1.59, 95% CI: 0.76-3.34, p=0.22, Figure 1B). Although based on small numbers, mutations in SF3B1 were associated with inferior EFS (HR=3.25, 95% CI 1.16-9.12, p=0.025), but did not reach significance for OS (HR=2.56, 95% CI 0.78-8.38, p=0.120). Conclusions In this novel study of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, clonal somatic mutations were identified in 6.5% of patients and were associated with inferior outcomes. Additional research is required at deeper sequencing to validate these findings and integration with tumor genomics is required to understand the prognosis of DLBCL patients with smaller clonal populations. Disclosures Shah: Dren Bio: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Martin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding.

Background: Observation or "wait and watch" (W/W) strategy remains a viable option in the rituximab era for asymptomatic, stage II-IV, low-tumor burden patients with FL grade 1-2, 3A. Studies to date both in pre and post rituximab era have not shown an overall survival benefit from immediate treatment in such low-risk patients.To improve our understanding and to better counsel FL patients on W/W strategy, we sought to estimate the incidence of treatment initiation at landmark time points in our prospectively observed cohort from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). We further evaluate the association between the presence of GELF criteria (MER treatment criteria) at diagnosis and initiation of treatment patterns, transformation rates and cause of death in FL patients managed by W/W. Methods: FL patients on W/W strategy were identified from MER of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. From 2002-2015, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed FL were offered enrollment. Patients were managed per treating physician and followed prospectively. Baseline clinical and pathological data were abstracted using a standard protocol. Cumulative incidence estimates of treatment initiation for follicular lymphoma were calculated using transformation to large cell lymphoma (as the first event) and death due to any cause as competing risks. Transformation was defined based on biopsy-proven disease. Patients were retrospectively considered to meet treatment criteria at diagnosis if they had the presence of any GELF criteria components per available abstracted data in the MER database. Not all GELF criteria were prospectively assessed and captured for all patients, and thus the MER treatment criteria utilized here will be conservative for formal GELF assessment. Results: A total of 401 FL patients were identified in MER on W/W strategy. Baseline characteristics for W/W patients showed a favorable profile such as normal LDH (89%), low and intermediate FLIPI score in 48% and 35% respectively, no B symptoms (97%), low tumor burden ( Discussion: The longer duration of W/W strategy suggests a decreasing need for treatment over time. We provide time point estimates, which would be helpful for counseling patients. Of note, long-term continuous oncologic assessment and follow-up is necessary since approximately 66% of patients in this mature cohort initiated treatment by 8 years median follow up. MER treatment criteria at diagnosis identified patients with higher rates of transformation and therapy initiation in the first two years but did not identify those with worse lymphoma specific survival. Identification of biological differences in patients with early vs. late or no progression is a critical next step in understanding outcomes in W/W patients. Disclosures Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Witzig:MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Maurer:Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background The importance of the immune system in modulating the trajectory of lymphoma outcomes has been increasingly recognized. We recently showed that CD4+ cells are associated with clinical outcomes in a prospective cohort of almost 500 patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). Specifically, we showed that the absence of CD4+ cells inside follicles was independently associated with increased risk of early clinical failure. These data suggest that the composition, as well as the spatial distribution of immune cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), play an important role in FL. To further define the architecture of the TME in FL we analyzed a FL tumor section using the Co-Detection by Indexing (CODEX) multiplex immunofluorescence system. Methods An 8-micron section from a formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded block containing a lymph node specimen from a patient with FL was stained with a cocktail of 15 CODEX antibodies. Five regions of interest (ROIs) were imaged using a 20X air objective. Images underwent single-cell segmentation using a Unet neural network, trained on manually segmented cells (Fig 1A). Cell type assignment was done after scaling marker expression and clustering using Phenograph. Each ROI was manually masked to indicate areas inside follicles (IF) and outside follicles (OF). Relative and absolute frequencies of cell types were calculated for each region. Cellular contacts were measured as number and types of cell-cell contacts within two cellular diameters. To identify proximity communities, we clustered cells based on number and type of neighboring masks using Phenograph. The number of cell types and cellular communities were calculated inside and outside follicles after adjustment for total IF and OF areas. The significance of cell contact was measured using a random permutation test. Results We identified 13 unique cell subsets (11 immune, 1 endothelial, 1 unclassified) in the TME of our FL section (Fig. 1A). The unique phenotype of each subset was confirmed using a dimensionality reduction tool (t-SNE). The global composition of the TME varied minimally across ROIs and consisted primarily of B cells, T cells, and macrophages subsets - in decreasing order of frequency. Higher spatial heterogeneity across ROIs was observed in the frequency of T cell subsets in comparison to B cells subsets. Inspecting the spatial distribution of T cell subsets (Fig. 1B), we observed that cytotoxic T cells were primarily located in OF areas, whereas CD4+ T cells were found in both IF and OF areas. Notably, the majority of CD4+ T cells inside the follicles expressed CD45RO (memory phenotype), while most of the CD4+ T cells outside the follicles did not. Statistical analysis of the spatial distribution of CD4+ memory T cell subsets confirmed a significant increase in their frequency inside follicles compared to outside (20.4% vs 11.2%, p < 0.001; Fig. 1D). Cell-cell contact analysis (Fig 1C) showed increased homotypic contact for all cell types. We also found a higher frequency of heterotypic contact between Ki-67+CD4+ memory T cells and Ki-67+ B cells. Pairwise analysis showed these findings were statistically significant, indicating these cells are organized in niches rather than randomly distributed across image. Analysis of cellular communities (Fig. 1C) identified 13 niches, named according to the most frequent type of cell-cell contact. All CD4+ memory T cell subsets were found to belong to the same neighborhood (CD4 Memory community). Analysis of the spatial distribution of this community confirmed that these niches were more frequently located inside follicles rather than outside (26.3±4% vs 0.004%, p < 0.001, Fig. 1D). Conclusions Analysis of the TME using CODEX provides insights on the complex composition and unique architecture of this FL case. Cells were organized in a pattern characterized by (1) high degree of homotypic contact and (2) increased heterotypic interaction between activated B cells and activated CD4+ memory T cells. Spatial analysis of both individual cell subsets and cellular neighborhoods demonstrate a statistically significant increase in CD4+ memory T cells inside malignant follicles. This emerging knowledge about the specific immune-architecture of FL adds mechanistic details to our initial observation around the prognostic value of the TME in this disease. These data support future studies using modulation of the TME as a therapeutic target in FL. Figure 1 Disclosures Galkin: BostonGene: Current Employment, Patents & Royalties. Svekolkin:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties. Postovalova:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Bagaev:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties. Ovcharov:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties. Varlamova:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Introduction Primary mediastinal large B cell lymphoma (PMBCL) is a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with a female predominance; often presenting with a large anterior mediastinal mass. Though PMBCL has clinical and molecular features overlapping with Hodgkin lymphoma, it is a distinct entity defined by the World Health Organization classification. PMBCL is heterogeneously treated, and most patients receive front line therapy with either rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (R-CHOP) with radiotherapy (RT), or the more intensive etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin with rituximab (EPOCH-R) regimen. Diagnosis of PMBCL is made using clinicopathologic criteria and radiographic imaging, however gene expression profiling (GEP) studies reveal a characteristic genotypic signature distinct from diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Molecular classification of PMBCL using the Lymph3Cx assay from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE) is feasible, reproducible, and highly concordant in a training and validation cohort (Mottok et al. Blood 2018). Using a multicenter cohort of patients, we sought to estimate the rate of mis-match among patients with a clinical diagnosis of PMBCL using Lymph3Cx, and describe treatment selections and outcomes for each group. Methods Patients were identified from a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed NHL from the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource, and the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort. Patients were enrolled between 2002-2019, and included if they had clinically defined PMBCL. FFPE was retrieved from hematopathology archives of participating academic centers. All diagnoses of PMBCL were based on expert hematopathology review at the time of therapy, and all cases underwent classification by GEP using the Lymph3Cx assay. Lymph3Cx was performed in the clinical lab at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Contiguous unstained sections were deparaffinized and macrodissected to enrich for tumor content before RNA isolation;100-200 ng of total RNA was used in an nCounter Elements XT, hybridized, and processed the following day using the nCounter FLEX system. Raw counts were processed through the Lymph3Cx algorithm and results reported as probability of PMBCL (≥0.90 as PMBCL, ≤0.10 as DLBCL all other results "Unclear PMBCL/DLBCL") (A. Mottok et al, Blood, 2018). For cases classified as DLBCL, the Lymph2Cx cell-of-origin classifier results was reported (Scott et al, JCO, 2016). Time to event endpoints were described with Kaplan-Meier plots by groups defined by mismatch status and compared with a logrank test. Binary outcomes will be presented with 90% exact confidence intervals. Results Fifty patients were identified. Median age was 35 years (range 19-70). Sixty four percent were women. Median follow up was 47 months. Treatments included R-CHOP (44%), EPOCH-R (44%), and MACOP-B [methotrexate with leucovorin rescue, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and bleomycin] (6%), other (4%). Ten patients (20%) had events (defined as progression or death). Three patients in the entire cohort (6%) died. The Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 47 months (median follow-up) is 92%. The Lymph3Cx assay yielded gene expression data of sufficient quality in 47/50 cases (94%, 90% CI=85.2, 98.3%). Of 47 cases clinically identified as PMBCL, 5 unclear were DLBCL/PMBCL and 1 was Germinal Center B cell subtype of DLBCL. Among these 6 patients, 4 received R-EPOCH (66%), 1 received R-CHOP (16.6%). One patient had missing treatment data. One patient had an event requiring subsequent therapy; all patients remain alive. Conclusions Using 47 patients with PMBCL defined by histology, clinical and radiographic findings, and molecular features, we demonstrate high concordance between clinical phenotype and molecular genotype of PMBCL by Lymph3Cx. Among the 6 patients not classified as PMBCL, most received R-EPOCH. Differences in outcome by mis-match status await longer follow-up and further accrual of subjects to our data base. Our data suggest molecular genotyping may have a role in mediastinal presentations of large cell lymphoma to optimize treatment decision making. Disclosures Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Flowers:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy. Friedberg:Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.: Other; Astellas: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

Background: Follicular Lymphoma (FL) is the second most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma and presents with significant clinical, cellular, molecular, and genetic heterogeneity. Despite the name and defining microanatomic location, the genetic and molecular identity and pathogenesis of the FL tumor cell is largely uncharacterized. Prior clinical and molecular classifications of FL have been primarily driven by pathologic classification (Grade 1-3b), genetic classification (M7-FLIPI), or gene expression profiling (IR-1/2). Using a unique cohort of 93 FL tumors, we have explored the transcriptomic signature of purified FL B cells, along with their matched whole tumor, and identified unique molecular subsets which are defined by distinct pathway activation, immune content, and genomic signatures identified through whole exome sequencing (WES). Methods: Frozen tumor biopsies from 93 untreated FL (Grade 1-3b) patients enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE were used for the study. DNA was isolated from whole tumor cell suspensions and RNA was isolated from both whole tumor and B cell enriched cell suspensions. RNA sequencing (RNAseq) and WES was performed in the Mayo Clinic Genome Analysis Core. RNAseq and WES data were processed using the Mayo Clinic standard pipeline and novel driver genes were identified using 20/20+ driver analysis. Copy number variants were identified using GISTIC 2.0. NMF clustering and single sample gene set testing, for B cell lineage and tumor microenvironment (TME) signatures, was performed in R using the NMF and SingScore packages. Results: NMF consensus clustering of FL B cell RNAseq data identified two distinct subsets, C1 (n=32) and C2 (n=57). Clinically, C1 was associated with being FL grade 3 (p5% frequency) were examined. TNFAIP3, TP53, and BCL6 alterations were enriched in C1 samples, whereas C2 associated with alterations in BCL2, KMT2D, CREBBP, REL, and MYC. Finally, B cell clusters were analyzed for TME signatures. C1 samples displayed significant enrichment of macrophage, cytotoxic cell, gamma-delta-Tcell, and endothelial cell TME elements (p Conclusion: Our results suggest that B cells from FL patients display two distinct transcriptomic signatures. C1 identifies an immunologically active tumor, driven by TNFAIP3 alterations, with pre-PBL characteristics, DNA replication and repair, inflammatory cytokine secretion/signaling, and hyper-metabolic characteristics. C2 identifies an immunologically quiet tumor, driven by alterations in BCL2 and chromatin modifiers, with an intermediate GC phenotype, repressed cytokine signaling, and active cell cycle progression and cytoskeleton rearrangement. This study improves our understanding of the mechanisms driving FL tumors and motivates further investigation into the relationship between tumor intrinsic factors that may influence the TME. Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding. Ansell:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding.

BACKGROUND: Angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma (AITL) has a unique histological profile comprised of a relatively small number of malignant CD4+ T-cells of TFH phenotype inter-mixed with an extensive infiltrate of multi-lineage immune cells. In our study, we have utilized mass cytometry, high-dimensional analysis, and single-cell transcriptome analysis to provide novel insights into the unique phenotypes that comprise this intra-tumoral microenvironment. We then extended this work to explore clinical associations including peripheral serum analysis of AITL patients and normal controls. To our knowledge, this represents the first such analysis of its kind in AITL. METHODS: We designed two novel CyTOF antibody (Ab) panels to identify and characterize cells of T, B, NK, monocyte and fDC lineages. Samples analyzed included a cohort of 25 biopsy specimens from 8 histologically confirmed AITL patients (5 lymph node (LN), 3 spleen (SP)) and 17 normal controls across key comparator immune tissue types (7 LN, 6 SP, 4 tonsil (TL)). Extensive high-dimensional analysis of CyTOF data was then performed to provide novel insights into key phenotypes and trends of malignant and non-malignant populations in AITL. We then performed CITE-Seq on control and AITL samples to gain further insight into the RNA transcriptome of key T cell populations at the cellular level. Finally, peripheral serum analysis of cytokines, soluble immune receptors, and ligands were then measured by multiplex ELISA from a separate cohort of 22 samples (5 AITL, 17 control) distinct from the individuals analyzed in the original high-dimensional study cohort. RESULTS: While the presence of "reactive" CD8+ populations is a known histologic hallmark of AITL, we describe the gross expansion of novel CD8+ populations with distinctive immunophenotypic features which have not previously been detailed in this malignancy. Using single-cell protein expression data from CyTOF, these expanded CD8+ populations can be broadly categorized as "effector memory" (CCR7-, CD45RO+, CD45RA-) and further characterized phenotypically by markers of progressive exhaustion, checkpoint inhibition, and terminal differentiation (PD1++, TIGIT++, ICOS+, TIM3+). Further analysis of the single-cell transcriptome from these expanded CD8+ populations via CITE-Seq revealed an expression signature consistent with dysfunction and limited cytotoxic activity (including significant down-regulation of granzyme, perforin, and IFN-g) when compared to benign and malignant controls. Interestingly, when compared to CD8+ populations of identical phenotype found in control tissues, these cells also featured marked upregulation of XCL2 and XCL1 in AITL. Additionally, global shifts in infiltrating CD19+ B cell phenotypes were seen in AITL, marked specifically by diminished expression of both CXCR5 and CD73. Finally, soluble PD-1 and other key immune molecules implicated in the expanded tumor microenvironment were found to be significantly increased in the peripheral serum of AITL patients compared to controls (1567.9 pg/mL (1109.3 S.E.) in AITL vs 29.79 (8.84 S.E.) in controls; P CONCLUSIONS: High-dimensional and single-cell transcriptome analysis of the AITL microenvironment yielded several novel insights which have not been previously described in this malignancy. Highlights include the gross expansion of distinct CD8+ populations - the majority of which are of an exhausted, dysfunctional phenotype featuring marked upregulation of XCL2 and XCL1 - and the global loss of CXCR5 and CD73 expression among AITL CD19+ B cell populations. Taken together, this suggests the presence of aberrant non-malignant immune subsets within the AITL microenvironment which may contribute to novel mechanisms of immune escape. Disclosures Cerhan: NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous disease, commonly described by cell-of-origin (COO) molecular subtypes. We sought to identify novel patient subgroups through an unsupervised analysis of a large public dataset of gene expression profiles from newly diagnosed de novo DLBCL patients, yielding 2 biologically distinct subgroups characterized by differences in the tumor microenvironment. Pathway analysis and immune deconvolution algorithms identified higher B-cell content and a strong proliferative signal in subgroup A and enriched T-cell, macrophage, and immune/inflammatory signals in subgroup B, reflecting similar biology to published DLBCL stratification research. A gene expression classifier, featuring 26 gene expression scores, was derived from the public dataset to discriminate subgroup A (classifier-negative, immune-low) and subgroup B (classifier-positive, immune-high) patients. Subsequent application to an independent series of diagnostic biopsies replicated the subgroups, with immune cell composition confirmed via immunohistochemistry. Avadomide, a CRL4(CRBN) E3 ubiquitin ligase modulator, demonstrated clinical activity in relapsed/refractory DLBCL patients, independent of COO subtypes. Given the immunomodulatory activity of avadomide and the need for a patient-selection strategy, we applied the gene expression classifier to pretreatment biopsies from relapsed/refractory DLBCL patients receiving avadomide (NCT01421524). Classifier-positive patients exhibited an enrichment in response rate and progression-free survival of 44% and 6.2 months vs 19% and 1.6 months for classifier-negative patients (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.280-0.86; P = .0096). The classifier was not prognostic for rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone or salvage immunochemotherapy. The classifier described here discriminates DLBCL tumors based on tumor and nontumor composition and has potential utility to enrich for clinical response to immunomodulatory agents, including avadomide.

Some patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) present with a concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis. Their outcomes in the rituximab era are not fully defined. Using a prospectively followed cohort of 1324 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients treated with immunochemotherapy, we defined the prevalence, characteristics, and outcome of DLBCL with concurrent indolent lymphoma. Compared with patients with DLBCL alone (n = 1153; 87.1%), patients with concurrent DLBCL and follicular lymphoma (FL) (n = 109; 8.2%) had fewer elevations in lactate dehydrogenase, lower International Prognostic Index (IPI), and predominantly germinal center B-cell–like (GCB) subtype, whereas patients with concurrent DLBCL and other indolent lymphomas (n = 62; 4.7%) had more stage III-IV disease and a trend toward higher IPI and non-GCB subtype. After adjusting for IPI, patients with concurrent DLBCL and FL had similar event-free survival (EFS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95) and a trend of better overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.75) compared with patients with DLBCL alone, but nearly identical EFS (HR = 1.00) and OS (HR = 0.84) compared with patients with GCB DLBCL alone. Patients with concurrent DLBCL and other indolent lymphomas had similar EFS (HR = 1.19) and OS (HR = 1.09) compared with patients with DLBCL alone. In conclusion, DLBCL patients with concurrent FL predominantly had the GCB subtype with outcomes similar to that of GCB DLBCL patients. DLBCL patients with concurrent other indolent lymphoma had similar outcomes compared with patients with DLBCL alone. These patients should not be summarily excluded from DLBCL clinical trials.

Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) represent a relatively common group of T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (T-NHLs) that are unified by similar pathologic features but demonstrate marked genetic heterogeneity. ALCLs are broadly classified as being anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)(+) or ALK(−), based on the presence or absence of ALK rearrangements. Exome sequencing of 62 T-NHLs identified a previously unreported recurrent mutation in the musculin gene, MSC(E116K), exclusively in ALK(−) ALCLs. Additional sequencing for a total of 238 T-NHLs confirmed the specificity of MSC(E116K) for ALK(−) ALCL and further demonstrated that 14 of 15 mutated cases (93%) had coexisting DUSP22 rearrangements. Musculin is a basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factor that heterodimerizes with other bHLH proteins to regulate lymphocyte development. The E116K mutation localized to the DNA binding domain of musculin and permitted formation of musculin–bHLH heterodimers but prevented their binding to authentic target sequence. Functional analysis showed MSC(E116K) acted in a dominant-negative fashion, reversing wild-type musculin-induced repression of MYC and cell cycle inhibition. Chromatin immunoprecipitation–sequencing and transcriptome analysis identified the cell cycle regulatory gene E2F2 as a direct transcriptional target of musculin. MSC(E116K) reversed E2F2-induced cell cycle arrest and promoted expression of the CD30–IRF4–MYC axis, whereas its expression was reciprocally induced by binding of IRF4 to the MSC promoter. Finally, ALCL cells expressing MSC(E116K) were preferentially targeted by the BET inhibitor JQ1. These findings identify a novel recurrent MSC mutation as a key driver of the CD30–IRF4–MYC axis and cell cycle progression in a unique subset of ALCLs.

Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) are CD30-positive T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas broadly segregated into ALK-positive and ALK-negative types. Although ALK-positive ALCLs consistently bear rearrangements of the ALK tyrosine kinase gene, ALK-negative ALCLs are clinically and genetically heterogeneous. About 30% of ALK-negative ALCLs have rearrangements of DUSP22 and have excellent long-term outcomes with standard therapy. To better understand this group of tumors, we evaluated their molecular signature using gene expression profiling. DUSP22-rearranged ALCLs belonged to a distinct subset of ALCLs that lacked expression of genes associated with JAK-STAT3 signaling, a pathway contributing to growth in the majority of ALCLs. Reverse-phase protein array and immunohistochemical studies confirmed the lack of activated STAT3 in DUSP22-rearranged ALCLs. DUSP22-rearranged ALCLs also overexpressed immunogenic cancer-testis antigen (CTA) genes and showed marked DNA hypomethylation by reduced representation bisulfate sequencing and DNA methylation arrays. Pharmacologic DNA demethylation in ALCL cells recapitulated the overexpression of CTAs and other DUSP22 signature genes. In addition, DUSP22-rearranged ALCLs minimally expressed PD-L1 compared with other ALCLs, but showed high expression of the costimulatory gene CD58 and HLA class II. Taken together, these findings indicate that DUSP22 rearrangements define a molecularly distinct subgroup of ALCLs, and that immunogenic cues related to antigenicity, costimulatory molecule expression, and inactivity of the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint likely contribute to their favorable prognosis. More aggressive ALCLs might be pharmacologically reprogrammed to a DUSP22-like immunogenic molecular signature through the use of demethylating agents and/or immune checkpoint inhibitors.