Search

INTRODUCTION: While most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) receive therapy shortly after diagnosis, a subset of patients with indolent-behaving disease can safely defer treatment. In this subgroup, we evaluated the importance of treatment intensity in patients with MCL who defer initial therapy. METHODS: Out of 1134 patients with MCL from 12 academic centers, we analyzed 219 patients who initiated therapy at least 90 days after diagnosis. Patients who received induction with high-dose cytarabine and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in first remission were considered to have received intensive therapy (n = 88) while all other approaches were non-intensive (n = 131). RESULTS: There was no difference in progression-free (PFS; P = .224) or overall survival (OS; P = .167) in deferred patients who received non-intensive vs. intensive therapy. Additionally, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed for PFS and OS. Treatment at an academic center (HR 0.43, P = .015) was associated with improved OS in both univariate and multivariate models, while intensity of treatment was not associated with improved OS in either model. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that intensified initial treatment is not associated with improved survival after deferring initial therapy, although prospective studies are needed to determine which of these patients with MCL may benefit from intensive therapy.

Background The impact of using adjuvant chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma is not known. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy following complete cytoreduction in patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. Methods Retrospective medical record review of all patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma treated at our institution between 2006 and 2015. Kaplan‐Meier plots were used to summarize overall survival (OS) and relapse‐free survival over time, and log‐rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models were used to test for differences in survival between groups. Results A total of 103 patients with appendiceal adenocarcinoma received care at our institution during the study period. Complete cytoreduction (cytoreductive score 0‐1) was achieved in 68 patients (66%). Of these 68 patients, 26 received adjuvant chemotherapy. The most common regimens were capecitabine (n = 11), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (n = 7), and 5‐FU plus oxaliplatin (n = 6). Tumor histopathology and grade, and the ability to achieve complete cytoreduction were significant predictors of overall survival. The median OS for non–low‐grade and well‐differentiated tumor patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy following complete cytoreduction was 9.03 years, compared to 2.88 years for patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (P = .02). Among low‐grade and well‐differentiated tumor patients who underwent complete cytoreduction, there was no statistically significant difference in OS between those who received adjuvant chemotherapy and those who did not. Conclusion Adjuvant chemotherapy seems to have benefit in appendiceal cancer patients with non–low‐grade or well‐differentiated tumor type but not in low‐grade or well‐differentiated tumors., The impact of adjuvant chemotherapy following complete cytoreduction in various histopathological subtypes of appendiceal cancer remains unknown. This retrospective study shows that adjuvant chemotherapy has benefit only in moderate‐ to high‐grade and signet‐ring type adenocarcinomas but not in low‐grade and well‐differentiated appendiceal adenocarcinomas.

Although an expanding array of effective treatments has resulted in recent improvement in survival of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), outcomes remain heterogeneous, and identification of prognostic factors remains a priority. We assessed the prognostic impact of time to progression of disease (POD) after first-line therapy among 455 patients with relapsed MCL. Patients were categorized by duration of first remission as PRF/POD6, defined as progressive disease during induction or POD within 6 months of diagnosis (n = 65; 14%); POD6-24, defined as POD between 6 and 24 months after diagnosis (n = 153; 34%); and POD>24, defined as POD >24 months after diagnosis (n = 237; 53%). The median overall survival from POD (OS2) was 1.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.4) for patients with PRF/POD6, 3 years (95% CI, 2-6.8) for those with POD6-24, and 8 years (95% CI, 6.2-NR) for those with POD>24. Median OS2 was inferior in patients with early POD (defined as PRF/POD6 or POD6-24) after both intensive and less intensive frontline treatment. The prognostic performance of time until POD was replicated in an independent cohort of 245 patients with relapsed MCL, with median OS2 of 0.3 years (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) for PRF/POD6, 0.8 years (95% CI, 0.6-0.9) for POD6-24, and 2.4 years (95% CI 2.1-2.7) for POD>24. Early POD is associated with inferior OS2 in patients with relapsed MCL, identifying a high-risk population for future prospective studies.

Clinical outcomes and predictors of survival in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) treated in the rituximab era (2000-2015) at 12 US academic centers were assessed to identify determinants of survival across age groups. Objectives were to characterize and compare practice patterns, outcomes and prognostic factors for survival in younger patients (age < 65) and older patients (age ≥ 65 years). Among 1162 patients included, 697 were younger and 465 were older. In younger patients, 2-year progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 79% and 92% respectively; blastoid histology, ECOG ≥ 2, and lack of maintenance rituximab (MR) remained statistically relevant to poor OS on univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA). In older patients, 2-year PFS and OS rates were 67% and 86% respectively; lack of maintenance rituximab remained significantly associated with inferior PFS and OS on UVA and MVA (p < 0.001). Two-year PFS rates were 79%, and 67% and 2-year OS rates were 92% and 86% for ages < 65 and ≥ 65 respectively (p < 0.001). First-line high-dose cytarabine exposure and/or MR lessened the negative impact of age on survival. Taken collectively, survival outcomes for older patients remain inferior to those of younger patients in the rituximab era. However, maintenance rituximab and potentially high-dose cytarabine-based induction can mitigate the negative impact of age on survival.

PURPOSE Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell lymphoma characterized by cyclin D1 expression. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) consolidation after induction chemotherapy is often used for eligible patients; however, the benefit remains uncertain in the rituximab era. Herein we retrospectively assessed the impact of AHCT consolidation on survival in a large cohort of transplantation-eligible patients age 65 years or younger. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively studied transplantation-eligible adults age 65 years or younger with newly diagnosed MCL treated between 2000 and 2015. The primary objective was to assess for improved progression-free survival (PFS) with AHCT consolidation and secondarily to assess for improved overall survival (OS). Cox multivariable regression analysis and propensity score–weighted (PSW) analysis were performed. RESULTS Data were collected from 25 medical centers for 1,254 patients; 1,029 met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for the cohort was 76 months. Median PFS and OS were 62 and 139 months, respectively. On unadjusted analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (75 v 44 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .01) and OS (147 v 115 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.66; P < .01) and a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06). After PSW analysis, AHCT remained associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.84; P < .05) but not improved OS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.1; P = .2). CONCLUSION In this large cohort of younger, transplantation-eligible patients with MCL, AHCT consolidation after induction was associated with significantly improved PFS but not OS after PSW analysis. Within the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our findings suggest that in younger, fit patients, AHCT consolidation may improve PFS.

Background: Radiation exposure is a serious concern with usage of serial multigated acquisition (MUGA) scans (7.8mSv/study) for chemotherapy-related cardiotoxicity (CRC) screening. The current practice with respect to the imaging modalities chosen for cardiotoxicity screening and related radiation exposure has not been studied. Materials and Methods: We performed a serial cross-sectional study from 2011 to 2014, evaluating the relative usage of the three imaging modalities for CRC screening. Results: MUGA scan usage decreased from 30.4% to 16.7%, echocardiogram (Echo) utilization increased from 68.7% to 80.4% and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) usage increased from 0.9% to 2.9% in the 4-year period. Estimated total radiation exposure and secondary cancer risk can increase significantly in certain subgroups when MUGA scan is employed for serial cardiac imaging. Conclusion: Increased awareness of radiation risks from MUGA, as well as increasing focus on early detection of cardiotoxicity using Echo and CMR, are possible reasons behind the observed trends.

Small-cell lung carcinoma (SCLC) is one of the most aggressive solid tumors, and the prognosis has not improved significantly in 25 years. Despite a recent understanding of the genomic aberrations seen in SCLC, these insights have not led to any breakthroughs in treatment. We present a patient with SCLC harboring a novel MYCL1 fusion protein who experienced a prolonged disease course due to the use of Aurora A kinase inhibitor and subsequently nivolumab. MYC family genes are master regulators of several cellular pathways including proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis and recently have been shown to be involved in tumor immune evasion. Large studies have shown that a significant proportion of patients with SCLC have amplification or overexpression of MYC family genes. Preclinical data have exposed vulnerability of MYC-driven tumors to Aurora kinase inhibitors, bromodomain and extraterminal domain inhibitors, and recently to immune checkpoint blockers. Further studies using these agents with selective enrolling of patients with MYC-altered tumors are warranted to exploit these vulnerabilities.

Background Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is frequently used as a consolidative therapy option after induction treatment in fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) with the goal of prolonging the initial response duration. Despite recent advances there remains a subset of patients who experience early disease relapse after ASCT. We examined predictors of shortened progression-free survival (PFS) and post-relapse overall survival (OS) in a cohort of patients completing ASCT in first remission. Methods We evaluated MCL patients treated at 10 US academic medical centers. Eligible patients were treated from 2000 through 2017, and we collected information on demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables of interest. Patients were then categorized into three post-ASCT PFS groups: 0-2 years, 2-5 years, and > 5 years, with PFS determined from the date of ASCT until progression or death from any cause. Patients followed for at least 5 years post-ASCT who were relapse free were included in the > 5 sub group. Associations were examined between groups and collected characteristics using chi-squared tests for categorical patient characteristics and ANOVA for numeric patient characteristics. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) for each group, using time of relapse after ASCT as the starting point. Results Of 968 total MCL patients, 242 patients completed ASCT in first remission and either had a PFS event or were relapse-free for at least 5 years post-ASCT. Patients were 80% male, and the median age was 59 (Range: 29-83). The patients were divided into groups of post-ASCT PFS 0-2 years (n=74), 2-5 years (n=75), and more than 5 years (n=93). Post-ASCT PFS was shorter in patients with stage 4 disease (p=0.022), splenomegaly at baseline (p=0.005), and a lymph node size > 5 centimeters at baseline (p=0.043). Other variables were not significantly associated with PFS, including time to transplant and use of intensive therapy. Patients with 0-2 year PFS had a shorter median OS (22.1 months, 95% CI: 13.1- 38.1 months) in comparison to 2-5 year PFS (132 months, 95% CI: 36-132 months) and 5+ year PFS not reached (95% CI: 41.2 – N.A; Figure). Conclusion Patients with higher tumor burden at baseline have a shorter post-ASCT PFS and are more likely to relapse within 2 years. As has been seen in other lymphoma subtypes, early relapse is associated with shorter OS. This represents a patient group requiring improved therapies and perhaps are the best candidates for post-ASCT maintenance or consolidation approaches. Further studies integrating minimal residual disease and molecular risk-stratification may better identify patients at high risk for early progression.

INTRODUCTION The optimal frontline treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is not clearly defined. Bendamustine + rituximab (BR) is commonly used as initial therapy. The role of maintenance rituximab (MR) after BR is not agreed upon due to limited data supporting this practice, whereas MR improves overall survival (OS) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and after R-CHOP for elderly patients who do not receive ASCT. Preliminary results from a subgroup analysis of the randomized phase 3 MAINTAIN study revealed neither a progression-free survival (PFS) nor OS benefit for MR as compared to observation for MCL pts (Rummel, ASCO 2016). In follicular lymphoma patients, however, there does appear to be a PFS benefit to rituximab maintenance following BR. Given these disparate results, we sought additional data to evaluate the role of rituximab maintenance following BR in MCL METHODS MCL pts treated at 12 U.S. medical centers with frontline BR who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) and who did not receive consolidative ASCT from 2011 - 2017 were included. Use of MR was based on individual physician/patient preferences. Baseline pt characteristics were compared using chi-squared test, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA. Descriptive statistics, comparisons, and OS using the Kaplan-Meier method were stratified by response status as determined by the treating site (complete response (CR) only, partial response (PR) only, and CR/PR). RESULTS Among 135 pts responding to frontline BR who did not complete subsequent ASCT, 80% achieved complete remission (CR) and 20% had a partial remission (PR). Median age was 70 (range 45 - 93) years and 66% were male. Baseline MIPI score was low (13%), intermediate (38%), or high (49%) among patients with available data (n = 92) and did not differ between treatment cohorts. Among responding patients, 78 (58%) received MR and 57 (40%) were observed. With a median follow up of 3.1 years, median OS was not reached for pts responding to BR (with CR or PR) who received MR vs. 6 years for those who received no maintenance (Figure Panel A, P = 0.0013). Use of MR vs. observation was associated with a significant improvement in OS for pts in PR at the end of induction therapy (Figure Panel B, median not reached vs. 1.7 years, P = 0.006), but there was no statistically significant OS difference for pts in CR (Figure Panel C, median not reached vs. 9.6 years, P = 0.2575). In multivariable analysis, MIPI score CONCLUSIONS Whereas the MAINTAIN trial showed no PFS advantage to MR after BR for MCL pts, in this multi-center outcomes analysis across multiple US centers, the use of MR was associated with an improvement in OS in pts receiving frontline BR without consolidative ASCT. The survival benefit was only observed for pts in PR after induction therapy. Because of the potential for selection bias in the application of MR, further validation cohorts and prospective study are needed to clarify if there is benefit to maintenance therapy after BR-treated patients not undergoing ASCT as well as the potential for differential benefit of maintenance based on remission status Disclosures Hill: Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Danilov:Curis: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ghosh:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Park:G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Hamadani:Otsuka: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Flowers:Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy. Cohen:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Smoking is a potential risk factor for the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and prior studies have reported inferior survival in tobacco users with certain subtypes of the disease (Taborelli et al, BMC Cancer, 2017; Ollberding et al, Br J Haematol, 2013). For instance, tobacco smokers with NHL had an inferior overall survival (OS) compared to non-smokers in a series of 471 patients who were managed up front with either chemotherapy (68%), radiation (27%), or observation, and this appeared to be most pronounced in patients with follicular lymphoma and in those with a 20+ pack year smoking history (Geyer et al, Cancer, 2010). The impact of tobacco use on survival specifically in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has not been well studied. We conducted a multicenter study in MCL and evaluated the prognostic impact of tobacco use. Methods: We included patients with MCL from 12 sites who were ≥18 years old and for whom smoking status was known at the time of diagnosis. Cases were evaluated for reported smoking status at the time of diagnosis (active smoker, prior smoker, or never smoker) and standard baseline clinical prognostic data were obtained for each patient. Descriptive statistics were generated for these characteristics and were then compared across smoking status using chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA, where appropriate. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and were compared using log-rank tests. Results: Of 946 included patients, 456 (48.2%) reported never using tobacco, 360 (38.7%) reported prior tobacco use, and 130 (13.7%) reported active tobacco use at the time of diagnosis. Median age was 59 in the active smoker group, 65 in prior smokers, and 61 in never smokers (p < 0.001). Any major medical comorbidity (defined as the presence of CAD, CHF, diabetes, CKD, ESRD, COPD, DVT, prior malignancy, or cirrhosis) was present in 59 (45.4%) of the active smokers, 143 (39.7%) of the prior smokers, and 140 (30.7%) of the never smokers (p = 0.002). Intensive induction regimens were used in 58.2% of active smokers, 47.2% of prior smokers, and 58.4% of never smokers (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between groups in regards to sex, race, ECOG performance status, Ann Arbor stage, time to first treatment, and use of auto transplant in first remission. Patients with no prior history of tobacco use were less likely to have a high risk MIPI score at diagnosis (26% high risk) compared to prior smokers (39.5%) and active smokers (32.5%, p=0.019). With a median follow up of 3.5 years after diagnosis, there was no significant difference between the 3 groups with regards to PFS or OS (Figure 1). Five-year OS in the never smoker group was 79.8% (95% CI: 74.8%, 83.9%) vs 75.1% (64.5%, 82.9%) in the active smoker group, and 80.6% (74.6%, 85.3%) in the prior smoker group (log rank p = 0.4079). Five- year progression free survival was 50.4% (44.6%, 56.0%) in the never smoker group, 42.5% (32.2%, 52.5%) in the active smoker group, and 50.2% (43.5%, 56.6%) in the prior smoker group (log rank p= 0.3595). Conclusions: Our data suggest that active or prior smoking does not significantly impact OS or PFS in patients with MCL. This study is limited by the fact that amount of current or former tobacco use was not available and it is not known how many current tobacco users ultimately stopped smoking during the course of their treatment. Future studies should incorporate more specific information regarding smoking history including pack-years and time between discontinuation of tobacco use and date of diagnosis. While tobacco use and other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors should be addressed as appropriate for all patients with MCL, current and former tobacco users can still achieve prolonged PFS and OS and may be candidates for intensive treatments after consideration of their other comorbidities and disease-specific risk factors. Disclosures Calzada: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Gamida Cell: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerson:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Danilov:Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hill:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ghosh:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Flowers:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cohen:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding.

Background: Early progression of disease (POD) in patients (pts) with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) following intensive frontline treatment has been associated with inferior survival (Dietrich et al Ann Oncol 2014 and Visco et al Br J Haematol 2019), but the optimal time point to define early POD and the predictive significance of early POD following less intensive frontline treatment is not well established. We compare outcomes after all frontline treatments in a large MCL cohort categorized by time to progression and describe outcomes by class of second line treatment for pts with primary refractory disease. Methods: Clinical and outcome data for MCL pts treated between 2000 and 2017 were collected from 12 US centers. Overall survival (OS), defined from time of 1st progression, and secondary progression free survival (PFS2), defined from 1st progression to 2nd progression or death, were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and compared by log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models for OS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all estimates and displayed in square brackets. We defined intensive treatment as high dose cytarabine in frontline therapy and/or autologous stem cell transplant in 1st remission. Pts were categorized into three groups: (a) refractory disease to frontline therapy or POD within 6 months of frontline therapy was termed primary refractory (PRF); (b) POD between 6 to 24 months of therapy was termed POD24 and (c) POD beyond 24 months was termed POD>24. Salvage therapy was categorized as chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) for pts treated with CIT alone, BTK inhibitor (BTKi) for pts treated with BTKi single agent or in combination, and lenalidomide / bortezomib for pts treated with one or both agent +/- anti-CD20 therapy. Results: Of 1,168 pts with MCL, 457 pts had relapsed and were included in this analysis. The median age was 62, 77% were male, and ECOG PS was 0/1 in 94%. Median follow-up was 2.6 years (yr) after first progression. The most common induction regimens were R-HyperCVAD (26%), R-CHOP (24%), bendamustine and rituximab (19%), and R-M-CHOP (10%). Frontline treatment was intensive in 54%. Sixty five pts (14%) were PRF, 153 (34%) had POD24, and 239 (53%) had POD>24. Additional baseline characteristics and comparison between groups are summarized in Table 1. The median OS was 1.3 yr [0.9-2.4] for PRF pts, 3 yrs [2-6.8] for POD 24, and 8 yrs [6.2-not reached (NR)] for POD>24 (p24 pts (p Among pts with PRF MCL, median PFS2 and OS were 1.2 [0.5-2.3] and 2.4 [0.7-4.5] yrs for BTKi (n=21), 0.5 [0.2-2.3] and 1.1 [0.5-NR] yrs for CIT (n=22), and 0.3 [0.1-0.6] and 1.9 [0.1-2] yrs for lenalidomide / bortezomib (n=8) as 2nd line therapy. Two pts with PRF MCL received no further therapy and both died within one month of POD. Conclusions: Time to relapse is predictive of outcome in pts with MCL and outcomes with current salvage therapies are poor for pts with relapse within 6 months of frontline therapy. Of currently available second line therapies, BTKi were associated with improved PFS2 in refractory pts. Outcomes are particularly poor for pts who receive intensive induction therapies yet still relapse early, representing a population at high risk for early mortality related to MCL. Novel treatment approaches should be evaluated in this population, including CAR-T cell therapy, and attempts to improve risk stratification at diagnosis and develop improved therapies for high-risk pts should continue. Disclosures Maddocks: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Danilov:Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ghosh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Flowers:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Cohen:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding.

Introduction CALGB study in 1994 reported improved leukemia free survival (LFS) with sequential courses of high dose cytarabine (HIDAC- 3 gm/m2, q12h on days 1, 3 and 5) compared to lower doses of 100 mg/m2 and 400 mg/m2 per day. Following this study, HIDAC has been commonly used for chemotherapy consolidation in AML patients 60 years or younger. More recently, several groups investigated the role of intermediate dose cytarabine (IDAC-1.5 gm/m2 q12h D 1, 3 and 5 or D 1-3) in this population and reported equivalent outcomes for IDAC compared to HIDAC (Table 1). ELN guidelines published in January 2017 recommend IDAC for consolidation therapy in young ( Methods Patients 60 years or younger with ELN favorable risk AML between 2004 and 2015 at SGH and between September 2015 and March 2018 at UMMC, who underwent induction therapy with 7+3 regimen (idarubicin 12 mg/m2 D1-3 or daunorubicin 60 - 90 mg/m2 and cytarabine 100 mg/m2 continuous infusion from D1-7) and consolidation with cytarabine monotherapy were identified. These dates were chosen to allow reasonably equal time distribution before and after change in our practice. We extracted relevant outcomes data using chart review. We used Chi-square testing and applied Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to detect differences in relapse and survival outcomes. Results Of 67 ELN favorable risk patients 60 years or younger, 42 received HIDAC and 25 received IDAC. Median age was 39 years (range 16-59). 64 patients received 1 induction cycle and 3 patients received 2 induction cycles to achieve complete remission. Median LFS and overall survival (OS) with HIDAC vs IDAC were not-reached (NR, median time for follow up = 6.9 years) vs 1.35 years (p=0.004) and NR vs 2.27 years (p=0.001) respectively (Figure 1). Cumulative incidence of relapse at 2 years was 23.8% for HIDAC and 60% for IDAC groups (p=0.003). 3-year LFS and OS for HIDAC vs IDAC groups were 71% vs 36% (p=0.06) and 90% vs 48% (p=0.002). Discussion Historical data suggests chemotherapy consolidation with 3-4 cycles of HIDAC achieves long-term LFS of 60 - 70 % in young favorable risk AML patients. While the outcomes in HIDAC group in this study are comparable to historical data with good outcomes, a significantly larger proportion of patients in the IDAC group had early relapse (60%) and death. A major difference between the patients in this study and the other studies which showed similar outcomes with HIDAC and IDAC is the mode of induction. Data from large randomized studies in AML (Table 1) that suggest similar efficacy of IDAC compared to HIDAC used higher intensity induction regimens (frequently double induction therapy) compared to 7+3 and/or used other agents in combination with Ara-C for consolidation. These data are not broadly applicable in patients who receive a single cycle of 7+3 for induction, when selecting dose of Ara-C as monotherapy for consolidation. Furthermore, studies that used 7+3 for induction therapy showed benefit for HIDAC compared with multi-agent chemotherapy that included IDAC (Table 1). Conclusion Using single agent IDAC for post remission therapy is associated with higher rates of relapse and poor overall survival compared to HIDAC among young, ELN favorable risk AML patients who achieve complete remission following 7+3. The large randomized studies that suggested equivalency of IDAC to HIDAC for post remission therapy in AML patients, either used more than one cycle of intensive induction regimen and/or used cytarabine in combination with an anthracycline for consolidation. Hence, ELN guidelines should be cautiously interpreted given the above limitations in generalizability. Our study suggests that HIDAC, rather than IDAC, is the preferred chemotherapy consolidation regimen in young, favorable risk AML patients following standard 7+3 induction. Foot note: BK & NAAH contributed equally. FH & ZL contributed equally. Disclosures Kolla: Amgen: Equity Ownership. Weisdorf:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare form of lymphoma with no current standard of care. As a result, clinical trials are critical to improving our understanding of the disease and its management. However, clinical trial participation is often limited due to lack of access to studies, restrictive eligibility criteria, and decisions by treating physicians or patients not to participate. We evaluated the rate of enrollment and outcomes associated with clinical trial participation of patients with MCL at 12 US Medical Centers. Methods: We included patients from 12 medical centers in the United States with MCL diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2018, who were ≥ 18 years old, received any induction therapy, and for whom it was known whether initial treatment was on a clinical trial (CT) or not. We compared differences between the two groups (CT vs not) using Fisher's Exact and Chi-square tests as appropriate. We defined overall survival (OS) as time from diagnosis to death. Patients not experiencing an event were censored at their last known follow-up. OS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate and multivariable models were developed to identify predictors of OS. Results: Eight hundred twelve patients were included in this analysis, including 164 (20%) patients who participated in a clinical trial during initial therapy. Rate of participation ranged from 4% to 36% across contributing sites. Median age for the entire cohort was 62 years, 572 (74%) of patients were male, and 95% of patients had ECOG 0-1. MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) risk score was high in 163 patients (31%), and 84% of patients had stage IV disease. Ki67 was >30% in 169/225 (43%) patients with available data, and 19% of patients (65/271) had a complex karyotype with > 3 chromosomal abnormalities. Four hundred sixteen (53%) of patients received an intensive induction regimen (defined as initial treatment with a high-dose cytarabine-containing regimen and/or receipt of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation as consolidation), including 333 patients (43%) who underwent transplant consolidation. Patients with an increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (p 3 cytogenetic abnormalities (p=0.015) were less likely to participate in clinical trials, but there was no significant difference in rates of participation based on MIPI (p=0.49) or ECOG performance status (p=0.22; Table). Patients treated on study were less likely to receive an intensive regimen compared to those treated off study (p=0.002). Median time to treatment from diagnosis was 35 days for patients enrolled on trial and 31 days for patients not enrolled on trial (p=0.83). With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the median OS was 13.6 years (95% CI: 11.5-21.1) for patients not treated on a trial and not reached (95% CI: 9.9 - Not Reached) for patients treated on trial (Figure; p=0.036). In a multivariable model including clinical trial participation, MIPI, time to initial treatment, and receipt of an intensive induction regimen, only clinical trial participation (HR 0.54, 95%CI: 0.31-0.93; p=0.028) and high risk MIPI score (HR 4.24, 95% CI: 2.37-7.56; p Conclusions: Participation in a clinical trial is associated with improved OS among patients with untreated MCL, even when accounting for time to initial treatment and MIPI score. This study is unable to account for other factors that may predict trial participation including baseline comorbidities, socioeconomic status, social support, and distance to the treating center that are frequently factors that limit trial participation. However, these findings do suggest that enrollment on a clinical trial frequently leads to a successful outcome for patients in addition to providing answers to key clinical questions and should be considered for all eligible patients. Disclosures Cohen: Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; UNUM: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Danilov:MEI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Hill:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Hamadani:Otsuka: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Martin:Karyopharm: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Flowers:Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kahl:BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

Introduction: Time to treatment (TTT) is an important prognostic factor in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Maurer et al JCO 2018) where patients who initiate therapy quickly after diagnosis have an inferior event free survival compared to those who do not require such immediate treatment initiation. More recently, TTT has shown to be associated with adverse clinical factors and inferior outcomes in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; Maurer, et al ASH, 2018). However, there is a paucity of data on the impact of TTT on overall survival (OS). We sought to validate these findings and to evaluate the impact of TTT on survival outcomes in newly diagnosed patients with MCL. Methods: We included patients from 12 medical centers in the United States with MCL diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2018, who had information on the TTT and initiated treatment within 60 days of diagnosis (to exclude patients whose treatment was purposefully deferred). TTT was defined as the time in days from first lymphoma diagnosis to initiation of therapy. Patients who received treatment within 14 days were categorized into short TTT group. We compared differences between the two groups (TTT 14 days and ≤ 60 days, longer TTT group) using chi-squared test, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA tests as appropriate. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Patients not experiencing an event were censored at their last known follow-up. OS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariable and multivariable models were developed to identify predictors of OS. Results: Of 1,168 patients with newly diagnosed MCL, seven hundred fifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis, including 205 (27%) with short TTT and 550 (73%) with longer TTT. Median time to treatment was 7 days (range, 0-14) for the short TTT group vs 31 days for the longer TTT group (range, 15-60 days). The median age for the entire cohort was 63 years, 75% of patients were male, and 93% of patients had ECOG 0-1. The proportion of patients with stage 4 disease (93 vs 86%, p=0.015), elevated LDH (58 vs 39%, p3 cytogenetic abnormalities (29 vs 14%, p=0.005), B symptoms (47 vs 29%, p On univariable analysis, factors associated with inferior OS included, TTT=2 (p10k (p=0.002), BM involvement (p=2 (HR=2.25, 95%CI=1.22-4.14; p=0.009), elevated LDH (HR=1.81, 95%CI=1.16-2.85; p=0.01), and receipt of non-intensive regimen (HR=1.61, 95%CI=1.04-2.50; p=0.03) were significant predictors of OS while B symptoms was not. Conclusions: Short TTT for patients with newly diagnosed MCL is associated with aggressive disease features and inferior OS despite an increased likelihood of receiving intensive induction regimens. Further studies are needed to identify molecular determinants of such aggressive disease behavior that can be assessed quickly and utilized to initiate appropriate therapy in a timely manner. Ongoing front-line clinical trials in MCL should be developed in a way to facilitate enrollment of patients requiring urgent therapy, including potentially permitting a cycle of off-study treatment to manage symptoms while a patient is screened and enrolled. Disclosures Epperla: Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerson:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau. Hill:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ghosh:Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Park:Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Martin:I-MAB: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Kahl:AbbVie Inc, Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BeiGene, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Roche Laboratories Inc.: Consultancy. Flowers:V Foundation: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy. Cohen:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Background Checkpoint inhibitors are a class of agents that employ host’s adaptive immune defenses in fighting cancer. With many new indications and several ongoing clinical trials in a variety of malignancies, the usage of these agents is set to increase significantly. One of the key challenges patients and physicians face while using these drugs is with the appropriate assessment of response to therapy. Case presentation We are reporting two patients with lung cancer who were treated with nivolumab and experienced rapidly accumulating recurrent pleural effusions requiring multiple thoracenteses (6 and 4 times each for patient 1 and 2 respectively) with in the first few weeks of initiation of therapy and also developed pericardial effusion with cardiac tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis. Both patients had prior history of malignant spread to pleural and pericardial space in their disease course. Therapy was continued in the first patient with spontaneous resolution of effusions after 8 weeks and the disease showed near complete response to treatment on imaging at 16 weeks. Second patient declined to continue further treatment with nivolumab after 3 cycles due to recurrent effusions and cardiac tamponade, although there was some evidence of clinical response at discontinuation. Conclusions Patients with history of malignant involvement of visceral spaces should be monitored closely for rapidly accumulating effusions and particularly for cardiac tamponade, after initiation of therapy with nivolumab. This presentation could represent pseudoprogression, and continuation of therapy with close monitoring is prudent as long as effusions are manageable and there is no definitive evidence of progression elsewhere.

There is no broad consensus on the imaging method or schedule to screen for Chemotherapy Related Cardio-toxicity (CRC). Multi-gated Acquisition Scan (MUGA) has traditionally been used to screen for CRC over the past 4 decades. Radiation exposure from serial MUGA scan usage and second cancer risk is