Search

Immediate treatment for asymptomatic, low-tumor burden follicular lymphoma (FL) has not shown an overall survival benefit over “watch and wait” (W/W) strategy. We estimated incidence of treatment initiation at specific time points and assessed its association with the presence of any criteria such as GELF, BNLI, GITMO at diagnosis. FL patients managed by W/W strategy were identified from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE between 2002 and 2015. Cumulative incidence estimates of treatment initiation were calculated using transformation (as the first event) and death as competing risks. 401 FL patients were identified on W/W strategy. At a median follow-up of 8 years, 256 (64%) initiated treatment. For patients on the W/W strategy for 5 years, the likelihood of treatment initiation in the next 5 years was 12% compared to 43% at diagnosis unlike transformation rates which remained steady. Patients with any of popular treatment criteria at diagnosis did not have increased therapy initiation rates (44% vs. 42%) during the first 5 years or lymphoma-related death rates at 10 years (6% vs. 7%). Identifying biological differences in patients with early vs. late or no progression is a critical next step in understanding outcomes in W/W patients.

The impact of body mass index (BMI) on survival in lymphoma remains controversial. We leveraged a prospective cohort of lymphoma patients enrolled to SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource between 2002 and 2015 to assess the association of BMI before diagnosis, BMI at diagnosis, and BMI change over time with lymphoma-specific survival (LSS). A total of 4009 lymphoma patients (670 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 689 follicular lymphoma (FL), 1018 chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), and 1632 other subtypes) were included. Significantly shorter LSS after diagnosis was observed for FL patients who were obese before diagnosis (HR: 3.02, 95%CI: 1.43-6.41, p=.004) and for those with a ≥ 5% increase in BMI from diagnosis to 3-year follow-up (HR: 3.53, 95%CI: 1.22-10.2, p=.020). In contrast, obesity prior to or at the time of diagnosis was not associated with LSS in DLBCL and CLL/SLL. The impact of weight control after diagnosis in FL patient warrants investigation.

Objectives This study sought to compare aortic stenosis (AS) progression rates, AS-related cardiac damage (AS-CD) indicator incidence and determinants, and survival between patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV)-AS and those with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV)-AS. Background Differences in AS progression and AS-CD between patients with BAV and patients with TAV are unknown. Methods We retrospectively studied consecutive patients with baseline peak aortic valve velocity (peakV) ≥2.5 m/s and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. Follow-up echocardiograms (n = 4,818) provided multiparametric AS progression rates and AS-CD. Results The study included 330 BAV (age 54 ± 14 years) and 581 patients with TAV (age 72 ± 11 years). At last echocardiogram (median: 5.9 years; interquartile range: 3.9 to 8.5 years), BAV-AS exhibited similar peakV and mean pressure gradient (MPG) as TAV-AS, but larger calculated aortic valve area due to larger aortic annulus (p Conclusions In this cohort, TAV-AS and BAV-AS progression rates were similar. Rapid progression did not affect survival and was determined by cardiac risk factors for BAV-AS (particularly in patients with BAV

PURPOSE Exclusion of patients needing urgent treatment or requiring novel biomarkers before enrollment has impacted the ability to enroll real-world patients in frontline trials of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The impact of baseline organ function–based eligibility criteria on this effect and clinical trial exclusion is less well-understood. METHODS Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were enrolled from 2002 to 2015 into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence. The current analysis includes 1,265 patients with DLBCL receiving standard immunochemotherapy. Organ function parameters were identified from criteria for hemoglobin, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, creatinine clearance, and bilirubin, as reported in frontline DLBCL trials. Abstracted laboratory values from MER were used to determine the percent (%) of patients excluded. Outcomes and cause-of-death analyses comparing ineligible and eligible groups in MER were conducted. An interactive online tool was developed to estimate exclusions based on organ function for future trial design. RESULTS Between 9% and 24% of MER patients with DLBCL receiving standard immunochemotherapy were excluded on the basis of baseline organ function alone. Ineligible patients based on organ function had significantly inferior event-free survival (hazard ratios, 1.67-2.16), overall survival (hazard ratios, 1.87-2.56), and event-free survival at 24 months (odds ratio, 1.71-2.16). Ineligible patients were more likely to die from lymphoma progression than increased therapy-related complications. CONCLUSION Current national and international trials exclude up to 24% of patients from participation on the basis of organ function alone. A significant difference in the outcomes, notably lymphoma-related death, suggests issues with generalization and potential exclusion of high-risk patients. These data will help future clinical trial development and meet US Food and Drug Administration and ASCO recommendations to increase trial accrual.

Background Standard bone marrow biopsy (BMB) and bone involvement with follicular lymphoma (FL) on positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) both predict early clinical failure in FL. The key clinical question is whether PET/CT findings can obviate the need for BMB. The goal of this study was to determine the value of PET/CT in determining bone involvement in FL, using posterior iliac crest BMB as the gold standard. Materials and Methods A total of 548 patients with newly diagnosed grade 1–3A FL were included. The presence, pattern, and location of bone involvement, spleen involvement, and standardized uptake values (SUVs) in the L3 vertebral body were recorded for all patients and compared with the BMB report. Results Excluding patients with focal bone lesions on PET/CT, the sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT in detecting bone or marrow involvement, compared with BMB, were 53% and 88%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of spleen involvement on PET/CT in predicting a positive BMB were 55% and 86%, respectively. An L3 SUVmax of less than 2.0 resulted in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96% for marrow involvement on BMB; an L3 SUVmean below 1.4 resulted in an NPV of 100%. Conclusion In newly diagnosed FL, PET/CT-detected bone and splenic involvement is highly specific for a positive BMB, and very low SUV values ( Implications for Practice Predicting early clinical failure in follicular lymphoma (FL) is important but difficult. Bone marrow involvement by FL is associated with early clinical failure, and determining this involvement is a key component of the initial staging. This study highlights that in certain patients, positron emission tomography/computed tomography is sufficient in determining bone or marrow involvement, without the need for a confirmatory bone marrow biopsy (BMB). An algorithm is provided based on these findings to help clinicians determine which patients would benefit from BMB and when it can be avoided.

PURPOSE: Compliance with US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) age-appropriate cancer screening and immunization guidelines in lymphoma survivors is not known. We sought to measure compliance in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) survivors and identify any differences based on patient, disease and treatment characteristics. METHODS: Eligible NHL survivors were identified from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) prospective cohort study. Survivors self-reported colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer screening and influenza immunization in a questionnaire 3-years post-diagnosis (FU3). The USPSTF guidelines were used to define compliance. Chi-square tests were used to compare characteristics of compliant vs non-compliant survivors. RESULTS: 1833 MER participants from 2005-2012 completed a FU3. Rates of breast and prostate cancer screening were 96% and 72%, respectively. No differences in compliance based on patient or disease characteristics or treatment were observed. 92% of survivors were compliant with colorectal cancer screening. Older age, indolent lymphoma histology, and 2008-2012 year of diagnosis were associated with higher compliance. 82% of survivors were compliant with influenza vaccination and older age was associated with higher compliance. CONCLUSION: NHL survivors have high compliance with USPSTF recommendations for cancer screening and immunization. Survivors who are younger or have aggressive lymphomas are less likely to meet the colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Older survivors are more likely to receive influenza vaccination. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Measures to further improve preventive care for NHL survivors, especially those younger in age, are necessary.

Background: Vaccinations have been hypothesized to play a role in lymphoma etiology, but there are few studies, mixed results, and limited data on lymphoma subtypes. Herein, we investigate the association of vaccinations with risk of major lymphoma subtypes. Methods: We studied 2,461 lymphoma cases and 2,253 controls enrolled from 2002 to 2014. Participants self-reported history of vaccinations against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, yellow fever, and influenza. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate OR and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusting for potential confounders. Results: After multivariable adjustment, vaccination against influenza was inversely associated with lymphoma (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66–1.02), which was stronger for last vaccination 1+ years before enrollment (OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56–0.91) and for >5 influenza vaccinations (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46–0.68). Ever vaccination against hepatitis A (OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66–1.00) but not hepatitis B (OR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81–1.18) was associated with lymphoma risk, although more recent vaccinations were inversely associated with lymphoma risk for both hepatitis A ( Conclusions: Selected vaccinations were inversely associated with lymphoma risk, with time since last vaccination relevant for some of these vaccines. Impact: Vaccinations against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, yellow fever, and influenza are unlikely to increase lymphoma risk.

Background: Generalizability of results from clinical trials with narrow in-/exclusion criteria are a concern as significant deviations in efficacy or toxicity may occur when treatments are used in populations of elderly and more comorbid patients. The cost-effectiveness of novel therapies may also be less favorable if real-world treatment effects are inferior to clinical trial results. In diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), a recent US study showed that baseline organ function-based eligibility criteria had substantial impact on survival with ineligible patients being at higher risk of dying from progressive lymphoma (1). Aims: The present study explored the impact of commonly used in-/exclusion criteria in key completed and ongoing first line DLBCL trials on survival in a Danish population-based study of patients with de novo DLBCL. Patients and methods: DLBCL patients enrolled in the Danish Lymphoma Registry (LYFO) and treated with R-CHOP in the period 2008-19 were screened for completeness of data to match trial eligibility criteria. The key organ/hematology eligibility criteria of completed or ongoing all-comers DLBCL studies (REMoDL-B, Goya, Polarix and Hovon84) were collected (bilirubin, ALAT, creatinine, eGFR, leucocytes, neutrophils, thrombocytes and ECOG). First, high-level trial matching on disease risk group (Ann Arbor, bulky disease, international prognostic index (IPI)) and age-groups were performed so that patients assessed for trial eligibility had a relevant risk profile. Subsequently, patients were divided into eligible or ineligible based on selected in/exclusion criteria. For each trial, overall survival (OS) from treatment start were compared for eligible and ineligible patients using inverse probability of treatment weighted Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Crude OS and OS adjusted for residual imbalances in IPI and age were estimated. When possible, the OS curves from standard arms of the original trials were superimposed on OS plots. For each trial, the Shapley value of each criterion was calculated, using the HRs as well as the 5y restricted loss of lifetimes (RLOLs). The Shapley value measures the average influence of each eligibility criterion on the estimated IPI- and age-adjusted HR/5y RLOL. Results: A total of 3,150 R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients without discordant low-grade lymphoma were identified in the surveyed period. A total of 1,666 patients (52.89% of surveyed population) were available for the REMoDL-B trial, 1,431 (45.43%) for Goya, 1,125 (35.71%) for Polarix, and 1,432 (45.46%) for Hovon84. The variations of numbers for each trial evaluation were explained by trial inclusion criteria and missing data in LYFO. Crude OS estimates for patients with and without all necessary information were similar (data not shown). OS curves for eligible and ineligible patients are shown in Figure 1 and, when possible, with superimposed trial results (Goya, REMoDL-B, Hovon84). Survival differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients were robust to further adjustment of imbalances in age and IPI. Associated crude and adjusted 2 and 5-year OS rates for trial eligible and ineligible are shown in Table 1. The largest numerical difference in 2-year crude OS between eligible and ineligible was observed in the REMoDL-B trial (ineligible had 26% lower 2-year OS rate). The largest numerical difference in 2-year OS adjusted for IPI and age between eligible and ineligible was observed for the Polarix trial (ineligible had 17% lower 2-year OS rate). The strongest drivers of OS differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients in terms of the tested eligibility criteria were thrombocyte count (HR-contribution calculated from Shapley values -0.11; -0.14) and ECOG (HR-contribution -0.09; -0.21). Liver function parameters (bilirubin and ALAT) had low impact on OS (HR-contribution 0.00; -0.05 and 0.00; 0.07). Conclusions: The present population-based study confirms that trial ineligible patients have worse survival even after adjustments in imbalances in age and disease risk category. Thus, trial eligibility criteria have substantial impact on generalizability of results to a wider unselected population. Interestingly, the trial eligible patients identified in the present study had very similar outcomes to R-CHOP treated patients in the original trials supporting the possible use of RWD as synthetic control arms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: 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; Nanostring: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jørgensen: Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Larsen: BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Odense University Hospital, Denmark: Current Employment; Gilead: Consultancy. 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. Poulsen: Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

The World Health Organization Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues (WHO 2017) included updated criteria for diagnosis and classification of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLDs). This study evaluated the clinicopathologic spectrum using WHO 2017 criteria and adult PTLD patients’ outcomes over 30 years between 1987 and 2017 at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). Patients were retrospectively reviewed for clinical features, outcomes, and diagnostic pathology material and classified based on WHO 2017 criteria. A total of 227 patients were diagnosed with PTLD, with a median time from transplant to PTLD of 45 months. PTLD occurred >1 year after transplant in 149 (66%) patients. Monomorphic PTLD was the most common subtype (173, 76%), with diffuse large B cell lymphoma as the commonest morphology (n = 137). Epstein-Barr virus was positive in 61% of total cases and 90% of PTLD that developed within 1 year from transplant. The median event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival for the entire cohort were 21 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9–35) and 82 months (95% CI: 39–115), respectively. The EFS or overall survival was not impacted by Epstein-Barr virus status but differed based on WHO subtypes and year of diagnosis. Management changed over time with increased use of rituximab or chemotherapy + immunosuppression reduction as initial therapy. When compared to the matched general population and de novo diffuse large B cell lymphoma, patients not achieving EFS 24 status (no progression/treatment or death within 24 mo of diagnosis) had a worse standardized mortality ratio 16.75 (95% CI: 13.91–20) versus SMR 1.72 (95% CI: 1.26–2.28) in those who achieved EFS24. Cause of death was mostly attributed to non-lymphoma–related causes in those achieving EFS 24.

Background Patients (pts) with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) progressing after anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T (CART) cell therapy have poor prognosis and may benefit from new therapy options through clinical trials. However, in a single center report, only 12% of such pts were treated in trials (Chow et al. Am J Hematol, 2019). Identifying the reasons for this low enrollment is needed to design future studies for this population. Here, we evaluated the eligibility criteria for recent landmark trials for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell NHL to learn what eligibility barriers are present. Methods Pts with aggressive B-cell NHL who received FDA-approved CART cell therapy at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Arizona, Florida) since 2018 and progressed after CART cell therapy were identified. The potential eligibility for the following key trials was evaluated: a) polatuzumab + bendamustine + rituximab, b) tafasitamab + lenalidomide, c) selinexor and d) loncastuximab. The eligibility for each trial was retrospectively assessed at the time of disease progression after CART cell therapy based on hemoglobin (Hb), absolute neutrophils count (ANC), platelet count (Plt), renal and liver function tests, ECOG performance status (PS), and central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Results Seventy-five pts had disease progression to axicabtagene ciloleucel (N=73, 97%) or tisagenlecleucel (N=2, 3%) and are included in this analysis. Median time to progression after CART was 2.1 months (IQR: 1.0 - 3.1). Thirteen (17%) pts were treated in clinical trials after progression following CART cell therapy, while 46 (61%) were treated off trials, and 16 (22%) pts never received any treatment after progression. At a median follow-up of 13.6 months (IQR: 9.1 - 26.7) from CART progression, the median overall survival (mOS) from CART progression was 5.8 months (95% CI 3.5 - 10.1) and 53 (71%) pts died. Thirty-eight pts (51%) did not meet eligibility criteria for any of the 4 recent landmark trials. Hematologic impairment was the most common barrier to inclusion of these patients in clinical trials: Hb < 9 g/dL n=23 (31%) or Hb < 10 g/dL n=36 (48%), ANC < 1.0 x 10 9/L n=19 (25%) or ANC < 1.5 x 10 9/L n=32 (43%), and Plt < 75 x 10 9/L n=30 (40%) or Plt < 90 x 10 9/L n=34 (45%). Renal (n=11, 15%) or liver dysfunction (n=5, 7%), CNS involvement (n=8, 11%) and ECOG PS > 2 (n=3, 4%) were less common reasons leading to exclusion from trials. Post CART trial ineligible pts had significantly shorter time to progression (median 1.7 months, IQR: 1.0 - 2.6 vs. 3.0 months IQR: 1.9 - 3.4, p < 0.01) and inferior overall response to CART (45% vs 67%, p = 0.06) compared to pts who met trial eligibility post CART. Baseline Hb (median Hb 9.5 g/dL, IQR: 8.5 - 10.5 vs. 10.9 g/dL, IQR: 9.7 - 12.2, p < 0.01) and Plt (median Plt 106 x 10 9/L IQR: 54 - 165 vs. 201 x 10 9/L IQR: 141 - 243, p < 0.01) were also significantly lower in pts ineligible for trials post CART. There were no significant differences between pts eligible or ineligible for trials with regards to age (median 59 vs. 60 years), number of prior therapies (median 3 vs. 3), prior autologous stem cell transplant (41% vs. 37%), bridging therapy (65% vs. 63%), baseline ANC (median 4,1 vs. 3,0 x10 9/L), or high-grade (grade ≥ 2) cytokine release syndrome (19% vs. 21%) or neurotoxicity (32%, vs. 42%), respectively. Survival after CART progression was significantly shorter (mOS 2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.6 - 5.1) for the 38 pts ineligible for trials compared to pts eligible for trials (mOS 10.6 months, 95% CI: 8.9 - NA), (p < 0.01). In the 59 pts who received therapy post CART progression, the mOS of pts treated on (n = 13) or off (n = 46) trials was 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.2 - NA) vs. 6.6 months (4.9 - 10.7), respectively (p = 0.047). Conclusion Approximately half of the pts (51%) with aggressive B-cell NHL progressing after CART cell therapy would have be excluded from landmark clinical trials. The current hematologic exclusion criteria are a major barrier to enrollment in clinical trials, which would exclude many pts who have disease progression within 3 months of CART cell therapy (ie, primary refractory disease), in whom cytopenia as a toxicity from therapy is prevalent. Given the known delayed hematologic recovery after CART cell therapy and the unmet need of pts progressing to CART cell therapy, the hematologic exclusion criteria should be adjusted to increase trial participation of this population, especially of those with primary refractory disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; 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; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. 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, 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. Lin: Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Because there have been a dvances in frontline treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) over the last 2 decades, we sought to characterize the changes in frontline treatment patterns and their association with outcomes. Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from September 2002 through June 2015 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study, and clinical characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes were compared between patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2009 (Era 1) compared with 2010 to 2015 (Era 2). Patient age, sex, and simplified MCL International Prognostic Index (sMIPI) score were similar between the 2 groups. In patients age 65 years or younger, there was less use of rituximab plus hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (R-Hyper-CVAD) (16.1% vs 8.8%) but more use of rituximab plus maximum-strength cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-maxi-CHOP) alternating with rituximab plus high-dose cytarabine (R-HiDAC), also known as the Nordic regimen, and R-CHOP alternating with rituximab plus dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin (R-DHAP) (1.1% vs 26.4%) and less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens (64.5% vs 35.2%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 12.1%) in Era 2 (P < .001). These changes were associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; 5-year EFS, 34.3% vs 50.0%; P = .010) and overall survival (OS; 5-year OS, 68.8% vs 81.6%; P = .017) in Era 2. In patients older than age 65 years, there was less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like therapy (39.0% vs 14.3%) and nonstandard systemic therapy (36.6% vs 13.0%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 49.4%). These changes were associated with a trend for improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.4% vs 37.5%; P = .051) in Era 2. The shift from R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens to R-bendamustine was associated with improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.0% vs 44.6%; P = .008) in Era 2. Results from this prospective cohort study provide critical real-world evidence for improved outcomes with evolving frontline patterns of care in patients with MCL.

Aim: To determine the safety of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) in breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin treatment. Methods: Phase I randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over, dose-finding pharmacokinetic study among women with stage I-III breast cancer receiving 4 cycles of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide. The study was designed to test the maximum tolerated dose of CoQ10 using up to 1200 mg/day. Eligible patients were randomized to Arm A (CoQ10 after Cycle 3, followed by placebo after Cycle 4) or Arm B (placebo after cycle 3, followed by CoQ10 after cycle 4). CoQ10 concentrations and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) were measured before and after chemotherapy cycles. Non-compartmental pharmacokinetic parameters of doxorubicin and its active metabolites were measured with and without CoQ10. Paired t-tests assessed intra-patient differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, serum CoQ10 concentrations, TAC and adverse events. Results: Six patients received 300 mg/day of CoQ10 [Arm A (n=3), Arm B (n=3)]. One patient received 600 mg/day of CoQ10 but was discontinued due to non-adherence. Serum CoQ10 concentrations were increased in patients receiving 300 mg/day (mean±SD change: CoQ10, 1.6±0.9 ug/mL; placebo, -0.01±0.3 ug/mL; P=0.01). There were no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions between 300 mg/day CoQ10 and doxorubicin and no differences in TAC or adverse events during treatment and nontreatment periods. The trial was closed early due to slow accrual. Conclusions: 300 mg/day of CoQ10 with doxorubicin did not change doxorubicin pharmacokinetics and was not associated with treatment-related adverse events. Future studies should evaluate the long-term effects of CoQ10 at 300 mg/day and safety studies should examine higher doses.

PURPOSE Alliance/CALGB 50303 (NCT00118209), an intergroup, phase III study, compared dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received six cycles of DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary clinical objectives included response rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2013, 524 patients were registered; 491 eligible patients were included in the final analysis. Most patients (74%) had stage III or IV disease; International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk groups included 26% IPI 0 to 1, 37% IPI 2, 25% IPI 3, and 12% IPI 4 to 5. At a median follow-up of 5 years, PFS was not statistically different between the arms (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.27; P = .65), with a 2-year PFS rate of 78.9% (95% CI, 73.8% to 84.2%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 75.5% (95% CI, 70.2% to 81.1%) for R-CHOP. OS was not different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.59; P = .64), with a 2-year OS rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 82.3% to 91%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 85.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 90.2%) for R-CHOP. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common ( P < .001) in the DA-EPOCH-R arm than the R-CHOP arm, including infection (16.9% v 10.7%, respectively), febrile neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucositis (8.4% v 2.1%, respectively), and neuropathy (18.6% v 3.3%, respectively). Five treatment-related deaths (2.1%) occurred in each arm. CONCLUSION In the 50303 study population, the more intensive, infusional DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and did not improve PFS or OS compared with R-CHOP. The more favorable results with R-CHOP compared with historical controls suggest a potential patient selection bias and may preclude generalizability of results to specific risk subgroups.

The diabetes mellitus (DM) drug metformin targets mechanistic/mammalian target of rapamycin and inhibits lymphoma growth in vitro. We investigated whether metformin affected outcomes of newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL, n = 869) and follicular lymphoma (FL, n = 895) patients enrolled in the Mayo component of the Molecular Epidemiology Resource cohort study between 2002 and 2015. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, prognostic index and treatment were used to estimate the association of metformin exposure (No DM/No metformin; DM/No metformin; DM/Metformin) with event-free (EFS), lymphoma-specific (LSS) and overall (OS) survival. Compared to No DM/No metformin DLBCL patients, there was no association of DM/Metformin (n = 48; HR = 1·05, 95% CI 0·59-1·89) or DM/No metformin(n = 54; HR = 1·41, 95% CI 0·88-2·26) with EFS; results were similar for LSS and OS. Compared to No DM/No metformin FL patients, there was no association of DM/Metformin (n = 37; HR = 1·16, 95% CI 0·71-1·89) or DM/No metformin (n = 19; HR = 1·16, 95% CI 0·66-2·04) with EFS; results were similar for LSS. However, DM/Metformin was associated with inferior OS (HR = 2·17; 95% CI 1·19-3·95) compared to No DM/No metformin. In conclusion, we found no evidence that metformin use was associated with improved outcomes in newly diagnosed DLBCL and FL.

Bendamustine (B) with rituximab (R) is a standard frontline treatment for medically fit follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. The safety and efficacy of maintenance rituximab (MR) after BR induction has not been formally compared to observation for FL, resulting in disparate practice patterns. Prospective trials have shown benefit of MR after R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) or R-CVP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone), yet recent data from the GALLIUM study comparing outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy with R or obinutuzumab (G) showed higher than anticipated fatal adverse events with BR/BG. In order to assess the efficacy and tolerability of MR after BR, we retrospectively collected data on 640 newly diagnosed patients treated with FL. We found that patients who achieved partial remission (PR) after ≥4 cycles of BR had improved duration of response (DOR) with MR vs. no maintenance, whereas those in complete remission did not. These findings were confirmed in a validation cohort. In the entire study population, the known fatal adverse event rate after BR was 2·5% and did not significantly differ in those receiving MR versus no maintenance. [Correction added on 14 January 2019, after online publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected in this current version.] Within the limitations inherent to retrospective analysis, these data suggest that FL patients with a PR to BR experience prolongation of remission with MR with an acceptable safety profile.

The development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in long-term survivors of lymphoma is of increasing importance. Here, we characterize the cumulative incidence and risk factors for CVD in lymphoma patients diagnosed in the current treatment era. From 2002–2015, newly diagnosed lymphoma patients (>18 years) were enrollment into a prospective cohort study that captured incident CVD, consisting of congestive heart failure (CHF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), valvular heart disease (VHD), and arrhythmia. The cumulative incidence of CVD was calculated with death modeled as a competing risk. We estimated the association of treatment with anthracyclines or radiotherapy and traditional CVD risk factors with incidence of CVD using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated from Cox regression. After excluding prevalent CVD at lymphoma diagnosis, the study consisted of 3,063 patients with a median age of 59 years (range 18–95) were included. The cumulative incidence of CVD at 10-years was 10.7% (95%CI, 9.5%−12.1%). In multivariable analysis, increasing age (HR=1.05 per year, P30 kg/m(2) (HR=1.45, P=0.01), and any anthracycline treatment (HR=1.57, P

The dilemma of whether to treat elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with a full or reduced dose intensity (DI) of R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone+rituximab) is often faced by clinicians. We conducted a systematic review assessing the impact of R-CHOP DI on DLBCL survival outcomes, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies with ≥100 patients treated with R-CHOP/R-CHOP–like therapies published from January 2002 through November 2020. Studies were included if they reported the impact of R-CHOP DI on survival outcomes. We screened records, extracted data, and reviewed all the studies for quality and statistical appraisal. Of 380 screened records, 13 studies including 5188 patients were reviewed. DI was often calculated as the ratio of the cumulative delivered dose of prespecified drug(s) to the cumulative planned dose multiplied by a time-correction factor. Lower DI (intended or relative) was associated with inferior survival in 7 of 9 studies reporting crude survival analyses. Multivariable analysis using DI as a covariate was performed in 10 studies. Six showed an association (P < .05) with adjustment for other covariates, and 4 did not. Most studies and those larger studies of higher quality showed poorer outcomes associated with reduced DI. In subgroups aged ≥80 years, survival was not consistently affected by reduced DI. DI-specific randomized trials are warranted, but these data support full-dose R-CHOP in elderly and fit patients aged

Disease progression after frontline therapy for Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a clinically significant event. Patients who experience early progression or have refractory disease have especially poor outcomes. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools are needed for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies and prognostication in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Model building was performed in patients from the Surrogate endpoints in aggressive lymphoma (SEAL) consortium with disease progression after frontline immunochemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) measured from date of progression. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish National Lymphoma Register (LYFO) cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time-dependent concordance indices (c-statistic) and calibration with metrics evaluated at 2 years from progression. Note, 1234 of 5112 patients treated with frontline immunochemotherapy in the SEAL consortium developed progressive disease. Time to progression on immunochemotherapy and age at progression were strongly associated with post-progression OS (both p < 0.001). A prognostic model was developed incorporating spline fit for both variables. The model had good concordance in the discovery (0.67) and validation sets (LYFO c = 0.64, MER c = 0.68) with generally good calibration. Time to progression on frontline therapy is strongly associated with post-progression OS in DLBCL. We developed and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the R/R setting. The useful prediction of expected outcomes in R/R DLBCL and can inform treatment decisions such as considerations for CAR-T therapy as well as trial designs. The model is available in smartphone-based point of care applications.

Individuals living in congregate settings, including those in group homes, have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and may be at increased risk of exposure or infection due to underlying illness. In mid-May 2020, local public health officials responded to an outbreak of COVID-19 among staff and residents associated with a multi-residential group home that provides care for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Samples were collected at 16 of the homes. In four of the homes all the residents tested positive, and in the remaining 12 houses where samples were collected, all residents tested negative. Of the 152 individuals tested, 15/58 (25.9%) residents and 27/94 (28.7%) staff were positive for SARS-CoV-2, including eight hospitalizations and four deaths. Phylogenetic analysis of genomes from this outbreak in the context of genomes from Northern Arizona shows that very few mutations separate the samples from this outbreak. A potential transmission network was developed to illustrate person-place epidemiologic linkages and further demonstrates the dynamic connections between staff and residents with respect to each group home location. Epidemiologic and genomic evidence correlate, and suggest that asymptomatic infected staff likely introduced and spread COVID-19 in this setting. Implementation of public health prevention measures alongside rapid genomic analysis can help guide policy development and guide management efforts to prevent and mitigate future outbreaks.

Background: Disease progression (PD) after frontline IC therapy for DLBCL is a clinically significant event and only 20-40% of patients achieve durable remissions with salvage chemotherapy. Patients who experience early PD or have disease refractory to IC have especially poor outcomes. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy has emerged as a novel effective therapy for selected cases of relapsed or refractory (r/r) DLBCL, although its availability is limited by cost and logistic challenges. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools would be useful for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies vs those who are more likely to be successfully managed by conventional therapies, but few have been developed for r/r DLBCL. Methods: Model building was performed in patients with PD after IC from 13 frontline, multicenter, randomized DLBCL clinical trials from the SEAL Consortium. All patients received rituximab and an anthracycline-based combination IC and were followed systematically; however therapy received, clinical, and laboratory data at progression were not available. OS was defined as time from first progression until death from any cause. Associations between variables and OS were evaluated using Cox models; splines were used to model functional forms. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish LYFO cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time-dependent concordance indices (c-stat), Brier scores, and calibration with metrics evaluated at two years from progression. Results: Model Development (SEAL): 1125 of 5112 patients had PD after IC. Median time to PD (TTP) was 11.8 months (IQR 6.6-23.5); median age at PD was 68 years (IQR 60-73). At a median follow-up of 21 months from PD (IQR 7-43), 732 patients (65%) had died and 24 month overall survival after PD (OS24) was 35% (95% CI: 32-38). TTP was strongly associated with post PD OS (spline p-value 36 months (Figure A). Additionally, age at PD (spline p-value External Validation (MER): The model was validated in 290 patients with DLBCL who initiated 2nd line therapy after PD to IC. Median age at PD was younger than the SEAL cohort at 62 years (IQR 57-70). Patients with biopsy proven indolent histology at relapse were excluded. Median TTP was 8.2 months (IQR 5.1-17.0). At a median follow-up of 87 months from PD, 201 patients (69%) had died. OS24 was 47% (95% CI: 41-53). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.65), but underestimated OS24 (predicted =33% vs. 47% actual, Figure C). External Validation (LYFO): The model was validated in 599 patients with DLBCL and PD after frontline IC. Median age at PD was 67 years (IQR 60-73). Median TTP was 10.1 months (IQR 6.0-19.4). At a median follow-up of 82 months from PD, 435 patients (73%) had died. OS24 was 38% (95% CI: 34-42). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.67) when applied to the LYFO cohort, but again underestimated OS24 (predicted =32% vs. 38% actual, Figure D). Case vignettes: A 74 year old patient who progressed 9 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 20%. A 58 year old patient who progressed 32 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 65% Conclusions: TTP to following IC is strongly associated with post-progression survival in DLBCL. We developed a model from the largest frontline clinical trial dataset in DLBCL and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the r/r setting. The model allows better understanding of expected outcomes in r/r DLBCL and can aid design and interpretation of trial results in this setting. The model underestimated the actual survival probability when applied to non-trial validation cohorts. Recalibration of the model for transplant eligible patients and development of smartphone based point-of-care application of the model is ongoing. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schmitz:Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Farooq:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Flowers:Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding. Frederiksen:Alexion: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Cunningham:Eli Lilly: Research Funding; 4SC: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding. Jørgensen:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poeschel:Amgen: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Abbvie: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Merli:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses; Janssen: Honoraria. Haioun:novartis: Honoraria; celgene: Honoraria; roche: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; takeda: Consultancy; janssen cilag: Consultancy; amgen: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria. Tilly:roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; servier: Honoraria; merck: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Salles:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent B-cell neoplasm of germinal center origin. Standard treatment regimens consist of anti-CD20 therapy with or without chemotherapy. While high response rates to initial therapy are common, patients ultimately relapse or have progressive disease. Clinical risk factors such as the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) have been identified, but there is a need for prognostic and predictive biomarkers. We studied markers of lymphoma cells and tumor microenvironment by immunohistochemistry in tissue samples from patients enrolled in 1 of 4 phase 2 trials of anti-CD20-based biological therapy for previously untreated grades 1 to 2 or 3A FL. Results were correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) and PFS status at 24 months. The 4 trials included 238 patients (51.1% male, median age: 55 y) with stage III, IV, or bulky stage II disease. By FLIPI, 24.6% had low-risk, 56.8% had intermediate-risk, and 18.6% had high-risk disease. The outcome differed significantly for patients treated with lenalidomide and rituximab (CALGB 50803) compared with the other 3 trials (median: PFS not reached vs. 3.0 y, hazard ratio=3.47, 95% confidence interval: 2.11-5.72); therefore, data were stratified by clinical trial (CALGB 50803 vs. all others) and adjusted for FLIPI risk group. Among 154 patients with available tissue, interfollicular BCL6 positivity, interfollicular CD10 positivity, and elevated Ki67 proliferation index ≥30% within neoplastic follicles were each associated with inferior PFS and a high risk of the early event by PFS status at 24 months. We identify promising biomarkers for FL risk stratification that warrant further validation in phase 3 trials.

Objective Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell strategies ideally target a surface antigen that is exclusively and uniformly expressed by tumors; however, no such antigen is known for high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSC). A potential solution involves combinatorial antigen targeting with AND or OR logic-gating. Therefore, we investigated co-expression of CA125, Mesothelin (MSLN) and Folate Receptor alpha (FOLRA) on individual tumor cells in HGSC. Methods RNA expression of CA125, MSLN, and FOLR1 was assessed using TCGA (HGSC) and GTEx (healthy tissues) databases. Antigen expression profiles and CD3+, CD8+ and CD20+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) patterns were assessed in primary and recurrent HGSC by multiplex immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry. Results At the transcriptional level, each antigen was overexpressed in >90% of cases; however, MSLN and FOLR1 showed substantial expression in healthy tissues. At the protein level, CA125 was expressed by the highest proportion of cases and tumor cells per case, followed by MSLN and FOLRA. The most promising pairwise combination was CA125 and/or MSLN (OR gate), with 51.9% of cases containing ≥90% of tumor cells expressing one or both antigens. In contrast, only 5.8% of cases contained ≥90% of tumor cells co-expressing CA125 and MSLN (AND gate). Antigen expression patterns showed modest correlations with TIL. Recurrent tumors retained expression of all three antigens and showed increased TIL densities. Conclusions An OR-gated CAR-T cell strategy against CA125 and MSLN would target the majority of tumor cells in most cases. Antigen expression and T-cell infiltration patterns are favorable for this strategy in primary and recurrent disease.

The impact of change in health behaviors [physical activity (PA), alcohol and smoking] on quality of life (QOL) in lymphoma survivors is not well understood. We evaluated the associations of health behaviors with QOL domains at diagnosis and at 3-year follow-up (FU3) in 2805 lymphoma survivors. We report clinically significant QOL score differences, defined as scores that exceeded a minimally important difference threshold and were statistically significant. Current smoking was associated with lower QOL at baseline (p

Background Although many patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) undergo routine radiographic surveillance during their first remission, no consensus exists on the modality, duration, frequency, or need for routine imaging studies. The authors retrospectively examined the effect of surveillance imaging on relapse detection and overall survival (OS) in patients with FL. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed FL who had a response to induction therapy were identified from the Lymphoid Malignancies Enterprise Architecture Database (LEAD) at Emory University and from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic. Patients were evaluated for both relapse and method of relapse detection (ie, clinical concerns vs radiologic detection through surveillance imaging in an asymptomatic patient). Results Of 148 patients in the LEAD cohort, 55 (37%) relapsed, and the majority (n = 35; 64%) of relapses were detected clinically. In the MER cohort, 63 of 177 relapses (54%) were detected clinically. There was no significant difference in OS from the date of diagnosis between the 2 methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.13-2.94; P = .54) and MER (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; P = .96) cohorts. Similarly, there was no significant difference in OS from the date of relapse between the 2 methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.10-2.27; P = .35) and MER (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; P = .96) cohorts. Conclusions These findings suggest a limited role for routine surveillance imaging in patients with FL who complete front-line therapy. Future studies should evaluate which patients may benefit from a more aggressive surveillance approach and should explore novel methods of relapse detection.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the therapeutic landscape of cancer over the past decade with significant improvement in survival for patients with metastatic melanoma, lung...

As numerous new therapies against non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are under investigation, there is an increasing interest in surrogate endpoints (SEPs) that can reduce the costs and duration of clinical trials and thereby accelerate delivery of new treatments to patients with unmet medical needs. The time to normalization of overall survival (OS) is an endpoint that is increasingly explored for this purpose. The patient survival is considered normalized when it matches the corresponding survival of a matched background population. The time point where this occurs is also useful for patient counselling and for developing rationale clinical follow-up programs. Survival normalization has been investigated in both aggressive and indolent NHLs with some results indicating survival normalization after 24 months of event-free survival (EFS24) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients and for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) with complete response after 30 months (CR30). Here, we review the concept of survival normalization endpoints and their potential as SEPs in future NHL trials. As intervention effects on SEPs should adequately predict effects on conventional endpoints, validation generally requires extensive analysis of data from multiple trials, and thus only few validation studies exist within cancer. The validity of EFS24 and CR30 as surrogates for OS and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively, was investigated in a series of trials from the Follicular Lymphoma Analysis of Surrogate Hypothesis (FLASH) and Surrogate Endpoints for Aggressive Lymphoma (SEAL) consortiums. The results suggested a strong correlation between CR30 and PFS results in FL, whereas the correlation between intervention effects on the EFS24 endpoint and OS in DLBCL did not met prespecified thresholds despite clear correlation. In conclusion, survival normalization is a clinically important concept, but more research is needed before the EFS24 endpoint can be applied in future DLBCL trials. On the other hand, results suggest that CR30 may be a suitable SEP for PFS in future FL trials.

Immunochemotherapy followed by autologous transplant (ASCT) in CALGB/Alliance 59909 achieved a median progression-free survival (PFS) in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) of 5 years, but late recurrences occurred. We evaluated tolerability and efficacy of adding post-transplant bortezomib consolidation (BC) or maintenance (BM) to this regimen in CALGB/Alliance 50403, a randomized phase II trial. Following augmented-dose R-CHOP/ methotrexate, high-dose cytarabine-based stem cell mobilization, cyclophosphamide/carmustine/etoposide (CBV) autotransplant, and rituximab, patients were randomized to BC (1.3 mg/m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 of a 3-week cycle for four cycles) or BM (1.6 mg/m2 IV once weekly × 4 every 8 weeks for 18 months) beginning day 90. The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from randomization for each arm. Proliferation signature, Ki67, and postinduction minimal residual disease (MRD) in bone marrow were assessed. Of 151 patients enrolled; 118 (80%) underwent ASCT, and 102 (68%) were randomized. Both arms met the primary endpoint, with median PFS significantly greater than 4 years (P < .001). The 8-year PFS estimates in the BC and BM arms were 54.1% (95% CI 40.9%-71.5%) and 64.4% (95% 51.8%-79.0%), respectively. Progression-free survival was significantly longer for transplanted patients on 50403 compared with those on 59909. Both the PFS and OS were significantly better for those who were MRD-negative post-induction. The high risk proliferation signature was associated with adverse outcome. Both BM and BC were efficacious and tolerable, although toxicity was significant. The comparison between studies 50403 and 59909 with long-term follow up suggests a PFS benefit from the addition of BC or BM post- transplant.

Non-endemic Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is a rare germinal centre B-cell-derived malignancy with the genetic hallmark of MYC gene translocation and with rapid tumour growth as a distinct clinical feature. To investigate treatment outcomes, loss of lifetime and relapse risk in adult BL patients treated with intensive immunochemotherapy, retrospective clinic-based and population-based lymphoma registries from six countries were used to identify 264 real-world patients. The median age was 47 years and the majority had advanced-stage disease and elevated LDH. Treatment protocols were R-CODOX-M/IVAC (47%), R-hyper-CVAD (16%), DA-EPOCH-R (11%), R-BFM/GMALL (25%) and other (2%) leading to an overall response rate of 89%. The two-year overall survival and event-free survival were 84% and 80% respectively. For patients in complete remission/unconfirmed, the two-year relapse risk was 6% but diminished to 0·6% for patients reaching 12 months of post-remission event-free survival (pEFS12). The loss of lifetime for pEFS12 patients was 0·4 (95% CI: -0·7 to 2) months. In conclusion, real-world outcomes of adult BL are excellent following intensive immunochemotherapy. For pEFS12 patients, the relapse risk was low and life expectancy similar to that of a general population, which is important information for developing meaningful follow-up strategies with increased focus on survivorship and less focus on routine disease surveillance.

Peripheral T cell lymphomas (PTCL) is a heterogenous group of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and many patients remain refractory to the frontline therapy. Identifying new prognostic markers and treatment is an unmet need in PTCL. We analyzed phospho-STAT3 (pSTAT3) expression in a cohort of 169 PTCL tumors and show overall 38% positivity with varied distribution among PTCL subtypes with 27% (16/59) in PTCL-NOS; 29% (11/38) in AITL, 57% (13/28) in ALK-negative ALCL, and 93% in ALK-pos ALCL (14/15), respectively. Correlative analysis indicated an adverse correlation between pSTAT3 and overall survival (OS). PTPN6, a tyrosine phosphatase and potential negative regulator of STAT3 activity, was suppressed in 62% of PTCL-NOS, 42% of AITL, 60% ALK-neg ALCL, and 86% of ALK-pos ALCL. Loss of PTPN6 combined with pSTAT3 positivity predicted an infwere considered significantferior OS in PTCL cases. In vitro treatment of TCL lines with azacytidine (aza), a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor (DNMTi), restored PTPN6 expression and decreased pSTAT3. Combining DNMTi with JAK3 inhibitor resulted in synergistic antitumor activity in SUDHL1 cell line. Overall, our results suggest that PTPN6 and activated STAT3 can be developed as prognostic markers, and the combination of DNMTi and JAK3 inhibitors as a novel treatment for patients with PTCL subtypes.

Background Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with first-line anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy and remaining in remission at 2 years have excellent outcomes. This study assessed overall survival (OS) stratified by progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 months (PFS24) using individual patient data from patients with DLBCL enrolled in multi-center, international randomized clinical trials as part of the Surrogate Endpoint for Aggressive Lymphoma (SEAL) Collaboration. Patients and methods PFS24 was defined as being alive and PFS24 after study entry. OS from PFS24 was defined as time from identified PFS24 status until death due to any cause. OS was compared with each patient's age-, sex-, and country-matched general population using expected survival and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). Results A total of 5853 patients enrolled in trials in the SEAL database received rituximab as part of induction therapy and were included in this analysis. The median age was 62 years (range 18-92), and 56% were greater than 60 years of age. At a median follow-up of 4.4 years, 1337 patients (23%) had disease progression, 1489 (25%) had died, and 5101 had sufficient follow-up to evaluate PFS24. A total of 1423 assessable patients failed to achieve PFS24 with a median OS of 7.2 months (95% CI 6.8-8.1) after progression; 5-year OS after progression was 19% and SMR was 32.1 (95% CI 30.0-34.4). A total of 3678 patients achieved PFS24; SMR after achieving PFS24 was 1.22 (95% CI 1.09-1.37). The observed OS versus expected OS at 3, 5, and 7 years after achieving PFS24 was 93.1% versus 94.4%, 87.6% versus 89.5%, and 80.0% versus 83.7%, respectively. Conclusion Patients treated with rituximab containing anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy on clinical trials who are alive without progression at 24 months from the onset of initial therapy have excellent outcomes with survival that is marginally lower but clinically indistinguishable from the age-, sex-, and country-matched background population for 7 years after achieving PFS24.

Purpose Selection bias in clinical trials has consequences for scientific validity and applicability of study results to the general population. There is concern that patients with clinically aggressive disease may not have enrolled in recent diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) trials due to the consent process and the inability to delay therapy for eligibility evaluation. We have examined the diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) and its association with clinical factors and outcome in a clinic-based observational cohort of patients with DLBCL from the United States. Validation of results was performed in an independent, clinical trial-based cohort from Europe. Patients and Methods Patients were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Specialized Programs of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER; N = 986) or the Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) LNH-2003 clinical trials program (N = 1,444). All patients received anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy at initial diagnosis. Associations of DTI with clinical factors and outcome were examined. Outcome was assessed using event-free survival at 24 months from diagnosis (EFS24). Results Median (range) DTI was 15 days (0 to 155 days in the MER and 23 days (0 to 215 days) in LYSA. Shorter DTI was strongly associated with adverse clinical factors, including elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, poor performance status, B symptoms, and higher International Prognostic Index in both cohorts (all P < .001). Longer DTI was associated with improved EFS24 in both the MER (per-week odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74 to .0.87) and LYSA (per-week odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.94); association with EFS24 remained significant after adjustment for International Prognostic Index. Conclusion DTI is strongly associated with prognostic clinical factors and outcome in newly diagnosed DLBCL. DTI should be reported in all clinical trials of newly diagnosed DLBCL and future trials should take steps to avoid selection bias due to treatment delay.

Purpose Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) have aggressive clinical behavior. We have previously shown that event-free survival (EFS) at 24 months (EFS24) is a clinically useful end point in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Here, we assess EFS24 and subsequent overall survival (OS) in large, multinational PTCL cohorts. Patients and Methods Patients with systemic PTCL newly diagnosed from 2000 to 2012 and treated with curative intent were included from the United States and Sweden (initial cohorts) and from Canada (replication cohort). EFS was defined as time from date of diagnosis to progression after primary treatment, retreatment, or death. Subsequent OS was measured after achieving EFS24 or from the time of progression if it occurred within 24 months. OS rates were compared with the age-, sex-, and country-matched general population. Results Seven hundred seventy-five patients were included in the study (the median age at diagnosis was 64 years; 63% were men). Results were similar in the initial and replication cohorts, and a combined analysis was undertaken. Sixty-four percent of patients progressed within the first 24 months and had a median OS of only 4.9 months (5-year OS, 11%). In contrast, median OS after achieving EFS24 was not reached (5-year OS, 78%), although relapses within 5 years of achieving EFS24 occurred in 23% of patients. Superior outcomes after achieving EFS24 were observed in younger patients (≤ 60 years of age: 5-year OS, 91%). Conclusion EFS24 stratifies subsequent outcome in PTCL. Patients with PTCL with primary refractory disease or early relapse have extremely poor survival. However, more than one third of patients with PTCL remain in remission 2 years after diagnosis with encouraging subsequent OS, especially in younger patients. These marked differences in outcome suggest that EFS24 has utility for patient counseling, study design, and risk stratification in PTCL.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) was approved by US FDA for relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) on July 24, 2020 based on results from the pivotal ZUMA-2 (NCT02601313) study, in which an objective response rate (ORR) of 93% and a complete response (CR) rate of 67% were achieved among the 60 treated patients with at least 7 months of follow-up. The study had stringent eligibility criteria, including prior treatment with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi), and only allowed BTKi and/or corticosteroid for bridging therapy. We report here the safety and efficacy of brexu-cel in standard of care practice among centers in the US Lymphoma CAR-T Consortium. Methods: Fourteen centers participated in this retrospective study. Patients who underwent leukapheresis by 6/15/2021 with an intent to manufacture brexu-cel were included. Baseline clinical characteristics, bridging therapy, adverse events after brexu-cel infusion, and post-infusion outcome data were collected. Eligibility for ZUMA-2 was retrospectively determined based on characteristics at the time of leukapheresis. Duration of response (time from initial response to disease progression or death from any cause), progression-free survival (PFS; time from infusion to disease progression or death from any cause) and overall survival (OS; time from infusion to death from any cause) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: At the data cut-off date of 7/9/2021, 107 patients underwent leukapheresis, among whom 93 (87%) completed brexu-cel infusion, 2 (2%) were waiting for infusion, and 12 (11%) did not receive infusion (manufacture failure n=6, organ dysfunction n=1, death n=5). Baseline clinical characteristics of the 93 infused patients are shown in Table 1. The median age was 67 years and 81% were male. 32% had high risk simplified MIPI, 77% had Ki-67≥30%, 45% had blastoid or pleomorphic variant, 46% had TP53 alteration, 29% had complex karyotype, and 7% had CNS involvement. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3. Eighty-two percent had prior BTKi treatment, and 44% had refractory disease to the last line of therapy. Sixty-eight (73%) patients would not have met ZUMA-2 eligibility criteria. Reasons for ineligibility included ECOG PS ≥2 (n=8), CNS involvement by lymphoma (n=6), prior therapies (n=33), cytopenia (n=11), renal or hepatic dysfunction (n=13), other medical conditions (n=18), and active infection (n=2). Sixty (65%) of the 93 patients received bridging therapy, which included BTKi (n=27), venetoclax (n=14), chemotherapy (n=19), CD20 antibody (n=26), lenalidomide (n=3), corticosteroid (n=9), and radiotherapy (n=13). Only 13 (14%) patients received BTKi or corticosteroid alone as in ZUMA-2. Among 93 infused patients, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) rate was 88% (8% grade ≥3), and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) rate was 58% (33% grade ≥3). No grade 5 CRS or ICANS occurred. Medications used to manage CRS and ICANS were 71 (76%) for tocilizumab, 64 (69%) for steroid, and 16 (17%) for anakinra. Twenty-four (26%) patients required ICU admission, 9 patients required vasopressors, and 4 patients required mechanical ventilation. With a median follow-up of 3.0 months (range 0.1-9.6), day 30 response was evaluable in 81 patients, and the ORR was 86%, with 64% CR (Table 2). The ORR/CR rates were 94%/70% for blastoid or pleomorphic variants, 82%/50% for TP53 altered, 84%/61% for BTKi-exposed, 94%/76% for BTKi-naïve, and 88%/67% for those not meeting ZUMA-2 eligibility criteria. The ORR/CR rates were 87%/69% for patients who received bridging therapy and 85%/56% for those who did not. For patients who achieved a response at day 30, the rate of continued response at 3-month was 83.7% (95% CI 68.3%-92.0%). The 3-month PFS rate was 80.6% (95% CI 68.6%-88.4%), and the 6-month OS rate was 82.1% (95% CI 67.7%-90.5%). Conclusions: This multicenter retrospective study demonstrated encouraging safety and efficacy data of brexu-cel in R/R MCL in the real world practice. The CRS and ICANS incidences were comparable to those reported in ZUMA-2, but use of tocilizumab and steroid was more frequent than in ZUMA-2. Although 73% of the patients would have been ineligible for ZUMA-2, the ORR and CR rate were comparable to those reported in ZUMA-2. Longer follow-up is necessary to confirm long term safety and efficacy. YW, PJ and FLL are co-first authors, and YL, MW and MDJ are co-senior authors. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: 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; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Jain: Kite: Consultancy; Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Munoz: Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Celgene, Merck, Portola, Incyte, Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, and Millennium: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seagen, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Targeted Oncology, OncView, Kyowa Kirin, Physicians' Education Resource, and Seagen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kyowa Kirin, Alexion, Fosun Kite, Innovent, Seagen, BeiGene, Debiopharm, Epizyme, Karyopharm, ADC Therapeutics, Servier, and Genmab: Consultancy, Other: advisory role; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Other: Study investigator. 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. Beitinjaneh: Kite/Gilead: Other: Ad Board Event Attendee. Frank: Allogene Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding. Dahiya: Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. McGuirk: Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy. Goy: Vincerx pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Michael J Hennessey Associates INC: Consultancy; Elsevier's Practice Update Oncology, Intellisphere, LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; Phamacyclics: Research Funding; Vincerx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rosewell Park: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Hoffman la Roche: Consultancy; LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; Xcenda: Consultancy, Honoraria; OncLive Peer Exchange: Honoraria; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Genentech/Hoffman la Roche: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; Xcenda: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Elsevier PracticeUpdate: Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genomic Testing Cooperative: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; Physicians' Education Resource: Consultancy, Other: Meeting/travel support; MorphoSys: Honoraria, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; COTA (Cancer Outcome Tracking Analysis): Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; Hackensack Meridian Health, Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment. Vose: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hill: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oluwole: Pfizer: Consultancy; Curio Science: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Deol: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy. Shah: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; Servier Genetics: Other; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Miklos: Pharmacyclics: Patents & Royalties; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Novartis, Juno/Celgene-BMS, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pharmacyclics-AbbVie, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AlloGene, Precision Bioscience, Miltenyi Biotech, Adicet, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics, Amgen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Becton Dickinson, Isoplexis, Miltenyi, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Biosciences, Adicet, Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company, Amgen, Atara, Wugen, Celgene, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Bioscience, Adicet, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive Biotechnologies and Miltenyi Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Ghobadi: Wugen: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Neelapu: Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene Therapeutics, Cell Medica/Kuur, Incyte, Precision Biosciences, Legend Biotech, Adicet Bio, Calibr, Unum Therapeutics and Bluebird Bio: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals and related to cell therapy: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene, Kuur, Incyte, Precision BioSciences, Legend, Adicet Bio, Calibr, and Unum Therapeutics: Other: personal fees; Kite, a Gilead Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Poseida, Cellectis, Celgene, Karus Therapeutics, Unum Therapeutics (Cogent Biosciences), Allogene, Precision BioSciences, Acerta and Adicet Bio: Research Funding. Lin: Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wang: Moffit Cancer Center: Honoraria; Chinese Medical Association: Honoraria; InnoCare: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Hebei Cancer Prevention Federation: Honoraria; Newbridge Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; OMI: Honoraria; Physicians Education Resources (PER): Honoraria; Clinical Care Options: Honoraria; CAHON: Honoraria; VelosBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; CStone: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioInvent: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma (Cayman) Limited: Consultancy; BGICS: Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Imedex: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Oncternal: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Anticancer Association: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; The First Afflicted Hospital of Zhejiang University: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Scripps: Honoraria; Mumbai Hematology Group: Honoraria; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jain: BMS, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Takeda: Consultancy.

Introduction: DNA mismatch repair (MMR) is a major mechanism cells use to repair erroneous insertion or deletion of bases during DNA replication. MMR deficiency (MMR-d), including rare germline mutations (Lynch syndrome) and somatic inactivation, has been extensively studied in solid tumors, such as colon, endometrial, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers. The prevalence of MMR-d in solid tumors ranges from 1% - 20% of somatic defects, and patients with MMR-d tumors have a longer overall survival. It is also well-known that MMR is an integral part of activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID)-mediated somatic hypermutation and immunoglobulin class switch processes in normal mature B lymphocytes, while mice deficient in the MMR genes are prone to develop T and B cell lymphomas. It is also known that follicular lymphoma (FL) carries a high degree of somatic hypermutation with some heterogeneity induced by AID. Our understanding of MMR status in human blood cancers, especially in FL remains very limited. One could hypothesize that MMR-d status could permit cells to acquire and sustain high-degree of mutation rates, better sensitivity to DNA damaging chemotherapy while hindering rapid cell proliferation, which could manifest to a better prognosis in patients. Herein, we conducted an exploratory analysis to understand the frequency of MMR-d status and its prognostic significance in FL. Methods: Following approval of the Institution Review Board, we assessed the expression of MMR proteins; MLH1, PMS2 and MSH6 on formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) lymph node tissue obtained from patients with FL by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using standard methods on Ventana Benchmark XT automated stainers (Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ). Dako (clone ES05), Cell Marque (clone EPR3947) and Biocare (clone BC/44) antibodies were used to stain MLH1, PMS2 and MSH6, respectively. Fifty cases of FL with existing FFPE blocks were selected randomly. The expression of MLH1, PMS2 and MSH6 proteins in the tumor cells was scored as 0, +1 or +2, (Figure 1A). Cases with absence of the IHC signal (score of 0) in any one of the three proteins were classified as MMR-d. Progression free survival at 12 months (PFS12) or 24 months (PFS24) was defined as being free from disease progression or death at 12 or 24 months, respectively. All time-to-event analyses were done from the time of diagnosis. Results: Fifty patients with FL were included in the study. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 34-85) and 58% were females. At initial diagnosis, 36 (72%) patients had advanced stage (stage 3, n=8, stage 4, n=28) disease. Of the 50 patients, 26 (52%) required treatment; chemotherapy (n=14), radiation treatment alone (n=9), surgery alone (n=3). Out of the 50 patients, 23 (46%) were classified as MMR-d due to lack of expression of one of the three assessed proteins: MLH1 (n=1, 2%), PMS2 (n=11, 22%) and MSH6 (n=19, 38%). The patient who had MLH1 loss had concomitant PMS2 loss. Stage IV disease was observed in 52% of the MMR-d patients and 59% in the MMR proficient (MMR-p) patients, p=0.77. Median age at diagnosis was 62 (range: 34-84) years and 67 (range: 34-85) years in MMR-d and MMR-p patients, respectively, p=0.1. FLIPI score was similar between the MMR-d [low n=10 (43%), intermediate n=9 (39%), high n=4 (18%)] and MMR-p [low n=5 (18%), intermediate n=14 (52%), high n=8 (30%)] patients, p=0.16. Fourteen (61%) of MMR-d patients required initiation of therapy upon diagnosis compared to 12 (44%) of MMR-p patients, p=0.27. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 17 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.7-29.4]. The median overall survival (OS) of MMR-d patients was 10 years (95%CI: 7.8-20.7) compared to 6 years (95%CI: 4.5-NR) in MMR-p patients, p=0.036, Figure 1B. In patients with MMR-d and MMR-p, 83% and 55% achieved PFS12, p=0.04 and 65% and 41% achieved PFS24, p=0.08, respectively. After adjusting for FLIPI score, MMR status remained associated with OS (MMR-d HR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.2-1.02, p=0.05). Discussion and Conclusion: In this pilot study, MMR-d in the FL tumors was common (46%) and, as predicted, was associated with a favorable OS. Association of MMR-d status with PFS in general and patients with early progression (short PFS12 and PFS24) and relationship of MMR-d with types of therapy need further study in large FL datasets. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. King: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; 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; Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: 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. 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.

Introduction: Clinical trials of novel salvage therapies (ST) have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); yet studies comparing novel ST with conventional salvage chemotherapy are lacking. In a single center cohort, we demonstrated that bendamustine/brentuximab (BBV) had higher overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates in ASCT-eligible R/R cHL (Desai et al JCO, 2021). Herein we report comparative outcomes of novel and conventional ST in R/R cHL who undergo ASCT, in a large multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Consecutive R/R cHL pts who underwent ASCT at 12 institutions across United States were included. Demographics and clinical variables at relapse including age, sex, B symptoms, stage, bulky disease (BD, single mass > 6 cm) extra nodal disease (END), primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER, within 1 year) were recorded by electronic health records review. Study objectives were ORR, CR to first ST, post-ASCT PFS and OS by final ST. Time to event endpoints were defined from date of ASCT. Results: From 12 participating institutions, 853 pts of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT were eligible for this study. Median age was 33 (14-72) years, 457 (54%) were male, 446 (52%) had BD, 257 (30%) had advanced stage, 271 (32%) had END, 369 (43%) had B symptoms, 142 (17%) had PRD and 307 (36%) had ER. All 853 received at least 1 ST, 245 received 2 ST, 71 received 3 ST and 26 received 4 ST. Seven groups of ST were identified: 1. Conventional platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) group including ICE, DHAP and ESHAP 2. BBV 3. Brentuximab Vedotin and nivolumab (BV/Nivo) 4. BV alone (BV) 5. gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (Gem) 6. checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and 7. other miscellaneous agents (Misc). 1st ST was as follows: 553 had PBC; 69 had BBV; 48 had BV/Nivo; 65 had BV; 49 had Gem; 4 had CPI and 63 had Misc. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics by type of 1 st ST (data not shown). BBV had significantly higher ORR (92% vs 79%, p Final ST prior to ASCT was PBC in 451, BBV in 76, BV/Nivo in 48, BV in 87, CPI in 24, Gem in 90 and Misc in 64. Table 1 lists K-M estimates of 2-year survival probabilities for different Final ST groups. Median follow up was 3 (range 0.1-13) years. BV/Nivo group had significantly higher proportion of patients with PRD and BD than PBC, no other differences in baseline characteristics were identified amongst ST groups (data not shown). BV/Nivo (HR: 0.1 (CI 95:0.02-0.4), p 536 pts underwent ASCT in CR, 273 underwent ASCT in partial response (PR) and 31 underwent ASCT with progressive disease (PD). Pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.6 (CI 95:1.3-2.6), p In pts with pre-ASCT CR, all 36 who had pre-ASCT CR after BV/Nivo were alive and relapse free for follow up of 0.1-5 yrs. BV/Nivo was associated with significantly higher PFS (HR 0.1 (CI 95: 0.01-0.7), p Conclusions: BV/Nivo has a higher CR rate and better post-ASCT PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy and can lead to durable remissions in pts with pre-ASCT CR. BBV had a higher response rate and similar post-ASCT survival to conventional chemotherapy. BV had lower response rates compared to chemotherapy. Novel ST such as BV/Nivo and BBV may be preferable to conventional chemotherapy in R/R cHL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Spinner: Notable Labs: Honoraria. Bachanova: FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dorritie: SITC presentation: Honoraria; Genmab: Research Funding; University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Hillman Cancer Center: Current Employment; Janssen: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Juno/BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; OncLive/Institutional Perspectives on Cancer presentation: Honoraria. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Nanostring: 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; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diefenbach: Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; IMab: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; AbbVie: Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Advani: Astellas/Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty Seven: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genetech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with variable clinical outcomes. Commonly used risk stratification tools (Ki67 IHC, MIPI) in newly diagnosed MCL are not frequently used when selecting therapy, resulting in treatment choice being dictated by age and co-morbidities rather than disease biology. The MCL35 risk score was developed as a more reliable measure of proliferation and has been shown to be prognostic and can risk stratify younger transplant eligible MCL patients into three groups with significantly different overall survival (OS; Scott et al. 2017; Holte et al. 2018) but has not been evaluated in older transplant ineligible patients. We report results evaluating the prognostic value of the MCL35 assay in older MCL patients (≥65) treated with frontline bendamustine/rituximab (BR). METHODS: Archived tissue samples from 119 patients age ≥65 years treated with BR from collaborating Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP) sites and the LEO/MER cohort were collected and analyzed using the MCL35 assay and stratified into three distinct risk groups (low, standard, and high risk). Association between MCL35 proliferation scores and OS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and hazard ratios were calculated. Associations between Ki67, s-MIPI, p53 IHC status, morphology and OS were also evaluated. RESULTS: The MCL35 assay was run on tissue samples from 119 patients. Median patient age was 74 (range 65-93) and 69.5% were male. Ki67 was CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest high risk MCL35 score is a prognostic biomarker of poor OS in patients >65 with MCL treated with BR. Conversely, Ki67 was not significantly associated with OS in these patients. Additional clinical validation using a larger sample size from the E1411 study is planned. If similar results are found, the MCL35 assay in combination with s-MIPI and p53 status may have utility in stratifying patients into risk adapted treatment arms in future prospective clinical trial designs. 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. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. 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. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Hill: Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Raess: Scopio Labs: Research Funding. Scott: Celgene: Consultancy; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling.; BC Cancer: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing assigning DLBCL COO by gene expression profiling--licensed to NanoString Technologies. Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling. ; Rich/Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract.

Introduction: Central nervous system (CNS) relapse is an uncommon but devastating complication occurring in about 2-10% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The CNS-IPI is a validated prognostic tool used to identify patients at high risk of CNS relapse. MYC and BCL2/BCL6 rearrangements (double-hit lymphoma- DHL) and non-GCB (NGCB) cell of origin may be at higher risk of CNS relapse. However, the ability of these molecular data to refine CNS-IPI risk prediction has not been assessed. In this study, we aimed to describe the impact of DHL and NGCB cell of origin in the incidence of CNS relapse in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted to identify patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL from 01/01/2002 - 06/30/2015 using the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Molecular Epidemiology Resource database. Patients with primary CNS lymphoma or with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. All patients received chemoimmunotherapy. Clinical, biological, laboratory and radiological data were abstracted including the occurrence of CNS relapse. CNS IPI risk score categories were defined as low- (≤1) intermediate- (2-3) and high-risk (≥4) as originally described (Schmitz et al, JCO 2016). Cell of origin (COO) classification into GCB and non-GCB subtypes was performed using Hans algorithm and/or NanoString data. Characteristics between groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis or Chi-squared test as appropriate. Survival analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards model and the Kaplan Meier method. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4M5 and R version 4.0.3. Results: We identified a total of 1,360 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. Patients had a median age of 62 years (range 18-93 years), were predominantly male (56%), had a performance status The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 84.9 months (IQR: 58.9-120.9). Overall, 50 patients (3.6%) had a CNS relapse during the study period. Lymphoma relapsed in the CNS in 3.0% (95% CI:2.1-4.4), 4.7% (95% CI: 3.4-6.3) and 4.9% (95% CI: 3.7-6.6)% of patients with CNS-IPI score of intermediate/high risk at 1, 3 and 5 years following the diagnosis of DLBCL. In patients with low risk CNS-IPI, 1.1% (95% CI: 0.4-2.5), 1.7% (95% CI: 0.9-3.4) and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.9-3.4) had a CNS relapse at 1, 3 and 5 years following DLBC diagnosis. Patients with CNS relapse were more likely to have elevated LDH (76% vs 56%, p=0.008), advanced stage (78% vs 61%, p=0.01), adrenal involvement (8% vs 2.4%, p=0.014) and have a CNS IPI intermediate risk (68% vs 51%), and high risk (16% vs 12.3%, p=0.014) at the time of initial diagnosis compared to patients without CNS relapse. Patients with CNS relapse had similar rates of DHL (4% vs 2.7%, p=0.17) and NGCB cell of origin (42% vs 36.2%, p=0.52) compared to patients without CNS relapse. In the multivariable analysis, the strongest predictors for CNS relapse were CNS IPI high risk (Hazard Ratio [HR]= 3.6, 95%CI= 1.4-9.7) and CNS IPI intermediate risk (HR= 3.15, 95%CI= 1.46-6.81). DHL and NGCB cell of origin were not associated with a significantly higher risk of CNS relapse (HR= 1.79, [95%CI=0.42-7.59] and HR= 1.26, [95%CI=0.62-2.57], respectively). Conclusion: CNS relapse was an uncommon occurrence in patients with DLBCL who were treated with chemoimmunotherapy. CNS IPI intermediate- and high-risk scores remain the strongest predictors of CNS relapse in patients with DLBCL after adjusting to biological high-risk variables including DHL and NGCB cell of origin. Larger studies are required to validate our findings due to the low incidence of CNS relapse in our cohort. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Farooq: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Maurer: 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; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. 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. 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. Novak: Celgene/BMS: 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: 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.