Search

In this multi-institutional retrospective study, we examined characteristics and outcomes of 160 patients with high-grade B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBL-NOS). This rare lymphoma category is defined by high-grade morphologic features, most commonly Burkitt-like, and lack of MYC rearrangements with BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (so-called double-hit). Our results show that HGBL-NOS tumors are heterogeneous: 83% had a germinal center B-cell immunophenotype, 37% a dual expressor immunophenotype (MYC and BCL2 expression), 28% (single-hit) MYC rearrangement, 13% BCL2 rearrangement, and 11% BCL6 rearrangement. Most patients presented with stage 4 disease, a high serum lactate dehydrogenase, and other high-risk clinical factors. Most frequent first-line regimens included DA-EPOCH-R (43%), R-CHOP (33%), or other intensive chemotherapy programs (11%). We found no significant differences in the rates of complete response (CR, P=0.32), progression-free (PFS, P=0.82), or overall survival (OS, P=0.60) between these chemotherapy regimens. CR was attained by 69% of patients. PFS at 2 years was 55.2% (95%CI, 46.9-62.7), and OS was 68.1% (95%CI, 59.7-75.0). In a multivariable model, the main prognostic factors for PFS and OS were poor performance status, lactate dehydrogenase >3x upper limit of normal, and a dual expressor immunophenotype. Age >60 years or presence of MYC rearrangement were not prognostic, but patients with TP53 alterations had a dismal PFS (13% at 2 years). Presence of MYC rearrangement was not predictive of better PFS in patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R versus R-CHOP. Improvements in the diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approaches beyond dose-intense chemotherapy are needed to overcome the unfavorable prognosis of patients with HGBL-NOS.

Progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) from diagnosis in marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) was shown to portend poor outcomes in prior studies. However, many patients with MZL do not require immediate therapy, and the time from diagnosis-to-treatment interval can be highly variable with no universal criteria to initiate systemic therapy. Hence, we sought to evaluate the prognostic relevance of early relapse or progression within 24 months from systemic therapy initiation in a large US cohort. The primary objective was to evaluate the overall survival (OS) in the two groups. The secondary objective included the evaluation of factors predictive of POD24 and the assessment of cumulative incidence of histologic transformation (HT) in POD24 versus non-POD24 groups. The study included 524 patients with 143 (27%) in POD24 and 381 (73%) in non-POD24 groups. Patients with POD24 had inferior OS compared to those without POD24, regardless of the type of systemic therapy received (rituximab monotherapy or immunochemotherapy) at diagnosis. After adjusting for factors associated with inferior OS in the univariate Cox model, POD24 remained associated with significantly inferior OS (HR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.53–4.09, p = 0.0003) in multivariable analysis. The presence of monoclonal protein at diagnosis and those who received first-line rituximab monotherapy had higher odds of POD24 on logistic regression analysis. Patients with POD24 had a significantly higher risk for HT compared to those without POD24. POD24 in MZL might be associated with adverse biology and could be used as an additional information point in clinical trials and investigated as a marker for worse prognosis.

Sixteen cycles of Brentuximab vedotin (BV) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in high-risk relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (r/r cHL) demonstrated an improved 2-year progression free survival (PFS) over placebo. However, most patients are unable to complete all 16 cycles at full dose due to toxicity. This retrospective, multicenter study investigated the effect of cumulative maintenance BV dose on 2-year PFS. Data were collected from patients who received at least one cycle of BV maintenance after ASCT with one of the following high-risk features: primary refractory disease (PRD), extra-nodal disease (END), or relapse < 12 months (RL 75% of the planned total cumulative dose, cohort 2 with 51 – 75% of dose, and cohort 3 with ≤ 50% of dose. The primary outcome was 2-year PFS. A total of 118 patients were included. Fifty percent had PRD, 29% had RL

Neddylation is a sequential enzyme-based process which regulates the function of E3 Cullin-RING ligase (CRL) and thus degradation of substrate proteins. Here we show that CD8+ T cells are a direct target for therapeutically relevant anti-lymphoma activity of pevonedistat, a Nedd8-activating enzyme (NAE) inhibitor. Pevonedistat-treated patient-derived CD8+ T cells upregulated TNFα and IFNγ and exhibited enhanced cytotoxicity. Pevonedistat induced CD8+ T-cell inflamed microenvironment and delayed tumor progression in A20 syngeneic lymphoma model. This anti-tumor effect lessened when CD8+ T cells lost the ability to engage tumors through MHC class I interactions, achieved either through CD8+ T-cell depletion or genetic knockout of B2M. Meanwhile, loss of UBE2M in tumor did not alter efficacy of pevonedistat. Concurrent blockade of NAE and PD-1 led to enhanced tumor immune infiltration, T-cell activation and chemokine expression and synergistically restricted tumor growth. shRNA-mediated knockdown of HIF-1α, a CRL substrate, abrogated the in vitro effects of pevonedistat, suggesting that NAE inhibition modulates T-cell function in HIF-1α-dependent manner. scRNA-Seq-based clinical analyses in lymphoma patients receiving pevonedistat therapy demonstrated upregulation of interferon response signatures in immune cells. Thus, targeting NAE enhances the inflammatory T-cell state, providing rationale for checkpoint blockade-based combination therapy.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are known to be at a higher risk of developing other primary cancers (OPC). Identifying latency and risk factors associated with OPCs in CLL is of interest as select patients may potentially benefit from early treatment of CLL with targeted therapies to improve immune surveillance. In this single-center retrospective study, 16.9% of 969 patients with CLL were diagnosed with an OPC. Interestingly, 44% of OPCs were diagnosed prior to the CLL diagnosis, including 30% that were diagnosed1 year prior. This included a majority of genitourinary cancers and melanoma skin cancers. Patients with CLL and an OPC were older than pts with no OPCs but no other risk factors for developing OPCs were identified. Our data suggest that not only are patients with CLL at higher risk of developing OPCs and warrant appropriate cancer surveillance, but the risk also precedes CLL diagnosis by several years.

To report the activity of venetoclax in patients with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), we identified 81 patients treated with venetoclax monotherapy (n=50, 62%) or in combination with a BTK inhibitor (n=16, 20%), an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (n=11, 14%), or others at 12 US academic medical centers. Patients had high-risk disease features including Ki67 >30% (61%), blastoid/pleomorphic histology (29%), complex karyotype (34%), and TP53 alterations (49%), and received a median of 3 prior treatments including BTK inhibitors in 91%. Venetoclax alone or in combination resulted in an overall response rate (ORR) of 40% and median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 3.7 and 12.5 months, respectively. The receipt of ≤ 3 prior treatments was associated with higher odds of response to venetoclax in a univariable analysis. In a multivariable analysis, having a high-risk MIPI score prior to venetoclax and disease relapse or progression within 24 months of diagnosis were associated with inferior OS whereas the use of venetoclax in combination was associated with superior OS. Although most patients (61%) had low risk for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), 12.3% of patients developed TLS despite the implementation of several mitigation strategies. In conclusion, venetoclax resulted in good ORR but short PFS in high-risk patients with MCL and may have a better role in earlier lines of treatment and/or in combination with other active agents. TLS remains an important risk in patients with MCL who initiate treatment with venetoclax.

The CORAL study highlighted the need to develop novel salvage regimens in relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) previously treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. Carfilzomib (CFZ) can overcome rituximab chemotherapy resistance in lymphoma preclinical models by targeting the ubiquitin-proteasome system. We conducted an investigator initiated, single-center, open-label, prospective phase 1 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of CFZ in combination with rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (C-R-ICE) in high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant (HDC-ASCT) eligible patients with R/R DLBCL (NCT01959698). In the dose-escalation phase, 18 patients were enrolled at 6 dose levels with no dose-limiting toxicities noted. CFZ 45 mg/m2 was selected as the recommended dose for expansion. Eleven additional patients were enrolled in the dose-expansion phase. Overall response rate (ORR) was 66% (48% CR; 17% PR); 52% patients underwent HDC-ASCT. An ORR of 85% was observed in patients with nongerminal center B-cell–like (non-GCB) DLBCL compared with only 13% in those with GCB DLBCL. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 15.2 months (5.1 months, not reached [NR]), and median overall survival (OS) was 22.6 months (6.8 months, NR). Patients with non-GCB subtype had a significantly longer PFS (NR vs 6.6 months; P = .0001) and OS (NR vs 6.6 months; P = .001) than those with GCB subtype. C-R-ICE is well tolerated in patients with R/R DLBCL with toxicities comparable to rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide therapy. Our data show that patients with non-GCB DLBCL benefit significantly from incorporating CFZ into second-line therapy and HDC-ASCT.

Most patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy (CAR-T) for aggressive B-cell lymphoma (B-NHL) will not experience a durable remission. There are several novel agents approved for the treatment relapsed, refractory aggressive B-NHL; however, it remains unclear how to sequence these therapies pre- and post-CAR-T (peri-CAR-T). We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis for the purpose of describing peri-CAR-T practice patterns and survival predictors for patients receiving CD19-directed CAR-T. Patients (n=514) from thirteen centers treated with CAR-T for aggressive B-NHL between 2015-2021 were included. Clinical characteristics, CAR-T outcomes and treatment regimens administered pre- and post-CAR-T were collected. Survival curves were constructed using Kaplan Meier method. Multivariate Cox regression was used to determine the impact of variables on survival outcomes. For all patients receiving CAR-T, a greater number lines of therapy prior to CAR-T apheresis and receipt of bridging therapy were predictive of inferior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). From time of CAR-T infusion, median PFS and OS were 7.6 and 25.6 months (n=514). From time of progression post-CAR-T (n=254), median OS was 5.5 months. The median PFS of treatments given in the first-line post-CAR-T failure (n=167) was just 2.8 months. Patients with refractory disease at day 30 had inferior OS and were less likely to receive subsequent treatment(s) compared to other patients with CAR-T failure. AlloHCT for select patients at any time following CAR-T failure (n=16) led to durable responses in over half at one-year. These data provide a benchmark for future clinical trials in patients with progression post-CAR-T, an unmet clinical need.

Following a similar report on multiple myeloma, Ghione and colleagues report the expected observation that patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving anti-B cell therapies have markedly reduced antibody responses to COVID-19 immunization. Although there is no information regarding T-cell immunity, this suggests that while vaccination is certainly still recommended for this population, patients should be strongly encouraged to maintain social distancing precautions and should be revaccinated after an appropriate interval from the end of their antilymphoma therapy.

Ibrutinib is effective in the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) with an overall response rate (ORR) of 48%. However, factors associated with response (or lack thereof) to ibrutinib in R/R MZL in clinical practice are largely unknown. To answer this question, we performed a multicenter (25 US centers) cohort study and divided the study population into three groups: “ibrutinib responders”—patients who achieved complete or partial response (CR/PR) to ibrutinib; “stable disease (SD)”; and “primary progressors (PP)”—patients with progression of disease as their best response to ibrutinib. One hundred and nineteen patients met the eligibility criteria with 58%/17% ORR/CR, 29% with SD, and 13% with PP. The median PFS and OS were 29 and 71.4 months, respectively, with no difference in PFS or OS based on the ibrutinib line of therapy or type of therapy before ibrutinib. Patients with complex cytogenetics had an inferior PFS (HR = 3.08, 95% CI 1.23–7.67, p = 0.02), while those with both complex cytogenetics (HR = 3.00, 95% CI 1.03–8.68, p = 0.04) and PP (HR = 13.94, 95% CI 5.17–37.62, p p = 0.03). In this largest study to date evaluating outcomes of R/R MZL treated with ibrutinib, we show that patients with primary refractory disease and those with PP on ibrutinib are very high-risk subsets and need to be prioritized for experimental therapies.

Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL) is a heterogeneous non-Hodgkin lymphoma. No consensus exists regarding the standard-of-care in patients with advanced-stage disease. Current recommendations are largely adapted from follicular lymphoma, for which bendamustine with rituximab (BR) is an established approach. We analyzed the safety and efficacy of frontline BR in EMZL using a large international consortium. We included 237 patients with a median age of 63 years (range, 21-85). Most patients presented with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 to 1 (n = 228; 96.2%), stage III/IV (n = 179; 75.5%), and intermediate (49.8%) or high (33.3%) Mucosa Associated Lymphoid Tissue International Prognosis Index (MALT-IPI). Patients received a median of 6 (range, 1-8) cycles of BR, and 20.3% (n = 48) received rituximab maintenance. Thirteen percent experienced infectious complications during BR therapy; herpes zoster (4%) was the most common. Overall response rate was 93.2% with 81% complete responses. Estimated 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 80.5% (95% CI, 73.1% to 86%) and 89.6% (95% CI, 83.1% to 93.6%), respectively. MALT-IPI failed to predict outcomes. In the multivariable model, the presence of B symptoms was associated with shorter PFS. Rituximab maintenance was associated with longer PFS (hazard ratio = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.71; P = .016) but did not impact OS. BR is a highly effective upfront regimen in EMZL, providing durable remissions and overcoming known adverse prognosis factors. This regimen is associated with occurrence of herpes zoster; thus, prophylactic treatment may be considered.

While patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) are now frequently treated with intensive front-line immunochemotherapy, outcomes for those who fail these regimens and subsequently receive curative-intent second-line immunochemotherapy are unknown. We identified 55 such patients who achieved an overall/complete response rate of 29%/11%, median progression-free/overall survival (PFS/OS) of 2/5·1 months and one-year PFS/OS of 10/19% following the start of second-line therapy. These outcomes may serve as a standard against which future second-line treatment strategies for relapsed/refractory DHL can be measured and justify investigation of non-cytotoxic therapies in the second-line setting for these patients.

Background Primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is often associated with immunosuppressed states. The Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) may play a role in tumor pathogenicity in some cases. The objective of this study was to examine the patient characteristics, tumor pathology, and survival outcomes associated with EBV tumor status in patients with PCNSL. Methods This was a retrospective subset analysis from 17 academic medical centers that included 439 patients of ages 60 years and above with PCNSL (David K et al. ASH 2020). The associations between EBV status and clinical or demographical variables were tested by Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, or CMH trend test. Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to estimate survival probability. Survival difference between groups was tested by log-rank test for statistical significance. Confidence interval of survival rate was calculated using Greenwood's formula. Results A total of 247 patients with available EBV status were included in this analysis. Median age was 71 (range 60-84) and 44.5% were male. Notably, none of the patients were HIV-positive. Twenty-five patients (10.1%) had EBV positive tumors as detected by EBER (EBV-encoded RNA) in-situ hybridization or LMP1 immunohistochemistry (IHC), 17 of which were solid organ transplant (SOT)-related post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) and 8 of which were not PTLD. All EBV-positive non-PTLDs were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Three (15%) SOT-related PTLDs were EBV-negative. Patient characteristics analyzed included age at diagnosis, sex, ECOG performance status, history of prior or concurrent malignancies, history of solid organ transplant or autoimmune disease, history of allogeneic stem cell transplant, and immunosuppressive treatment. Of these, only a history of solid organ transplant or autoimmune disease (P Tumor characteristics analyzed included expression of C-MYC, BCL2, CD5, cell of origin markers (BCL6, MUM1, CD10), and CD20 through IHC, C-MYC and BCL2 translocation through FISH, histology, and involvement of brain parenchyma, CSF, spinal cord, and eyes. EBV-positive tumors were associated with low C-MYC (p=0.047) and BCL6 (p=0.0006) expression on immunohistochemistry, but not other factors. There were no significant differences in tumor characteristics between those with EBV-positive PTLD and EBV-positive non-PTLD. Among patients with PTLD, 30% (n=6) did not receive primary chemotherapy, and the most common treatment regimens were high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) with or without rituximab (n=5) and rituximab alone (n=3). However, there was no significant difference in outcomes among PTLD patients who received chemotherapy or those who did not. Among EBV-positive non-PTLD patients, only 12.5% (n=1) did not receive primary chemotherapy and the most common treatment regimens were methotrexate/rituximab/temozolomide (n=3) and HD-MTX with or without rituximab (n=3). There was no difference in overall or progression free survival between patients with EBV-positive and EBV-negative tumors, or in outcomes among SOT-related PTLD patients regardless of EBV status. However, patients with EBV-positive non-PTLD PCNSL had better overall survival compared to patients with EBV-positive PTLD and EBV-negative tumors (p=0.033, Figure). Conclusions In this large observational study of older patients with PCNSL, the incidence of EBV positive tumors was overall low and was most commonly associated with SOT-related PTLD. Mycophenolate mofetil was the most common immunosuppressive medication. In those without PTLD, there were no patient or tumor factors that were associated with EBV status. Unexpectedly, non-PTLD EBV-positive PCNSL had superior outcomes to EBV-positive PTLD and EBV-negative PCNSL. Future studies of EBV-positive non-PTLDs are warranted to further evaluate the potential impact of EBV latency and the immune response on the tumor microenvironment. Disclosures Reddy: BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; KITE Pharma: Consultancy. Bachanova:Karyopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; FATE: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Bond:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Goldlust:Tocagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel; WEX: Consultancy, Other: travel; Cortice Bio: Consultancy, Other: travel; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; COTA: Other; Novocure: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Spurgeon:Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; VelosBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Beigene: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Karmali:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Naik:Celgene: Other: advisory board; Sanofi: Other: advisory board. Smith:Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; FortySeven: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rubenstein:Kymera: Research Funding. Kahl:BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy. Evens:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Martin:Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy.

Background Limited data are available on the clinical activity of venetoclax (ven) in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). In 2 small retrospective studies of patients (pts) with MCL previously treated with BTK inhibitors (BTKi), ven resulted in overall response rates (ORRs) of 50-53% and median overall survival (OS) of 9-14 months (Eyre et al, Haematologica 2019; Zhao et al, Am J Hematol 2020). We sought to report the clinical activity of ven and identify factors associated with outcomes in a larger cohort of pts. Methods We included pts with relapsed MCL from 12 US medical centers treated with ven alone or in combination with an antiCD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb) or a BTKi. Response was determined by the local investigator. We defined OS as time from start of ven to death. Pts not experiencing an event were censored at their last known follow up. OS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariable (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) models were developed to identify predictors of response and OS. Results Eighty-one pts were included. Pt characteristics (Table) at diagnosis (dx) were: median age 64 years (yrs) (range 38-87), male 79%, stage III/IV 95%, Ki67 >30% in 61% (available n=62), blastoid/pleomorphic histology 29% (available n=75) and ≥3 cytogenetic abnormalities 34% (available n=62). BCL2 expression was present in 93% (available n=40). Frontline treatment (tx) included intensive chemotherapy [defined as including high-dose cytarabine and/or autologous transplant (ASCT) in first remission] in 52% with ASCT in first remission in 32%. Median number of therapies prior to ven was 3 (range 1-8) including antiCD20 mAb 99%, alkylator 93%, BTKi 91%, anthracycline 58%, cytarabine 56%, and lenalidomide 37%. 55% were refractory (defined as stable (SD) or progressive disease (PD)) to last tx prior to ven. ORR to BTKi prior to ven (n=70) was 66% (complete response (CR) 20%) with median duration of tx of 6.4 months (range 0.5-69). BTKi was stopped due to PD 82% and toxicity 18%. Median time from dx to start of ven was 3.9 yrs (range 0.2-17.8). Ven was given as monotherapy in 62% (n=50) and in combination with BTKi 20% (n=16), antiCD20 mAb 14% (n=11), or other 5% (n=4). Ten pts treated with ven in combination with BTKi received prior tx with BTKi with ORR to BTKi of 40% (all PR). Ven highest dose received was 20-100 mg in 12% (n=9), 200 mg 11% (n=8), 400 mg 61% (n=46), and 800 mg 17% (n=13). Median duration of tx with ven was 2.8 months (range 0.1-30). The best response to ven was CR 18%, partial response (PR) 24%, SD 11%, and PD 47% with ORR of 42%; 19 pts (23%) did not have available data for response. ORR was not significantly different with ven monotherapy 36% (13/36) vs ven + antiCD20 mAb 56% (5/9) vs ven + BTKi 43% (6/14) (p=.559), or with ven monotherapy 36% vs combination therapy 50% (13/26) (p=.274). Ven was stopped due to PD 69%, toxicity 9%, allogeneic transplant 3% or other reasons 19%. Laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurred in 10 pts (12%) including 3 (3.7%) with clinical TLS. 38 pts received post-ven tx with median time from stopping ven to next tx of 0.24 months (range 0-2.2); for the 33 pts with available data, the best response to post-ven tx was CR 24%, PR 27%, SD 9% and PD 39% with ORR of 51%. For the 75 pts with available data, median OS was 12.5 months (95% CI 6-17) with 3-year OS of 13.1% (95% CI 1.4-38.0%) (Figure A). Median OS was numerically longer with ven combination (28.7 months, 95% CI 4-not reached) vs monotherapy (8.6 months, 95% CI 4.7-14.4), p=.0825 (Figure B). Median OS did not significantly differ based on response (CR/PR vs SD/PD) to prior tx with BTKi (14.4 vs 9.5 months, p=.53, Figure C) or last tx prior to ven (16.7 vs 12.4 months, p=.14, Figure D). In MVA for response, achieving CR/PR with BTKi prior to ven (vs SD/PD) was associated with response to ven (odds ratio 3.48, 95% CI 1.01-12.05, p=.049). In MVA for OS, ven combination vs monotherapy (HR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.53; p=.006), longer time from dx to start of ven (>4 vs ≤4 yrs) (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.36; p=.001), and higher dose of ven (≥400 mg vs 6 vs ≤6 months) (HR 3.47, 95% CI 1.10-10.99; p=.038) was associated with inferior OS. Conclusions In these high-risk and heavily pretreated pts with MCL, ven resulted in low response rate and poor OS. Ven may have a better role in MCL in earlier lines of therapy and when combined with other agents such as BTKi and/or antiCD20 mAbs. Disclosures Kamdar: Roche: Research Funding. Greenwell:Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma LLC, Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Hess:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Portell:Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Goldsmith:Wugen Inc.: Consultancy. Grover:Genentech: Research Funding; Tessa: Consultancy. Riedell:Morphosys: Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria. Karmali:BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kahl:AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cohen:Genentech, BMS, Novartis, LAM, BioInvent, LRF, ASH, Astra Zeneca, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is not licensed for use in mantle cell lymphoma

Introduction: Treatment of older patients (pts) with PCNSL is challenging due to the prevalence of comorbidities, frailty, and complexities with delivery of chemotherapy (CT). The optimal induction CT and consolidation regimens for older PCNSL pts is unknown. Moreover, there are few large scale prognostication studies available, including analysis of geriatric assessments (GA). We analyzed detailed characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes with prognostication across 17 academic centers. Methods: We conducted a large, RW retrospective study of newly diagnosed PCNSL pts (1/2008-1/2019) ages ≥ 60 years (yrs). Survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier with differences assessed by log rank test. We detailed Cumulative Index Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G) scores & other GAs. Univariate associations were derived via Cox model with variables p Results: Among 491 initial cases, n=450 cases were verified for diagnosis & follow-up. Clinical features included: median age 71 yrs (60-88); male 47%; elevated LDH 30%; creatinine clearance 1 site). Cerebral involvement predominated in 75% with deep structure involvement in 20% & cerebellum in 5%. CSF involvement was documented in 13% of pts (unchecked in 26%). For GA at diagnosis, the median CIRS-G score was 6 (range 0-27) and impaired self-care activities of daily living (ADLs) were noted in 36%. Furthermore, geriatric syndrome (ie, dementia, delirium, depression, and/or falls) was present in 45% of pts. Induction therapy included CT in 91% of pts (of whom 82% had rituximab (Rtx)) and radiation therapy (RT) in 8%. The most common chemotherapy regimens were: high-dose methotrexate (HD MTX) or HD MTX with Rtx (MR) in 38%; HD MTX/procarbazine/vincristine (MPV) +/- Rtx 30%; HD MTX/temozolomide/Rtx (MTR) 22%; Rtx alone 2%; and HD MTX/cytarabine/thiotepa/Rtx (MATRIX) in 2%. Median MTX dosing for all pts was 3.5 g/m2 (range 1-8 g/m2), and by 3 most common regimens (all g/m2): MTR 5.1; MR 5.4; MPV 3.1 (P With 42 month median follow-up (1-125), 3-yr PFS & OS for all pts were 38% & 52%, respectively (Fig 1A/1B). On MVA, factors associated with inferior PFS were: advancing age (continuous HR 1.05, P Conclusions: Older pts with PCNSL have suboptimal outcomes, with 2/3 progressing in the first several years. GA is an important prognostic tool, and could be used to stratify pts in future investigations. In addition, use of Rtx, increasing MTX dose, and the MTR regimen were associated with improved outcomes. Disclosures Reddy: Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; KITE Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bachanova:Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; FATE: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Bond:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Goldlust:COTA: Other; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel; Tocagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel; Novocure: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Cortice Bio: Consultancy, Other: travel; WEX: Consultancy, Other: travel. Spurgeon:Beigene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; VelosBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Honoraria; Verastem: Research Funding. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Karmali:Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Naik:Celgene: Other: advisory board; Sanofi: Other: advisory board. Martin:Celgene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Regeneron: Consultancy. Smith:Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Rubenstein:Kymera: Research Funding. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding. Evens:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria.

This is the first longitudinal study of immune profiles and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT) survival in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) patients and the effect of plerixafor mobilization on immune reconstitution in this population. A comprehensive immunophenotyping panel was performed in 104 consecutive adult B-NHL patients (58% diffuse large B cell and 42% mantle cell) who received AHCT (1/2008–11/2014), at a median of 28 days pre-AHCT (N = 104) and Day +100 (N = 83) post-AHCT. Median follow-up post-AHCT was 61 months (range: 8–120 months). Compared to patients mobilized with filgrastim and plerixafor, patients mobilized with filgrastim alone had a higher proportion of CD4+ naive (p = 0.006) and CD8+ central memory T-cells (p = 0.006) pre-AHCT. For patients transplanted in complete remission (CR), a higher proportion of CD8+ effector memory T-cells pre-AHCT was associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS; p

Introduction: Ibrutinib is a first-in-class small molecule inhibitor that binds irreversibly to Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) and has shown remarkable efficacy in the treatment of CLL. Current guidelines recommend life-long therapy with administration at a fixed daily dose of 420 mg. However, lower doses of ibrutinib have been demonstrated to adequately abrogate kinase function. Limited clinical data suggests that dose reductions are not associated with inferior outcomes. Hypothetically, judicious dose reductions to manage toxicities could result in improved tolerance and decreased discontinuation rates. Our objective was to study the impact of dose reductions on outcomes in CLL patients treated with ibrutinib in a real-world setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all CLL patients treated with ibrutinib at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2014 and June 2017. Patients who underwent ibrutinib dose reduction were identified. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients who underwent dose reductions vs those who did not. Reason and timing of dose reduction was also elucidated. Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's Chi Square test were used to compare groups, Kaplan Meier methods were used for time to event analysis, and Cox regression was used to obtain hazard ratios (HR). Overall survival (OS) was calculated as time from start of ibrutinib until death or last follow-up, freedom from progression (PFS) was taken as time from start of ibrutinib until progression or last follow-up. All analyses were performed in SAS v9.4 (Cary, NC). Results: A total of 70 CLL patients treated with ibrutinib were followed for a median period of 21.9 months. Most patients had RR disease (n = 63) and 7 received ibrutinib as frontline therapy. All patients received a fixed dose regimen with the standard dose of 420 mg once daily. Twenty-three (31.3%) patients required dose reductions and received ibrutinib at a median dose of 140 mg . Eleven (47.8%) of these had dose reductions within 3 months of treatment initiation. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline characteristics including age, number of prior lines of treatment, WBC count, hemoglobin or LDH level in the dose reduced group (DRG) and standard dose group (SDG). Patients in the DRG had a lower median platelet count at initiation of ibrutinib than patients in the SDG (86 x 103/mm3 vs 145 x 103/mm3, p Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

The role of 18F-Fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography combined with computerized tomography (PET-CT) in evaluation of bone marrow involvement (BMI) in patients with T-cell lymphoma (TCL) is poorly understood. We investigated whether PET-CT could replace bone marrow aspiration and biopsy (BMAB) in TCL. Sixty patients with newly diagnosed TCL who underwent both diagnostic PET-CT and BMAB were identified. BMI was tissue-confirmed in 15 (25%) cases, however only 8 of these 15 showed BMI on PET-CT (sensitivity of 53.3%, specificity of 100%). BMI by BMAB was associated with lower progression-free survival (PFS) (P=0.038) and overall survival (OS) (P=0.003) while PET-CT BMI was associated only with OS (P=0.02). BMI detected by BMAB in the setting of a negative PET-CT had similar inferior prognosis as BMI identified on PET-CT. Thus, PET-CT in TCL misses BMI in almost half of the cases detected by BMAB and hence cannot substitute BMAB in evaluation of TCL.

Paraneoplastic neurological syndromes are a rare manifestation of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and can make treatment of these patients more challenging. We report the case of a 67-year-old man with high grade diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who presented with severe paraneoplastic Guillain-Barre syndrome. He was treated with intravenous immunoglobulin therapy and definitive chemoimmunotherapy, and achieved a full neurological recovery. In this report, we discuss various mechanisms of neurological dysfunction seen in lymphomas. Prompt oncologic treatment and immunotherapy for Guillain-Barre syndrome if instituted concurrently and early in the course of the disease can be associated with the best outcomes.

Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have limited options for salvage, and checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) has little efficacy. Usage in solid malignancies suggests that CBT sensitises tumours to subsequent chemotherapy. We performed the first analysis of CBT on subsequent NHL treatment. Seventeen North American centres retrospectively queried records. The primary aim was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) to post-CBT treatment. Secondary aims included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Fifty-nine patients (68% aggressive NHL, 69% advanced disease) were included. Patients received a median of three therapies before CBT. Fifty-three (90%) discontinued CBT due to progression. Post-CBT regimens included chemotherapy (49%), targeted therapy (30%), clinical trial (17%), transplant conditioning (2%) and chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy (2%). The ORR to post-CBT treatment was 51%, with median PFS of 6·1 months. In patients with at least stable disease (SD) to post-CBT, the median DOR was significantly longer than to pre-CBT (310 vs. 79 days, P = 0·005) suggesting sensitisation. Nineteen patients were transplanted after post-CBT therapy. Median overall survival was not reached, nor affected by regimen. Prospective trials are warranted, as this may offer R/R NHL patients a novel therapeutic approach.

There is a paucity of data regarding outcomes and response to standard therapy in patients with limited-stage (LS) agressive B-cell lymphoma (LS-ABCL) who harbor MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) with or without BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of MYC-R LS-ABCL patients who received either rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), or more intensive immunochemotherapy (IIC) plus or minus consolidative involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT). One hundred four patients from 15 academic centers were included. Forty four patients (42%) received R-CHOP, of whom 52% had IFRT. Sixty patients (58%) received IIC, of whom 40% had IFRT. Overall response rate was 91% (84% complete response [CR]; 7% partial response). Patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL; n = 40) had a lower CR rate compared with patients with MYC-R only (75% vs 98%; P = .003). CR rate was higher in the IFRT vs no-IFRT group (98% vs 72%; P < .001). Median follow-up was 3.2 years; 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overal survival (OS) were 78% and 86% for the entire cohort, and 74% and 81% for the DHL patients, respectively. PFS and OS were similar across treatment groups (IFRT vs no IFRT, R-CHOP vs IIC) in the entire cohort and in DHL patients. Our data provide a historical benchmark for MYC-R LS-ABCL and LS-DHL patients and show that outcomes for this population may be better than previously recognized. There was no benefit of using IIC over R-CHOP in patients with MYC-R LS-ABCL and LS-DHL.

Background To explore the role of augmenting neutrophil function in B-cell lymphoma, we conducted a phase II study evaluating the safety and clinical efficacy of pegfilgrastim and rituximab in low-grade CD20+ B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). Patients and Methods Twenty patients with indolent B-NHL were treated with rituximab (375 mg/m2) every other week for 4 doses, followed by every 2 months for 4 additional doses. Pegfilgrastim was administered subcutaneously 3 days before each dose of rituximab. Clinical activity and tolerability were assessed using standard criteria. Biologic monitoring included phenotype characteristics of the host neutrophils, changes in oxidative burst, and functional assays. Results The patient demographics included median age of 64 years, 70% were male, 70% had follicular lymphoma, and 90% had stage III-IV disease. The median number of previous therapies was 2 (range, 0-5); 90% had received previous anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapy. The addition of pegfilgrastim to rituximab did not increase rituximab-related toxicities. The overall response rate was 60% (12 of 20), with a complete response (CR) rate of 35% (7 of 20). The median progression-free survival (PFS) duration was 17.9 months (95% confidence interval, 9.9-27.6 months); the median overall survival was not reached. A shorter time-to-peak oxidative burst after the first dose of pegfilgrastim was associated with greater CR rates (P = .04) and longer PFS (P = .03). Conclusion The pegfilgrastim-rituximab combination was well tolerated, with favorable outcomes compared with historical controls. A shorter time-to-peak oxidative burst was associated with higher CR rates and longer PFS. Our results support further evaluation of strategies that enhance the innate immune system to improve rituximab activity in B-NHL.

Introduction The treatment of aggressive B-cell NHL has evolved rapidly over the last 5 years, owing to the FDA approval of 3 CD19 CAR T-cell constructs (CARTs) along with other novel targeted therapies. Real world practice data suggest that CARTs have been successfully administered in populations typically excluded from clinical trials. However, data on how to best utilize novel targeted agents as a pathway to CARTs and feasibility of CARTs in rare histologies remains limited. This retrospective multicenter study describes patient (pt) selection and practice patterns in pts treated with CD19 CARTs and provides insight on feasibility of CARTs in special populations. Methods Adult pts with R/R aggressive B-cell NHL treated with CD19 CARTs between 2015- 2020 across 12 US academic centers were identified. Data on demographic and clinical characteristics, disease and toxicity outcomes were collected. Univariate analyses (UVA) were performed to determine impact of demographic/clinical variables on survival. Survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. Subgroup analysis was performed for pts with secondary central nervous system lymphoma (sCNSL). Results Clinical and demographic features were recorded from 400 pts (Table 1). Median age was 59 years (range 18-84). Of 271 pts with immunohistochemistry data, 79 (29%) had double-expressor lymphoma. Of 178 pts with FISH data captured, 62 (35%) had double/triple-hit lymphoma. Most common histological subtypes included 271 (68%) pts with de novo DLBCL, 81 (20%) with transformed FL, 13 (3%) with Richter's syndrome, and 8 (2%) with PMBCL. Rare histologies included 7 (2%) with transformed MZL, 5 (1%) with PTLD and 2 (0.5%) with grey zone lymphoma. 24 (6%) pts had sCNSL at time of CART apheresis. Two (0.5%) pts were HIV-positive. Median number of lines of therapy prior to CART was 2 (range 1-8); 182 (46%) pts received ≥ 3 lines. 114 (28%) pts previously had an autologous stem cell transplant. Targeted therapies used as salvage regimens at any point prior to CART are listed in Table 2: commonly used salvage targeted therapies included lenalidomide based therapy (imids, n=37, 9%), BTK inhibitors (BTKis, n=30, 8%), checkpoint inhibitors (CBIs, n=17, 4%) and polatuzumab-containing regimens (n=10, 3%). 2 (1%) pts received loncastuximab, and no pts received tafasitamab. Six (1.5%) pts proceeded to CART despite complete response to most recent pre-CART therapy. 191 (48%) pts received bridging between apheresis and CART infusion, choice of bridging noted in Table 2: the majority received chemotherapy (n=103, 54%); 28 (15%) received radiation (XRT); 25 (13%), 24 (13%) and 18 (9%) pts received imids, polatuzumab-containing regimens, or BTKis, respectively. With median follow-up of 22.4 months (mo) for the overall group, median (m) PFS was 11 mo (n=363); mOS, was 27 mo (n=397; Fig 1). Pts with sCNSL had a mPFS and mOS of 2 and 4 mo, respectively (Fig 1). On UVA, factors predicting poorer PFS and OS in the overall group included ≥3 pre-CART lines (p For outcomes according to bridging regimens: mPFS after CART for most commonly used systemic bridging therapies was 86 days (d) for platinum-based chemotherapy, 77 d for imids, 90 d for BTKis, 98 d for polatuzumab-bendamustine/rituximab, and 274 d for XRT. Median PFS for XRT bridging (274 d) was statistically better when compared to mPFS for listed systemic therapies combined (p Conclusion Survival outcomes with CARTs in our data set are consistent with those reported in clinical trial settings. CARTs are utilized in real world practice in rare subsets of aggressive R/R B-cell NHL not routinely included in clinical trials. Despite early data suggesting pts with sCNSL benefit from CART, our data suggest outcomes with CART are dismal in this group. Targeted therapies including imids, polatuzumab, BTKis and CBIs are feasible choices for salvage and/or bridging as a pathway to CARTs. Bridging with XRT resulted in improved mPFS post CART as compared to bridging with systemic therapies and suggests differences in pt selection for each with systemic therapies likely favored in those with more widespread disease burden. Minimal use of CD19-targeted agents pre-CART is attributed to later approval of these agents and concern for potential loss of CD19 antigen leading to CART resistance. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures 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. Shouse: Kite Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Honoraria. Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Stephens: Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arqule: Research Funding; Mingsight: Research Funding; JUNO: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ma: Loxo: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winter: BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria. Gordon: Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No royalties; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Danilov: Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding. Shah: Umoja: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Lily: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Barta: Seagen: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Acrotech: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria. Epperla: Genzyme: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau. Torka: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karmali: Epizyme: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Background: The term HGBL, NOS was introduced by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2016 for aggressive B-cell lymphomas with Burkitt lymphoma-like (BLL) or blastoid cytomorphology that lack double-hit genetics and do not meet criteria for other entities. Diagnostic patterns and prognosis of these rare tumors are not well understood. We examined the characteristics and outcomes of patients (pts) with HGBL, NOS diagnosed in 17 academic centers across the United States. Methods: We collected retrospective data on HGBL, NOS cases diagnosed by academic hematopathologists in 2017-2021; 8 centers performed a local review by lymphoma pathology experts to confirm fulfillment of the WHO criteria; pathology reports were reviewed centrally. We excluded pts not tested for MYC rearrangement (MYC-R), any double/triple-hit, diffuse large B-cell, or lymphoblastic lymphomas. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and cytogenetic tests were done locally. Outcomes included rates of complete response (CR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Among 126 pts with HGBL, NOS, median age was 64 years (range 18-91), 67% were male, and 3 were HIV+. Advanced stage was present in 68%, poor performance status (PS, ECOG ≥2) in 21%, high serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in 68%, extranodal (EN) sites in 79%, central nervous system (CNS) involvement in 6%, and International Prognostic Index (IPI) ≥ 3 in 55%. Cytomorphology was reported as BLL in 59 (47%) cases, blastoid in 28 (22%), and unspecified in 39 (31%). By IHC, 83% had germinal center B-cell (GCB) phenotype. Using cases with available data, CD10 was expressed in 79%, BCL6 in 81%, MUM1/IRF4 in 48%, MYC in 73%, BCL2 in 55% (dual MYC/BCL2 expressor [DEL]: 37%), CD5 in 13%, and median Ki-67 was 95%. MYC-R (single-hit) was detected in 27% (Fig A), MYC extra copies (EC) in 9%, BCL2-R in 13%, and BCL6-R in 10%. MYC-EC were present in 16% of cases with BCL2-R or BCL6-R, and BCL2/BCL6-EC in 12% of those with MYC-R. Blastoid tumors were more likely than BLL to involve >1 EN site or to have BCL2-R (Fig B). 9 cases were assessed by next generation sequencing and 5 (56%) had a TP53 mutation. Cases which underwent confirmatory pathology review (N=74) did not differ from others clinically but more often had a well-defined HGBL morphology (77% vs 58%, P=.031) and less often MYC-R (20% vs. 37%, P=.004). The most common first-line regimens (among treated pts, N=121) were DA-EPOCH-R (50%) and RCHOP (35%), with few pts receiving HyperCVAD/MA (5%) or CODOX-M±IVAC (2%); 97% received rituximab, and 44% CNS prophylaxis. Pts selected for DA-EPOCH-R vs. RCHOP were younger (median 61 vs. 68 years, P=.006), more often had stage 3/4 (P=.04), BLL morphology (56% vs. 29%, P=.009) or MYC-R (31% vs. 14%, P=.06). CR was attained in 62% of pts, whereas 20% had progressive disease. The most frequent salvage regimens (± rituximab) included ICE (N=12), DHAP (N=6), and GemOx (N=5). 3 pts underwent autologous, and 3 allogeneic transplant (2/3 subsequently relapsed). 13 received chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells, with response noted in 7 (54%) and CR in 4 (31%); HGBL relapsed in 3/7 (43%) responders. With median follow-up of 2.7 years, 39% of pts relapsed, and 33% died. Of 49 observed relapses, 13 (27%) involved the CNS. PFS estimate at 2 years was 51% (95% CI, 42-60%) and OS was 68% (95% CI, 58-76%; Fig C). PFS and OS were not significantly associated with age or PS, but stage and LDH were prognostic (Fig D-G). Furthermore, PFS did not differ by BLL/blastoid morphology, MYC-R status or DEL status, but non-GCB tumors had somewhat worse PFS (Fig H-J). We observed no significant PFS (or OS) difference between pts selected for RCHOP vs. DA-EPOCH-R (P=.83 for PFS, Fig K; P=.55 for OS) in aggregate or in any subset, except for de novo tumors with BLL morphology (N=41), where DA-EPOCH-R showed a superior 2-year PFS (73% vs 38% for RCHOP, P=.027; stratified by IPI: P=.040, Fig L). Conclusions: HGBL, NOS, as diagnosed in current academic practice, is highly heterogeneous, highlighting the need to classify high-grade lymphomas using molecular rather than morphologic features. Considering poor survival in all age groups (except for few pts with early stage and normal LDH), lack of prognostic significance of MYC-R, DEL status, or cytomorphology, HGBL, NOS needs prospective trials to delineate prognostic biomarkers, the role of intensified chemotherapy, and novel therapeutic approaches. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Landsburg: Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: DSMB member; ADCT: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hughes: Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sandoval-Sus: SeaGen, Janssen, MassiveBio, TG: Other: Advisory Board; BMS: Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau. Kothari: Incyte pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Torka: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Smith: Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; De Novo Biopharma: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; KITE pharm: Consultancy; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy. Epperla: Genzyme: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau. Bond: Kite/Gilead: Honoraria. Naik: Sanofi: Other: Virtual Advisory Board Member ; Takeda: Other: Virtual Advisory Board Member ; Kite: Other: Virtual Advisory Board Member. Kamdar: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Genetech: Other; Celgene: Other; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau. Haverkos: Viracta Therapeutics: Consultancy. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Vose: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Research Funding. Olszewski: PrecisionBio: Research Funding; Celldex Therapeutics: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding.

Background. Despite advances in therapy, treatment of R/R NHL remains a challenge. PEVO (TAK924) is a first-in-class, selective, small molecule, NAE inhibitor with preclinical activity in NHL, including mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We and others have demonstrated synergy between PEVO and the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, in in vitro and in vivo models of CLL and MCL. We report the results of a phase 1 study of PEVO in combination with ibrutinib in patients with R/R NHL. Methods. This was a multicenter, open-label, Phase I, investigator-sponsored study (NCT03479268). Patients with NHL or CLL ≥18 years of age whose disease had relapsed or was refractory to ≥1 prior lines of therapy were enrolled. The Phase I portion of the study followed mTPI design with five planned dose levels of PEVO (15, 20, 25, 37.5 and 50 mg/m 2). PEVO was given IV on days 1, 3 and 5 of a 21-day cycle for a total of 8 cycles. Ibrutinib was administered once a day starting on Cycle 1 day 2 at a fixed dose of 420 mg (560 mg in MCL) orally for a total of 18 cycles. Primary study objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included preliminary measures of efficacy. Response was assessed by Lugano (NHL) and IWCLL criteria. Exploratory objectives included pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic endpoints. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were defined as grade 4 hematologic or grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities. Results. Of the eighteen patients enrolled, 8 had MCL, 4 had DLBCL, 4 had CLL and one patient each had marginal zone and follicular lymphoma; 72% (13/18) were men. Median age was 71 (51-90) years, 94% had an ECOG performance status ≤1. Patients had received a median of 1 prior line of therapy (range, 1-3), 3 patients had undergone prior autologous stem cell transplant. Three patients each were treated on dose level cohorts 1-4. One DLT, mediastinal hemorrhage, was observed at dose level 5. Therefore, the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PEVO was 50 mg/m 2. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs, any grade) were bruising and diarrhea (44% each; Table 1). There was one case each (5.6%) of the following grade 3-4 AEs: arthralgia, bone pain, diarrhea and mediastinal hemorrhage. Three patients (16.6%) developed grade 1-2 atrial fibrillation on study but all continued therapy. Treatment discontinuation due to AE occurred in one patient (5.6%, mediastinal hemorrhage). The overall response rate (ORR) was 66% for all patients. Among eight patients with MCL, ORR was 100% (50% complete response). The median PEVO elimination T 1/2 was 6.7 h (range, 4.9-12.1 h) on day 1 and 6.4 h (3.2-11.0 h) on day 3 (Wilcoxon p=0.12). PEVO exhibited linear PK with dose-dependent increases in C max and AUC (0-inf) (Figure 1), which were unaffected by concurrent ibrutinib (Wilcoxon p=0.09 and 0.94, respectively). Discussion. The combination of pevonedistat and ibrutinib is safe and well-tolerated in patients with R/R NHL. It is associated with high response rates in patients with R/R MCL. The study is currently enrolling patients in the expansion cohort to further characterize the efficacy of this promising regimen. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Torka: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herrera: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tubulis: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri: AbbVie: Other: Advisory Boards; Incyte: Other: Advisory Boards; Celgene: Other: Advisory Boards; BMS: Other: Advisory Boards; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards; Kite: Other: Advisory Boards; Gilead: Other: Advisory Boards; Epyzime: Other: Advisory Boards. Danilov: SecuraBio: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: pevonedistat - clinical trial

Background: Patients with primary CNS Lymphoma (PCNSL) often present with neurologic complications such as focal defects, neuropsychiatric symptoms, increased intracranial pressure, aphasia, seizures, and ocular symptoms which require initiation of prophylactic or therapeutic anticonvulsants. Most anticonvulsants are notorious for their pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug interactions. The cornerstone of PCNSL therapy is the utilization of high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX). The pharmacokinetics of HD-MTX are uniquely sensitive to both disease biology and drug interactions. Due to the importance of both HD-MTX and anticonvulsants in PCNSL patients, these medications are frequently given in concert with one another despite theoretical and proven drug interactions published in the literature. This is a retrospective analysis of patients treated with a modified R-MPV regimen (rituximab, methotrexate, procarbazine, vincristine alternating with intrathecal methotrexate) and the effects of various anticonvulsants on HD-MTX clearance. Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with a biopsy proven diagnosis of PCNSL at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center who received R-MPV between January 2002 and December 2019 were included in this retrospective analysis. The electronic health record of each patient was reviewed for specific patient demographics, laboratory results, confounding drug interactions, toxicity, and treatment outcomes. Descriptive statistics were computed for all categorical variables. The time to MTX clearance in hours and the potential impact of concomitant use of various anticonvulsants were assessed using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test in the case of ordinal responses and the Pearson chi-square test or Fisher's Exact test for categorical variables where appropriate. Results: A total of 67 patients met the inclusion criteria of which 53 patients (79.1%) received anticonvulsants (189 cycles of R-MPV) and 14 did not (69 cycles of R-MPV). Patients who had seizures or frontal brain PCNSL were more likely to receive anticonvulsants (p Conclusion: Anticonvulsants are an essential component to PCNSL therapy in patients on HD-MTX. They are well tolerated, do not alter HD-MTX clearance in a clinically significant manner and may help improve patient outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Torka: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.