Search

TAFRO syndrome is defined by the presence of thrombocytopenia (T), anasarca (A), fever (F), reticulin fibrosis/renal dysfunction (R), and organomegaly (O) and can be seen with idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD) or as an isolated process without iMCD. Although the diagnosis of iMCD in patients with TAFRO can be challenging to make, iMCD should remain high on the differential diagnosis. Similar to iMCD, the pathophysiology of TAFRO is not well understood but is thought to be related to hypercytokinemia, with interleukin (IL)-6 playing a pivotal role. Anti-IL-6 monoclonal antibody therapy is an effective treatment modality for iMCD, but to date, there is no clear guidance on treatment of TAFRO in the absence of definitive diagnosis of iMCD, leading to suboptimal management and high morbidity. We report a case of TAFRO syndrome and demonstrate benefit with the empiric use of anti-IL-6 antibody therapy in the context of delayed diagnosis of iMCD.

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

PURPOSE Burkitt lymphoma (BL) has unique biology and clinical course but lacks a standardized prognostic model. We developed and validated a novel prognostic index specific for BL to aid risk stratification, interpretation of clinical trials, and targeted development of novel treatment approaches. METHODS We derived the BL International Prognostic Index (BL-IPI) from a real-world data set of adult patients with BL treated with immunochemotherapy in the United States between 2009 and 2018, identifying candidate variables that showed the strongest prognostic association with progression-free survival (PFS). The index was validated in an external data set of patients treated in Europe, Canada, and Australia between 2004 and 2019. RESULTS In the derivation cohort of 633 patients with BL, age ≥ 40 years, performance status ≥ 2, serum lactate dehydrogenase > 3× upper limit of normal, and CNS involvement were selected as equally weighted factors with an independent prognostic value. The resulting BL-IPI identified groups with low (zero risk factors, 18% of patients), intermediate (one factor, 36% of patients), and high risk (≥ 2 factors, 46% of patients) with 3-year PFS estimates of 92%, 72%, and 53%, respectively, and 3-year overall survival estimates of 96%, 76%, and 59%, respectively. The index discriminated outcomes regardless of HIV status, stage, or first-line chemotherapy regimen. Patient characteristics, relative size of the BL-IPI groupings, and outcome discrimination were consistent in the validation cohort of 457 patients, with 3-year PFS estimates of 96%, 82%, and 63% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk BL-IPI, respectively. CONCLUSION The BL-IPI provides robust discrimination of survival in adult BL, suitable for use as prognostication and stratification in trials. The high-risk group has suboptimal outcomes with standard therapy and should be considered for innovative treatment approaches.

Central nervous system (CNS) involvement in Burkitt lymphoma (BL) poses a major therapeutic challenge, and the relative ability of contemporary regimens to treat CNS involvement remains uncertain. We described prognostic significance of CNS involvement and incidence of CNS recurrence/progression after contemporary immunochemotherapy using real-world clinicopathologic data on adults with BL diagnosed between 2009 and 2018 across 30 US institutions. We examined associations between baseline CNS involvement, patient characteristics, complete response (CR) rates, and survival. We also examined risk factors for CNS recurrence. Nineteen percent (120/641) of patients (age 18-88 years) had CNS involvement. It was independently associated with HIV infection, poor performance status, involvement of ≥2 extranodal sites, or bone marrow involvement. First-line regimen selection was unaffected by CNS involvement (P=0.93). Patients with CNS disease had significantly lower rates of CR (59% versus 77% without; P

Background: The rapid global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), remains the international public health concern of the decade. Early clinical data suggest that patients (pts) with hematologic malignancies are vulnerable to severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 and have higher mortality rates than the general population. Greater understanding of risk factors and outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 in pts with hematologic malignancies is crucial in order to develop individualized risk-benefit analyses to guide care. Herein, we report a cohort study from a Comprehensive Cancer Center evaluating outcomes in pts with hematologic malignancies who developed SARS-CoV-2. Methods: Adult pts at Northwestern Memorial Hospital with a current/prior hematologic malignancy and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by quantitative RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs between March-July, 2020 were identified using electronic health records. Data were collected and analyzed based on epidemiologic, laboratory, and clinical characteristics. Severity of illness was defined by level of care (ambulatory, inpatient), need for advanced respiratory support (high flow nasal cannula, BiPAP, mechanical ventilation), incidence of thrombotic events, incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and/or death. Statistical analyses of risk factors, severity, and outcomes were performed. Subgroup analyses based on antineoplastic treatment status and receipt of SARS-CoV-2 -directed therapy were made. Active cancer treatment was defined as antineoplastic therapy within 12 months of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Results: Demographic (Table 1) and clinical (Table 2) data were recorded from 73 SARS-CoV-2 infected pts. Sixty (80%) pts had lymphoid and 15 (20%) had myeloid neoplasms, 2 with concurrent lymphoid and myeloid neoplasms. Thirty-seven (51%) pts were undergoing active treatment for their malignancy. Twenty-one pts (29%) were managed in the ambulatory setting while 52 (71%) required hospital admission. Twenty-five (34%) pts required advanced respiratory support including 14 (19%) who required mechanical ventilation. Four pts (6%) had thrombotic events and 31 (42%) received SARS-CoV-2-directed therapies. Sixteen pts (22%) died during the study period. Pts on active cancer treatment had higher rates of hospital admission (81% v 60%; p=0.05) and AKI (51% v 29%; p=0.04) but similar rates of death compared with pts not on active treatment (24% v 20%; p=0.66) (Table 3). Comparing pts who received SARS-CoV-2 -directed therapy versus no therapy: pts on therapy had longer median lengths of stay (11 v 7 days; p=0.04) and higher rates of hospital admission (94% v 55%; p=0.0003) but similar rates of death (23% v 21%; p=0.91); pts in the ICU on SARS-COV-2 -directed therapy had lower rates of death (38% v 88% p=0.02) than pts who did not receive such therapy (Table 4). Twenty-six pts (36%) were tested for viral clearance, defined as two serial negative swabs ≥24 hours apart. Of these, 17 (65%) achieved clearance with a median time of 51 days (range 15-119 days). Thirteen pts (18%) had antibody (Ab) testing. Ten (77%) had detectable Abs: 8 were positive for IgG, 1 for IgG and IgM, and 1 had unspecified positivity. Notably, all 3 pts with undetectable Abs were on active cancer treatment. Conclusion: We demonstrate that pts with hematologic malignancies are exceptionally vulnerable to severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 with high mortality rates. The incidence of thrombotic events was low, an unexpected finding in the setting of a hyperinflammatory syndrome. Prolonged time to viral clearance was observed, a finding which may cause potential delays in the resumption of cancer-directed therapies. Notably, the majority of pts who received antibody testing had detectable antibodies suggesting that pts with hematologic malignancies may be able to mount an immune response to early vaccination. Accordingly, close monitoring, aggressive therapy, and early vaccination, when available, may be warranted for this population. Larger studies are needed to confirm our findings and help guide management of pts with hematologic malignancies during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Disclosures Altman: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Syros: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Amphivena: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Fujifilm: Research Funding; Kartos: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board - no payment accepted, Research Funding; BioSight: Other: No payment but was reimbursed for travel , Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board - no payment but was reimbursed for travel; Agios: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety and monitoring committee; Astellas: Other: Advisory Board, Speaker (no payment), Steering Committee (no payment), Research Funding; Theradex: Other: Advisory Board; ASH: Consultancy; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; France Foundation: Consultancy; PeerView: Consultancy; PrIME Oncology: Consultancy. Winter:Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: DSMB; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy; Norvartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board. Gordon:Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No Royalties. Pro:Verastem Oncology: Research Funding. Ma:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bioverativ: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Karmali:BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau.

Background. BL is a rare, high-grade B-cell lymphoma that is often studied in trials with small sample sizes. Historical definitions of "low-risk BL" vary between studies, use arbitrary cutoffs for lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and identify a small favorable group, leaving >80-90% of patients (pts) in an undifferentiated "high-risk" category. A validated prognostic index will help compare study cohorts and better define good-prognosis pts for whom reduced treatment would be appropriate vs a poor-prognosis group in need of new approaches. Herein, we constructed and validated a simplified prognostic model for BL applicable to diverse clinical settings across the world. Methods. We derived the BL-IPI from a large real-world evidence cohort of US adults treated for BL in 2009-2018 (Evens A, Blood 2020). Progression-free survival (PFS) from diagnosis until BL recurrence, progression, death, or censoring was the primary outcome. We first determined the best prognostic cutoffs for age, LDH (normalized to local upper limit normal, ULN), hemoglobin (Hgb), and albumin. Independent risk factors were ascertained by forward stepwise selection into Cox regression from candidate variables: age, sex, HIV+ status, ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, advanced stage (3/4), involvement of >1 extranodal site, bone marrow, central nervous system (CNS), values of LDH, Hgb, and albumin. Derivation models used multiple imputation to mitigate bias from missing data and reported hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). BL-IPI groups, defined by inspection of survival curves, were compared using log-rank test for trend. We validated performance of the BL-IPI in an external retrospective dataset of BL pts treated contemporaneously in centers from the United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Canada, and Australia. Results. Characteristics of pts in the derivation (N= 633) and validation (N=457) cohorts are shown in the Table. Age ≥40 years (yr), LDH >3xULN, Hgb 3xULN, low Hgb, and low albumin were associated with inferior PFS in univariate tests. In the multivariable model age ≥40 yr, LDH >3xULN, PS ≥2, and CNS involvement were selected as 4 independent prognostic factors; adding stage did not enhance the model. The model was simplified to 3 groups with 0 (low risk; 18% of pts), 1 (intermediate risk; 36% of pts; HR=3.14; 95%CI, 1.61-6.14), or 2-4 factors (high risk; 46% of pts; HR=6.52; 95%CI, 3.48-12.20; Fig A) with 3 yr PFS of 92%, 72%, and 53%, respectively (P Among pts with stage III/IV (historically classified as "high-risk" and constituting 78% of all pts in the cohort), the BL-IPI further discriminated subgroups with 3 yr PFS of 87%, 71%, and 52%, respectively (P In the international validation cohort, fewer pts had CNS involvement; most received CODOX-M/IVAC+R; and PFS/OS estimates at 3 yr were higher. BL-IPI categories were of similar size (low-risk 15%, intermediate-risk 35%, high-risk 50%), and provided similar risk discrimination (Harrell's C=.65 in both datasets). PFS at 3 yr was 96%, 82%, and 63%, respectively (P Conclusions. BL-IPI is a novel prognostic index specific to BL, which was validated to allow for simplified stratification and comparison of risk distribution in geographically diverse cohorts. The index identified a low-risk group with PFS >90-95%, which could be targeted with future strategies for treatment de-escalation. Conversely, only about 55-60% of pts in the high-risk group achieved cure with currently available immunochemotherapy. Disclosures Olszewski: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding. Jakobsen:Takeda: Honoraria. Collins:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Taekda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses , Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding. Cwynarski:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Atara: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau. Bachanova:Incyte: Research Funding; Karyopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; FATE: Research Funding; Kite: 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. Danilov:Abbvie: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Nurix: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Diefenbach:Trillium: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding. Epperla:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Farooq:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Feldman:Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gerrie:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy. Jagadeesh:Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Debiopharm Group: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kamdar:BMS: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Karmali:Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Khan:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Klein:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lossos:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; NCI: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other. Lunning:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Martin:I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy. Martinex-Calle:Abbvie: Other: Travel grant. Naik:Celgene: Other: advisory board; Sanofi: Other: advisory board. Palmisiano:Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Phillips:Beigene: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding. Phillips:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: travel expenses; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy. Portell:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Reddy:Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; KITE Pharma: Consultancy. Yazdy:Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Honoraria. Smith:Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Ayala: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Ignyta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; De Novo Biopharma: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Cheah:Celgene, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbvie, MSD: Research Funding; Celgene, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, MSD, Janssen, Gilead, Ascentage Pharma, Acerta, Loxo Oncology, TG therapeutics: Honoraria. El-Galaly:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Evens:Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Disease relapse is the most common cause of therapy failure in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) undergoing reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). It is not known whether or not increasing total body irradiation (TBI) dose from 2 to 4 Gy in a RIC platform can provide improved disease control without increasing nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Using the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we evaluated the outcomes of patients with NHL receiving RIC allo-HCT with either fludarabine (Flu)/2-Gy TBI versus Flu/4-Gy TBI. In the CIBMTR registry, 413 adult patients with NHL underwent a first allo-HCT using either a matched related or unrelated donor between 2008 and 2017, using a RIC regimen with either Flu/2-Gy TBI (n = 349) or Flu/4-Gy TBI (n = 64). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included acute (a) and chronic (c) graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), NRM, relapse/progression, and progression-free survival (PFS). At baseline, the Flu/2-Gy TBI cohort had significantly fewer patients with Karnofsky performance status ≥90 and significantly more patients had a higher HCT-comorbidity index. On multivariate analysis, the 2 conditioning cohorts were not significantly different in terms of risk of grade 3 to 4 aGVHD or cGVHD. Compared to Flu/2-Gy TBI, the Flu/4-Gy TBI conditioning was associated with a significantly higher risk of NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 2.89; P = .02) and inferior OS (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.23, P = .03). No significant differences were seen in the risk of relapse/progression (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.29, P = .33) or PFS (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.54, P = .61) between the 2 regimens. Comparing Flu/2-Gy TBI versus Flu/4-Gy TBI cohorts, the 5-year adjusted outcomes were NRM (28% versus 47%; P = .005), relapse/progression (35% versus 29%; P = .28), PFS (37% versus 24%; P = .03), and OS (51% versus 31%; P = .001), respectively. Relapse was the most common cause of death in both cohorts. In patients with NHL undergoing Flu/TB I-based conditioning, augmenting TBI dose from 2 to 4 Gy is associated with higher NRM and inferior OS, without any significant benefit in terms of disease control. The optimal dose is 2-Gy in the RIC Flu/TBI platform for lymphomas.

Atypical response patterns following immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) led to the concept of continuation of treatment beyond progression (TBP); however, the longitudinal benefit of this approach is unclear. We therefore performed a retrospective analysis of 64 patients treated with ICB; 20 who received TBP (TBP cohort) and 44 who stopped ICB at initial progression (non-TBP cohort). The TBP cohort received ICB for a median of 4.7 months after initial progression and delayed subsequent treatment by a median of 6.6 months. Despite receiving more prior lines of therapy, the TBP cohort achieved longer progression-free survival with post-ICB treatment (median, 17.5 months vs. 6.1 months, p = .035) and longer time-to-subsequent treatment failure, defined as time from initial ICB progression to failure of subsequent treatment (median, 34.6 months vs. 9.9 months, p = .003). With the limitations of a retrospective study, these results support the clinical benefit of TBP with ICB for selected patients.

Prophylaxis is commonly used to prevent central nervous sy stem (CNS) relapse in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with no clear standard of care. We retrospectively evaluated 1162 adult patients across 21 US academic centers with DLBCL or similar histologies who received single-route CNS prophylaxis as part of frontline therapy between 2013 and 2019. Prophylaxis was administered intrathecally(IT) in 894 (77%) and using systemic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in 236 (20%); 32 patients (3%) switched route due to toxicity and were assessed separately. By CNS-International Prognostic Index (IPI), 18% were considered low-risk, 51% moderate, and 30% high. Double-hit lymphoma (DHL) was confirmed in 243 of 866 evaluable patients (21%). Sixty-four patients (5.7%) had CNS relapse after median 7.1 months from diagnosis, including 15 of 64 (23%) within the first 6 months. There was no significant difference in CNS relapse between IT and HD-MTX recipients (5.4% vs 6.8%, P = .4), including after propensity score matching to account for differences between respective recipient groups. Weighting by CNS-IPI, expected vs observed CNS relapse rates were nearly identical (5.8% vs 5.7%). Testicular involvement was associated with high risk of CNS relapse (11.3%) despite most having lower CNS-IPI scores. DHL did not significantly predict for CNS relapse after single-route prophylaxis, including with adjustment for treatment regimen and other factors. This large study of CNS prophylaxis recipients with DLBCL found no significant difference in CNS relapse rates between routes of administration. Relapse rates among high-risk subgroups remain elevated, and reconsideration of prophylaxis strategies in DLBCL is of critical need.

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

Histiocytic neoplasms are rare hematologic disorders accounting for less than 1% of cancers of the soft tissue and lymph nodes. Clinical presentation and prognosis of these disorders can be highly variable, leading to challenges for diagnosis and optimal management of these patients. Treatment often consists of systemic therapy, and recent studies support use of targeted therapies for patients with these disorders. Observation (“watch and wait”) may be sufficient for select patients with mild disease. These NCCN Guidelines for Histiocytic Neoplasms include recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of adults with the most common histiocytic disorders: Langerhans cell histiocytosis, Erdheim-Chester disease, and Rosai-Dorfman disease.

Treatment strategies for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) consist of response-adapted risk-stratified methods using immunosuppression reduction, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy. We investigated the efficacy of Brentuximab vedotin given concurrently with Rituximab (BV + R) once weekly for four weeks, followed by optional consolidation, and up to one year of maintenance. Among 20 assessable patients, BV + R therapy resulted in an overall response rate of 75% (95% CI 51 to 91, p = 0.044) with 60% achieving a complete response. Median time to best response was 28 days. Two-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 75 and 90%, respectively. Most common severe grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities included neutropenia (40%), hypertension (30%), infection (25%), and peripheral neuropathy (15%). BV + R is a novel and effective therapeutic strategy that achieved rapid and durable remissions in previously untreated PTLD patients; however, this treatment platform requires further modification due to the high rates of treatment-related toxicity.Key pointsBrentuximab vedotin + Rituximab showed ORR and CR rates of 75 and 60% in patients with immunosuppression-associated lymphoid malignanciesHigh rates of treatment delay were attributed to treatment-related toxicity; further dosing optimization of this regimen is required.

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

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma featuring overexpression of MYC and B-Cell Lymphoma 2 (double expressor lymphoma, DEL) is associated with poor outcomes. Existing evidence suggesting improved outcomes for DEL with the use of more intensive regimens than R-CHOP is restricted to younger patients and based on limited evidence from low patient numbers. We retrospectively evaluated the impact of intensive frontline regimens versus R-CHOP in a multicenter analysis across 7 academic medical centers in the United States. We collected 90 cases of DEL, 46 out of 90 patients (51%) received R-CHOP and 44/90 (49%) received an intensive regimen, which was predominantly DA-EPOCH-R. Treatment cohorts were evenly balanced for demographics and disease characteristics, though the intensive group had a higher lactate dehydrogenase (LDH, 326 vs. 230 U/L p = 0.06) and presence of B-symptoms (50% vs. 22%, p = 0.01) compared to the R-CHOP cohort. There was no difference in PFS (median 53 vs. 38 months, p = 0.49) or overall survival (67 vs. not reached months, p = 0.14) between the R-CHOP and intensive therapy cohorts, respectively. On multivariate analysis, intensive therapy was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.35 (95% CI 0.74-7.41), though this was not statistically significant. Additionally, a subgroup analysis of intermediate high-risk lymphoma defined by IPI ≥3 did not identify a difference in survival outcomes between regimens. We conclude that in our multi-center cohort there is no evidence supporting the use of intensive regimens over R-CHOP, suggesting that R-CHOP remains the standard of care for treating DEL.

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.

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

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 Salvage immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation is the standard-of-care second-line treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after first-line R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). Outcomes after receipt of second-line immunochemotherapy in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas who relapse or are refractory to intensive first-line immunochemotherapy regimens (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab [R-EPOCH], rituximab, hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone alternating with methotrexate and cytarabine [R-HyperCVAD], rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate alternating with ifosfamide, etoposide, and cytarabine [R-CODOX-M/IVAC]) remain unknown. METHODS Outcomes of patients with non-Burkitt, aggressive B-cell lymphomas and relapsed/refractory disease after first-line treatment with intensive immunochemotherapy regimens who received platinum-based second-line immunochemotherapy were reviewed retrospectively. Analyses were performed to determine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of receipt of second-line immunochemotherapy. RESULTS In total, 195 patients from 19 academic centers were included in the study. The overall response rate to second-line immunochemotherapy was 44%, with a median PFS of 3 months and a median OS of 8 months. Patients with early treatment failure (primary refractory or relapse

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) transformed from follicular lymphoma (FL) (tDLBCL) has been traditionally associated with an aggressive course, but more recent studies have shown longer survivals. The clinical significance of concurrent FL at the time of diagnosis of DLBCL (cDLBCL/FL) is less clear. We compared outcomes of tDLBCL, cDLBCL/FL, and

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

IMPORTANCE: Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) requires induction and consolidation to achieve potential cure. High-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT) is an accepted and effective consolidation strategy for PCNSL, but no consensus exists on the optimal conditioning regimens. OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes in patients with PCNSL undergoing AHCT with the 3 most commonly used conditioning regimens: thiotepa/busulfan/cyclophosphamide (TBC), thiotepa/carmustine (TT-BCNU), and carmustine/etoposide/cytarabine/melphalan (BEAM). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This observational cohort study used registry data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry. The Center is a working group of more than 380 transplantation centers worldwide that contributed detailed data on HCT to a statistical center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. The participant data were from 603 adult patients with PCNSL who underwent AHCT as initial, or subsequent, consolidation between January 2010 and December 2018. Patients were excluded if they had a non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype other than diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, systemic non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or HIV; received an uncommon conditioning regimen; or were not in partial remission or complete remission prior to AHCT. Statistical analysis was performed from July 5, 2020, to March 1, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received 1 of 3 conditioning regimens: TBC (n = 263), TT-BCNU (n = 275), and BEAM (n = 65). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes included hematopoietic recovery, incidence of relapse, nonrelapse mortality, and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 603 patients, the mean age was 57 (range, 19-77) years and 318 (53%) were male. The 3-year adjusted progression-free survival rates were higher in the TBC cohort (75%) and TT-BCNU cohort (76%) compared with the BEAM cohort (58%) (P = .03) owing to a higher relapse risk in the BEAM cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 4.34; 95% CI, 2.45-7.70; P

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a curative therapy for relapsed/refractory and high-risk non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, no large studies have evaluated allo-HCT utilization in elderly NHL patients (≥65 years). Using the CIBMTR registry, we report a time-trend analysis of 727 NHL patients (≥65 years) undergoing the first allo-HCT from 2000 to 2015 in the United States (US). Study cohorts were divided by time period: 2000-2005 (N = 76) vs. 2006-2010 (N = 238) vs. 2011-2015 (N = 413). Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), relapse/progression (R/P), and non-relapse mortality (NRM). Median age at transplant, use of reduced-intensity conditioning, and graft source remained stable, while use of unrelated donors increased in the most current era. The 1-year probabilities of NRM from 2000 to 2005 vs. 2006-2010 vs. 2011-2015 were 24% vs. 19% vs. 21%, respectively (p = 0.67). Four-year probability of R/P was similar among the three cohorts: 48% (2000-2005), 40% (2006-2010), and 40% (2011-2015) (p = 0.39). The 4-year probabilities of PFS and OS (2000-2005 vs. 2006-2010 vs. 2011-2015) showed significantly improved outcomes in more recent time periods: 17% vs. 31% vs. 30% (p = 0.02) and 21% vs. 42% vs. 44% (p 0.001), respectively. Utilization of allo-HCT increased in elderly NHL patients in the US since 2000 with improving survival outcomes.

Primary GI lymphomas of B cell origin are a diverse group of lymphomas. In this article, we provide an overview of the diagnosis, pathologic and molecular features, and management of these varied lymphomas. The most common primary GI lymphomas are diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and marginal zone lymphomas (MZL), but follicular lymphomas (FL), mantle cell lymphomas (MCL), post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD), and Burkitt lymphoma of the GI tract also occur. Many features of these lymphomas are similar to their nodal counterparts, but certain clinical and biological aspects are unique. Diagnostic and treatment strategies for these lymphomas continue to evolve over time. There are ongoing discoveries about the unique pathophysiology, molecular characteristics, and complications of primary B cell GI lymphomas that are already leading to improvements in management of this histologically diverse set of lymphomas.

Pembrolizumab, a humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody targeting programmed death-1 protein, has demonstrated efficacy in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). To assess the complete metabolic response (CMR) rate and safety of pembrolizumab monotherapy in newly diagnosed cHL, we conducted a multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 investigator-initiated trial of sequential pembrolizumab and doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) chemotherapy. Patients ≥18 years of age with untreated, early, unfavorable, or advanced-stage disease were eligible for treatment. Thirty patients (early unfavorable stage, n = 12; advanced stage, n = 18) were treated with 3 cycles of pembrolizumab monotherapy followed by AVD for 4 to 6 cycles, depending on stage and bulk. Twelve had either large mediastinal masses or bulky disease (>10 cm). After pembrolizumab monotherapy, 11 patients (37%) demonstrated CMRs, and an additional 7 of 28 (25%) patients with quantifiable positron emission tomography computed tomography scans had >90% reduction in metabolic tumor volume. All patients achieved CMR after 2 cycles of AVD and maintained their responses at the end of treatment. With a median follow-up of 22.5 months (range, 14.2-30.6) there were no changes in therapy, progressions, or deaths. No patients received consolidation radiotherapy, including those with bulky disease. Therapy was well tolerated. The most common immune-related adverse events were grade 1 rash (n = 6) and grade 2 infusion reactions (n = 4). One patient had reversible grade 4 transaminitis and a second had reversible Bell’s palsy. Brief pembrolizumab monotherapy followed by AVD was both highly effective and safe in patients with newly diagnosed cHL, including those with bulky disease. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03226249.

Data addressing prognostication in patients with HIV related Burkitt lymphoma (HIV-BL) currently treated remain scarce. We present an international analysis of 249 (United States: 140; United Kingdom: 109) patients with HIV-BL treated from 2008 to 2019 aiming to identify prognostic factors and outcomes. With a median follow up of 4.5 years, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 61% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55% to 67%) and 66% (95%CI 59% to 71%), respectively, with similar results in both countries. Patients with baseline central nervous system (CNS) involvement had shorter 3-year PFS (36%) compared to patients without CNS involvement (69%; P < .001) independent of frontline treatment. The incidence of CNS recurrence at 3 years across all treatments was 11% with a higher incidence observed after dose-adjusted infusional etoposide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, cyclophosphamide (DA-EPOCH) (subdistribution hazard ratio: 2.52; P = .03 vs other regimens) without difference by CD4 count 100/mm3. In multivariate models, factors independently associated with inferior PFS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 2-4 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87; P = .007), baseline CNS involvement (HR 1.70; P = .023), lactate dehydrogenase >5 upper limit of normal (HR 2.09; P < .001); and >1 extranodal sites (HR 1.58; P = .043). The same variables were significant in multivariate models for OS. Adjusting for these prognostic factors, treatment with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate, ifosfamide, etoposide, and high-dose cytarabine (CODOX-M/IVAC) was associated with longer PFS (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.45; P = .005) and OS (aHR 0.44; P = .007). Remarkably, HIV features no longer influence prognosis in contemporaneously treated HIV-BL.

Summary Background Recognising that the immune suppressive microenvironment promotes tumour growth in Hodgkin lymphoma, we hypothesised that activating immunity might augment the activity of targeted chemotherapy. We evaluated the safety and activity of combinations of brentuximab vedotin with nivolumab or ipilimumab, or both in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial, patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma aged 18 years or older who had relapsed after at least one line of therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and adequate organ and marrow function, with no pulmonary dysfunction were eligible for inclusion. Phase 1 primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose limiting toxicities of brentuximab vedotin combined with ipilimumab (ipilimumab group), nivolumab (nivolumab group), or both (triplet therapy group) using a 3 + 3 dose escalation design with expansion cohorts. During the dose escalation phase, patients were enrolled sequentially into one of six cohorts: in the ipilimumab group fixed brentuximab vedotin 1·8 mg/kg with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (cohort A) or 3 mg/kg (cohort B); in the nivolumab group fixed nivolumab 3 mg/kg with brentuximab vedotin 1·2 mg/kg (cohort D) or 1·8 mg/kg (cohort E); and in the triplet therapy group fixed nivolumab 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg with brentuximab vedotin 1·2 mg/kg (cohort G) or 1·8 mg/kg (cohort H). Additional patients were enrolled in the expansion phase at the same doses of cohorts B, E, and H. All drugs were given intravenously; brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab were given every 3 weeks, ipilimumab was given every 6 weeks in the ipilimumab group and every 12 weeks in the triplet therapy group. All eligible and treated patients were included in the analysis. This phase 1/2 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01896999 . The phase 2, randomised portion of the trial is still enrolling. Findings Between March 7, 2014, and Dec 28, 2017, 64 patients were enrolled; two patients in the ipilimumab group and one patient in the nivolumab group were excluded due to ineligibility after enrolment and 61 were evaluable. A total of six dose limiting toxicities were reported in four patients, and the doses used in cohorts B, E, and H were established as maximum tolerated doses and patients were subsequently enrolled onto expansion cohorts (C, F, and I) with these schedules. There were ten (43%) grade 3–4 treatment related adverse events in the ipilimumab group, three (16%) in the nivolumab group, and 11 (50%) in the triplet therapy group including: eight (13%) of 64 patients reporting rash, and colitis, gastritis, pancreatitis and arthritis, and diabetic ketoacidosis each occurring in one (2%) patient. There were two (3%) treatment related deaths, one in the nivolumab group and one in the triplet therapy group. The overall response rate was 76% (95% CI 53–92) in the ipilimumab group, 89% (65–99) in the nivolumab group, and 82% (60–95) in the triplet therapy group, and the complete response rate was 57% (95% CI 34–78%) in the ipilimumab group, 61% (36–83%) in the nivolumab group, and 73% (50–89%) in the triplet therapy group. With a median follow-up of 2·6 years (IQR 1·8–2·9) in the ipilimumab group, 2·4 years (2·2–2·6) in the nivolumab group, and 1·7 years (1·6–1·9) in the triplet therapy group, median progression-free survival is 1·2 years (95% CI 1·7–not reached) in the ipilimumab group, but was not reached in the other two treatment groups. Median overall survival has not been reached in any of the groups. Interpretation There are clear differences in activity and toxicity of the three combination regimens. The tolerability and preliminary activity for the two most active regimens, brentuximab vedotin with nivolumab and the triplet therapy, are being compared in a randomised phase 2 trial ( NCT01896999 ). Funding Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group–American College of Radiology Imaging Network and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health.

Background Targeted therapies and checkpoint blockade therapy (CBT) have shown efficacy for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in the relapsed and refractory (R/R) setting, but once discontinued due to progression or side effects, it is unclear how successful further therapies will be. Moreover, there is no data on optimal sequencing of these treatments with standard therapies and other novel agents. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis we investigated whether exposure to CBT could sensitize HL to subsequent therapy. Materials and methods Seventeen centers across the US and Canada retrospectively queried medical records for eligible patients. The primary aim was to evaluate the overall response rate (ORR) to post-CBT treatment using the Lugano criteria. Secondary aims included progression free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS). Results Eighty-one patients were included. Seventy-two percent had stage 3-4 disease, and the population was heavily pretreated with a median of 4 therapies before CBT. Most patients (65%) discontinued CBT due to progression. The ORR to post-CBT therapy was 62%, with a median PFS of 6.3 months and median OS of 21 months. Post-CBT treatment regimens consisted of chemotherapy (44%), targeted agents (19%), immunotherapy (15%), transplant conditioning (14%), chemotherapy/targeted combination (7%), and clinical trials (1%). No significant difference in OS was found when stratified by post-CBT regimen. Conclusion In a heavily pretreated R/R HL population, CBT may sensitize patients to subsequent treatment, even after progression on CBT. Post-CBT regimen category did not impact OS. This may be a novel treatment strategy, which warrants further investigation in prospective clinical trials. Implications for practice Relapsed and refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) presents a clinical challenge, and better treatment strategies are greatly desired to prevent these patients from ultimately succumbing to their disease. The results of this multicenter analysis concur with a smaller, earlier report that checkpoint blockade therapy usage in R/R HL may sensitize patients their subsequent treatment. This approach may potentially be used to extend the number of options patients have or to bridge them to transplant. Prospective data is warranted prior to practice implementation. As more work is done in this area, we may also be able to optimize sequencing of CBT and novel agents in the treatment paradigm to minimize treatment-related toxicity and thus improve patient quality of life.

Purpose: TAK-659 is an investigational, dual SYK/FLT3 inhibitor with preclinical activity in B-cell malignancy models. This first-in-human, dose-escalation/expansion study aimed to determine the safety, tolerability, MTD/recommended phase II dose (RP2D), and preliminary efficacy of TAK-659 in relapsed/refractory solid tumors and B-cell lymphomas. Patients and Methods: Patients received continuous, once-daily oral TAK-659, 60–120 mg in 28-day cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The study applied an accelerated dose-escalation design to determine the MTD and RP2D. In the expansion phase, patients with lymphoma were enrolled in five disease cohorts at the MTD. Results: Overall, 105 patients were enrolled [dose escalation, n = 36 (solid tumors, n = 19; lymphoma, n = 17); expansion, n = 69]. The MTD was 100 mg once daily. TAK-659 absorption was fast (Tmax ∼2 hours) with a long terminal half-life (∼37 hours). Exposure generally increased with dose (60–120 mg), with moderate variability. The most common treatment-related adverse events were generally asymptomatic and reversible elevations in clinical laboratory values. Among 43 response-evaluable patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 8 (19%) achieved a complete response (CR) with an overall response rate (ORR) of 28% [23% intent-to-treat (ITT)]. Responses were seen in both de novo and transformed disease and appeared independent of cell-of-origin classification. Among 9 response-evaluable patients with follicular lymphoma, 2 (22%) achieved CR with an ORR of 89% (57% ITT). Conclusions: TAK-659 has single-agent activity in patients with B-cell lymphoma. Further studies of the drug in combination, including an evaluation of the biologically optimal and safest long-term dose and schedule, are warranted.

We examined adults with untreated Burkitt lymphoma (BL) from 2009 to 2018 across 30 US cancer centers. Factors associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in univariate and multivariate Cox models. Among 641 BL patients, baseline features included the following: median age, 47 years; HIV+, 22%; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2 to 4, 23%; >1 extranodal site, 43%; advanced stage, 78%; and central nervous system (CNS) involvement, 19%. Treatment-related mortality was 10%, with most common causes being sepsis, gastrointestinal bleed/perforation, and respiratory failure. With 45-month median follow-up, 3-year PFS and OS rates were 64% and 70%, respectively, without differences by HIV status. Survival was better for patients who received rituximab vs not (3-year PFS, 67% vs 38%; OS, 72% vs 44%; P < .001) and without difference based on setting of administration (ie, inpatient vs outpatient). Outcomes were also improved at an academic vs community cancer center (3-year PFS, 67% vs 46%, P = .006; OS, 72% vs 53%, P = .01). In multivariate models, age ≥ 40 years (PFS, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.70, P = .001; OS, HR = 2.09, P < .001), ECOG PS 2 to 4 (PFS, HR = 1.60, P < .001; OS, HR = 1.74, P = .003), lactate dehydrogenase > 3× normal (PFS, HR = 1.83, P < .001; OS, HR = 1.63, P = .009), and CNS involvement (PFS, HR = 1.52, P = .017; OS, HR = 1.67, P = .014) predicted inferior survival. Furthermore, survival varied based on number of factors present (0, 1, 2 to 4 factors) yielding 3-year PFS rates of 91%, 73%, and 50%, respectively; and 3-year OS rates of 95%, 77%, and 56%, respectively. Collectively, outcomes for adult BL in this real-world analysis appeared more modest compared with results of clinical trials and smaller series. In addition, clinical prognostic factors at diagnosis identified patients with divergent survival rates.

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.

Metformin exerts direct anti-tumor effects by activating AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), a major sensor of cellular metabolism in cancer cells. This, in turn, inhibits pro-survival mTOR signaling. Metformin has also been shown to disrupt complex 1 of the mitochondrial electron transport chain. Here, we explored the lymphoma specific anti-tumor effects of metformin using Daudi (Burkitt), SUDHL-4 (germinal center diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; GC DLBCL), Jeko-1 (Mantle-cell lymphoma; MCL) and KPUM-UH1 (double hit DLBCL) cell lines. We demonstrated that metformin as a single agent, especially at high concentrations produced significant reductions in viability and proliferation only in Daudi and SUDHL-4 cell lines with associated alterations in mitochondrial oxidative and glycolytic metabolism. As bcl-2 proteins, cyclin dependent kinases (CDK) and phosphoinositol-3- kinase (PI3K) also influence mitochondrial physiology and metabolism with clear relevance to the pathogenesis of lymphoma, we investigated the potentiating effects of metformin when combined with novel agents Venetoclax (bcl-2 inhibitor), BAY-1143572 (CDK9 inhibitor) and Idelalisib (p110δ- PI3K inhibitor). Co-treating KPUM-UH1 and SUDHL-4 cells with 10 mM of metformin resulted in 1.4 fold and 8.8 fold decreases, respectively, in IC-50 values of Venetoclax. By contrast, 3-fold and 10 fold reduction in IC-50 values of BAY-1143572 in Daudi and Jeko-1 cells respectively was seen in the presence of 10 mM of metformin. No change in IC-50 value for Idelalisib was observed across cell lines. These data suggest that although metformin is not a potent single agent, targeting cancer metabolism with similar but more effective drugs in novel combination with either bcl-2 or CDK9 inhibitors warrants further exploration.

Background With the introduction of the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, the outcome of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) has greatly improved over the last two decades. First-line prolonged rituximab monotherapy is effective, achieving long-term remission and prolonged failure-free survival in some patients. Additionally, rituximab has been shown to synergize with chemotherapeutic and novel targeted agents alike with measurable gains in duration of response. As such, rituximab has made its mark in the treatment of FL and remains a valid agent despite the availability of newer monoclonal antibodies. This review summarizes the evolving role of rituximab as the first available anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, emphasizing its clear activity as a single agent and in combination with chemotherapy or molecular targeted agents, and setting the standard for the development of new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. Conclusion We provide data that support the ongoing use of rituximab as a therapeutic partner for novel agents in future clinical trials exploring chemotherapy-free alternatives.

Background: DLBCL is highly heterogeneous in underlying biology and clinical behavior. Several high-risk disease features and poor prognostic factors are associated with a higher propensity for refractory disease or relapse after standard R-CHOP therapy; these subset patients require novel strategies to improve upon outcomes. Single-agent TAK-659, a novel oral SYK inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in heavily pre-treated DLBCL (Gordon et al., Clin Cancer Res, 2020). We report results of a phase I single institution, single arm dose escalation study that assessed safety of 1 st line treatment with R-CHOP and adjunctive TAK-659 for treatment naïve high-risk DLBCL. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years, ECOG 0-2 with untreated stage I-IV DLBCL with high-risk features defined as, ABC/non-GCB subtype, high-intermediate or high-risk NCCN-IPI (score ≥4), MYC gene rearranged by FISH including double hit lymphoma (DHL), double expressing DLBCL (DEL; overexpression of MYC ≥40% AND BCL2 ≥50% by IHC respectively), or previously treated transformed low-grade lymphoma without prior exposure to anthracycline, were eligible. Patients were treated with R-CHOP for 1 cycle on or off study followed by combined treatment with R-CHOP and TAK-659 for an additional 5 cycles on study. TAK-659 was dosed daily with dosing escalated from 60mg (dose level 1), to 80mg (dose level 2) to 100mg (dose level 3) based on a 3+3 design. The primary objective was to determine the safety and establish the maximum tolerated dose of TAK-659 when combined with R-CHOP in the front-line treatment of high-risk DLBCL. Secondary objectives were to assess preliminary efficacy of this combination as determined by overall response rate (ORR) by PET-CT (Lugano 2014 criteria), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and establish the pharmacokinetics of TAK-659 according to dose. Results: 12 pts were enrolled from Dec 2019 to Nov 2021. The median age was 64 yrs (range 25-75); 8 (67%) had stage III/IV disease, 4 (33%) with high risk NCCN-IPI ≥ 4. Histology included 7 (58%) with de novo DLBCL (4 GCB, 3 non-GCB subtype DLBCL) including 7 (58%) with DEL, 3 (25%) with transformed FL, 1 (8%) with Richter's and 1 (8%) with DHL. Dose level 3 (100 mg) was established as the MTD. PKs were measured pre- and post-dose D1 and D15 of cycle 2; Cuzick's test signaled an increase in AUC by dose level on D1 (p = 0.01) but not on D15 (Fig 1). ORR was 100% (CR 92%; Fig 2). With a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 1 pt had primary refractory disease (ABC and DEL), 2 pts with CR subsequently progressed (1 non-GC DLBCL, 1 Richter's) and 1 died of cardiogenic shock unrelated to study drug. The 12-month PFS and OS rates were 82% and 90% respectively with estimated 18-month PFS and OS rates of 68% and 90% respectively. The most common treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) attributed to TAK-659 were lymphopenia (n=12, 100%), infection (6=, 50%), AST elevation (n = 12, 100%) and ALT elevation (n = 10, 83%) (Table). Incidence and severity of transaminitis was consistent with prior reports for this agent. Most common grade 3/4 toxicities were hematologic. Median number of cycles of TAK-659 delivered was 5 (range 3-5). TRAEs led to TAK-659 dose modifications in 8 (67%) pts, though none at dose level 1: 2 (17%) required permanent dose reductions (both for lung infections), while 5 (42%) required discontinuation (4 for infection, and 1 for febrile neutropenia). R-CHOP administration was delayed in 2 pts because of TAK-659 related TRAEs. Aside from dose modifications of vincristine for peripheral neuropathy, no additional dose modifications for R-CHOP were needed. Infections encountered included bacterial and opportunistic infections (1 each for PJP, CMV and aspergillosis) and 1 case of COVID. Growth factor prophylaxis and anti-fungal therapy were not mandated; PJP prophylaxis was advised for CD4 counts < 200 at initial diagnosis. Conclusion: TAK-659, a novel SYK inhibitor combined with R-CHOP in pts with newly diagnosed high-risk DLBCL including DLBCL transformed from follicular lymphoma and DEL produces high CR rates; survival at 12 months appears promising. A dose of 60 mg was well tolerated, did not require dose modifications and maintained a similar AUC to the MTD of 100 mg with ongoing treatment. Opportunistic infections were noted with this treatment combination suggesting that patients should receive aggressive anti-microbial prophylaxis with future evaluation of this combination. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Karmali: BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Ma: Beigene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winter: BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Gordon: Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No royalties; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: TAK-659 will be discussed for the treatment of DLBCL (not FDA approved for this indication)

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.

Introduction: CAR T-cell therapy has dramatically improved outcomes for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL, with some achieving durable response. Still, the majority of pts have poor outcomes with CAR-T due to progressive disease, while inherent characteristics may predispose pts to CAR-T toxicities. Tools quantifying frailty and comorbidities have not been verified in large patient cohorts. The Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) is a comprehensive tool that has been found to predict outcomes in various B cell malignancies. Here we use a machine learning algorithm to rank the prognostic impact of specific comorbidities, as measured by CIRS, and then assess survival and toxicities in pts treated with commercially available CAR T-cell products for DLBCL. Methods: We conducted a retrospective RWE analysis of pts with r/r DLBCL who underwent leukapheresis for CART at 9 academic centers. CIRS was assessed at the time of T-cell collection and calculated as in Salvi et al, 2008. High comorbidity burden was defined using a published cutoff of CIRS score ≥7. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were measured from T-cell collection. Repeated subsampling and random survival forest (RSF) modeling of PFS were used to determine the most prognostic CIRS categories in the presence of covariates. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to quantify the association between survival and the following patient features: IPI at diagnosis, concurrent indolent lymphoma, age, ECOG performance status, number of prior therapies, prior transplant, number of medications, cell of origin subtype, complex karyotype, MYC rearrangement by FISH, and MYC+BCL2/BCL6 rearrangement (double-hit). Associations between comorbidities and CAR-T adverse events were evaluated with Fisher's exact test. Results: We analyzed data from 577 pts, with a median age of 63 (range, 19-90); 90% had ECOG 0-1. Median number of prior therapies was 3 (range, 1-11) and 25% of pts (n=143) had prior autologous stem cell transplant. GCB subtype was found in 54% of pts (n=312), with 38% (n=218) non-GCB and 8% (n=47) unknown (Hahn's algorithm). MYC gene rearrangement was present in 21% and double-hit in 16% with 9% lacking FISH. Twenty-seven pts (4.7%) died before CAR-T infusion (progressive disease in 24 and infection in 3). Of the 550 pts who received CAR-T, 71% (n=393) got axicabtagene ciloleucel, 22% (n=120) tisagenlecleucel, and 7% (n=37) lisocabtagene maraleucel. The median CIRS score was 7 (range, 0-25) with 54% (n=309) having CIRS ≥7. The most frequent comorbidities were seen in the vascular (51%), endocrine (45%), and hypertension (43%) organ system categories. PFS event was observed in 56% of pts and 41% died, while survivors had a median follow-up time of 20 months. Median survival estimates were 11 months (95% CI: 8 - 15) for PFS and 30 months (95% CI: 23 - NA) for OS. CIRS ≥7 was significantly associated with PFS (HR=1.26, Fig 1A) and OS (HR=1.35, Fig 1B) in univariable analysis. According to RSF variable importance and node splits, key CIRS categories were respiratory, upper GI, renal, and hepatic (Fig 1C). Multivariable analysis showed higher ECOG (2/3 vs 1 vs 0) and 3 or more prior lines of treatment predicted shorter PFS and OS. Non-GCB subtype was related to reduced PFS but not OS, while double-hit status did not correlate with either outcome. Interestingly, CIRS ≥7 was not a significant predictor of outcomes in multivariable models. However, a severe comorbidity in any of the above four systems (denoted "Severe4", 9% of pts) was independently associated with inferior PFS (HR=2.45, Fig 1D) and OS (HR=2.30, Fig 1E). Although CIRS ≥7 was not associated with the development of CRS, pts with "Severe4" had a higher rate of grade ≥3 CRS (16% vs 6%; p=0.013). In addition, development of grade ≥3 ICANS was associated with CIRS ≥7 (26% vs 12%; p Conclusions: In this large RWE study, we demonstrate that CIRS is predictive of outcomes and identify a composite index comprising four CIRS organ systems (respiratory, upper GI, renal and hepatic; "Severe4") that had prognostic significance in CAR-T recipients for r/r DLBCL. "Severe4" is predictive of severe CRS and CIRS ≥7 is predictive of severe ICANS. The underlying mechanism leading to this observation is an area of active ongoing investigation. Given these results, CIRS evaluation and "Severe4" should be considered prior to CAR-T in DLBCL. GS & AK contributed equally Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Shouse: Beigene Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Jaglowski: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy. Shadman: Abbvie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Sound Biologics, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Morphosys, TG Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Kite Pharma, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Adaptimmune , Mustang Bio and Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Mustang Bio, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Genentech, Abbvie, TG Therapeutics, Beigene, AstraZeneca, Sunesis, Atara Biotherapeutics, GenMab: Research Funding. Patel: Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy. Stephens: CSL Behring: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; JUNO: Research Funding; Mingsight: Research Funding; Arqule: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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. Kamdar: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Genetech: Other; Celgene: Other; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hill: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: Genentech: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; EUSA: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Kittai: Abbvie: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Danilov: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding.

Introduction: While an association between AI diseases and the development of lymphoma (LYM) is known, the impact of AI diseases on patient (pt) outcome across varying LYM subtypes, including the role of immunosuppressive medications (ISM), is not well understood. Methods: We conducted a large, multicenter, RWE retrospective analysis of adult pts with a diagnosis (dx) of lymphoma (LYM) between 1/2000 and 12/2020 and a pre-existing AI disease (see full list AI in Table 1). We examined baseline clinical features at LYM diagnosis, underlying AI disease characteristics, type/duration of ISM, LYM therapy received and survival outcomes. Multinomial regression models adjusted for age and sex identified associations between LYM subtypes, AI diseases, and ISM exposure, and were reported as relative risk ratio (RRR). Survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier. Univariate associations of baseline factors with survival in cases with non-missing data were examined by Cox model and stratified by International Prognostic Index (IPI). Results: In total, 785 pts were identified across 14 North American institutions, of which 694 pts with complete data were included in the final analysis. Rheumatoid arthritis was the most common AI disease (30%) (Table 1). Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was the most common histologic subtype (n=303, 44%), and it was the most prevalent histology for nearly every AI disease. The median duration between AI disease and LYM diagnosis was 108 months (mo) (1-816 mo). Several associations were found between specific AI diseases and LYM subtypes, including: Hashimoto's thyroiditis with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL, RRR 2.78 (95% CI 1.14-6.78, P=0.024), Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (RRR 7.12 (95% CI 1.07-47.3, P=0.031), and follicular lymphoma (RRR, 2.71, 95% CI 1.01-7.24, P=0.047); Polymyalgia rheumatica with CLL/SLL (RRR 21.27 (95% CI 4.57-98.96), P=0.0001) and MZL (RRR 6.62 (95% CI 1.38-31.80), P=0.018); Psoriasis with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL, RRR 3.85 (95% CI 1.21-12.22), P=0.022); and Inflammatory bowel disease with CLL/SLL (HR 4.60 (95% CI 1.72-12.34), P=0.002). Overall, 402 (58%) pts had ISM exposure prior to LYM dx, with 279 (40%) pts on active ISM at time of LYM dx. The most commonly used ISM agent was methotrexate (26%); the median duration of ISM prior to LYM diagnosis was 60 mo (1-480). Compared with DLBCL pts, those diagnosed with PTCLs were more likely to have had exposure to TNF-α inhibitors (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.23-2.89, P=0.004) or apremilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor (RR 19.2, 95% CI 2.6-149.9, P=0.005). Rituximab +/- chemotherapy was used as frontline therapy in the majority of B-cell LYM pts, including 90% of DLBCL. Of LYM pts on ISM at initial dx, 41% had a reduction in immunosuppression (RIS), of whom 81% stopped ISM completely (Table 1). Only 10% of pts who underwent RIS were reported to have a flare of AI disease during initial therapy, compared with 7% of pts who had a flare despite no RIS (P=NS). Survival by histology is depicted in Figure A/B. For DLBCL pts (n=303), survival appeared overall comparable to historically reported outcomes in the general DLBCL population. Neither antecedent use of ISM nor duration of ISM were associated with pt outcomes (data not shown). However, a survival advantage was identified among DLBCL pts whose ISM was stopped completely during frontline therapy compared with pts who were not on ISM at diagnosis (Figure C/D). In addition, 10 DLBCL pts underwent 100% RIS +/- rituximab with therapeutic intent and did not receive cytotoxic chemotherapy as part of frontline therapy. Among these, 4 pts (mean age 62 years (26-84); ISM: n=2 MTX, and 1 each azathioprine and etanercept/MTX; EBV+ 2/4) achieved complete remission and remain disease-free at time of last follow-up at 5, 74, 105, and 221 months post-DLBCL dx. Conclusions: Altogether, we identified several novel histologic associations of AI diseases with LYM histologic subtypes. Furthermore, prior receipt of TNF-α inhibitor or a phosphoediesterase 4 inhibitor were associated with a diagnosis of PTCL. For DLBCL pts with antecedent AI disease, complete cessation of ISM during frontline LYM therapy appeared to be associated with improved survival. Finally, there were a small number of select DLBCL pts who garnered long-term disease-free survival using RIS +/- rituximab as frontline therapy, similar to the treatment paradigm in post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Olszewski: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; PrecisionBio: Research Funding; Celldex Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Feldman: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Honoraria, Other: Study investigator. Karmali: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; EUSA: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding. Lunning: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Palmisiano: Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Foundation One: Consultancy. Danilov: Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria. Barta: Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Seagen: Honoraria. Lansigan: Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Savage: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding.

Background: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is the first CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy approved for use in patients (pts) with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The ZUMA-2 trial demonstrated that brexu-cel induces durable remissions in these pts with an ORR of 85% (59% CR), estimated 12-month PFS rate of 61%, and similar toxicity profile to other CAR T therapies (Wang et al, NEJM 2020). We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of pts treated with commercial brexu-cel to evaluate its safety and efficacy in the non-trial setting. Methods: We reviewed records of pts with relapsed MCL across 12 US academic medical centers. Pts who underwent leukapheresis between July 2020 and June 2021 with the intent to proceed to commercial brexu-cel were included. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate models were fit to identify predictors of post-CAR T outcomes. Results: Fifty-five pts underwent leukapheresis. There were 3 manufacturing failures. Baseline characteristics of the 52 pts who received brexu-cel are summarized in Table 1. Median age was 66 yrs (range: 47-79 yrs) and 82% were male. Twenty of 29 (69%) pts with known baseline MIPI were intermediate or high risk. Seven pts had a history of CNS involvement. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range: 2-8), including prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in 21 (40%) and prior allogeneic transplant in 2 pts (1 with prior ASCT and 1 without). Fifty percent had relapsed within 24 months of their initial therapy. All pts had previously received a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), including 29 (56%) with disease progression on a BTKi. Forty (77%) pts received bridging therapy (17 BTKi, 10 BTKi + venetoclax, 6 chemo, 3 venetoclax, 2 XRT only, 1 steroids only, 1 lenalidomide + rituximab). The ORR was 88% (CR 69%) among patients who received brexu-cel. Two pts had PD on initial restaging and 3 died prior to first response assessment (without evidence of relapse). Seven pts have not completed restaging due to limited follow-up (< 3 months) and were not included in the response assessment. Five pts have progressed, including 2 with CR and 1 with PR on initial restaging. With a median follow-up of 4.2 months, the estimated 6-month PFS and OS rates were 82.7% and 89.0%, respectively. All 7 pts with prior CNS involvement were alive without relapse at last follow-up. The incidence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was 84% (10% grade ≥ 3) with a median time to max grade of 5 days (range: 0-10 days). There were no cases of grade 5 CRS. The incidence of neurotoxicity (NT) was 57% (31% grade ≥ 3) with a median time to onset of 7 days (range: 4-15 days). NT occurred in 4/7 pts with prior CNS involvement (3 grade 3, 1 grade 4). Grade 5 NT occurred in 1 pt who developed cerebral edema and died 8 days after infusion. Thirty-five pts received tocilizumab, 33 received steroids, 7 received anakinra, and 1 received siltuximab for management of CRS and/or NT. Post-CAR T infections occurred in 8 pts, including two grade 5 infectious AEs (covid19 on day +80 and septic shock on day +40 after infusion). Rates of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were 38% and 37%, respectively. Among pts with at least 100 days of follow-up and lab data available, 5/34 (15%) had persistent grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and 4/34 (12%) had persistent grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia at day +100. Five pts have died, with causes of death being disease progression (2), septic shock (1), NT (1), and covid19 (1). Univariate analysis did not reveal any significant associations between survival and baseline/pre-CAR T MIPI, tumor pathologic or cytogenetic features, prior therapies, receipt of steroids/tocilizumab, or pre-CAR T tumor bulk. Conclusions: This analysis of relapsed MCL pts treated with commercial brexu-cel reveals nearly identical response and toxicity rates compared to those reported on ZUMA-2. Longer follow-up is required to confirm durability of response, but these results corroborate the efficacy of brexu-cel in a population of older adults with high-risk disease features. While all 7 pts with prior CNS involvement are alive and in remission, strategies to mitigate the risk of NT in this setting need to be evaluated. Further studies to define the optimal timing of CAR T, bridging strategies, and salvage therapies for post-CAR T relapse in MCL are warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gerson: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Sawalha: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy. Bond: Kite/Gilead: Honoraria. Karmali: Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; EUSA: Consultancy. Torka: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chow: ADC Therapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Shadman: Abbvie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Sound Biologics, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Morphosys, TG Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Kite Pharma, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Adaptimmune , Mustang Bio and Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Mustang Bio, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Genentech, Abbvie, TG Therapeutics, Beigene, AstraZeneca, Sunesis, Atara Biotherapeutics, GenMab: Research Funding. Ghosh: Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Moyo: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Fenske: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Grover: Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; ADC: Other: Advisory Board; Kite: Other: Advisory Board; Tessa: Consultancy. Maddocks: Seattle Genetics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; BMS: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Pharmacyclics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Novatis: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Janssen: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Morphosys: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; ADC Therapeutics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Karyopharm: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Beigene: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Merck: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; KITE: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Celgene: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Jacobson: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Axis: Speakers Bureau; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau. Cohen: Janssen, Adaptive, Aptitude Health, BeiGene, Cellectar, Adicet, Loxo/Lilly, AStra ZenecaKite/Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech, Takeda, BMS/Celgene, BioInvent, LAM, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Loxo/Lilly: Research Funding.

Introduction: Approximately 30-35% of patients with classic Hodgkin Lymphoma will prove refractory to frontline therapy or relapse subsequently. Traditional second-line chemotherapy regimens including ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide (ICE) result in complete response rates of ~50%. Achievement of complete metabolic response (CMR) assessed by PET/CT imaging prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) predicts favorable progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PD-1 blockade is a well-established therapeutic strategy for the treatment of cHL. Pembrolizumab (PEM) is a checkpoint inhibitor targeting PD-1 currently FDA approved as monotherapy in relapsed cHL. We hypothesized that PEM in combination with ICE (PEM-ICE) chemotherapy would be a safe and effective regimen that would yield high CMR rates prior to AHSCT. Methods: This single arm, phase II, multi-institutional clinical trial evaluated the addition of PEM to ICE chemotherapy in AHSCT eligible patients with relapsed and refractory cHL (NCT03077828). The regimen consisted of 21 day cycles of PEM 200 mg IV on day 1 with standard ICE including ifosfamide 5 g/m2 with MESNA as a 24hr continuous infusion on day 2, carboplatin AUC 5 IV (max 800 mg) on day 2, and etoposide 100 mg/m2/day IV on days 1 to 3. Two cycles of PEM-ICE were followed by stem cell mobilization/collection. One cycle of PEM 200 mg IV monotherapy was then administered. Our primary endpoint was the rate of CMR on PET/CT (PET2) imaging defined as a Deauville score of ≤ 3. Images were reviewed centrally. An optional third cycle of PEM-ICE was permitted for patients achieving CMR to allow for appropriate timing of AHSCT. Secondary objectives included clinical outcomes (PFS and OS), safety and tolerability, and transplantation related metrics including ability to collect stem cells and time to engraftment. Results: A total of 42 patients were enrolled with 37 patients evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median age was 34 (19-70) with female predominance (n=27, 64%). 16 patients had primary refractory disease. The CMR rate assessed by PET/CT imaging following 2 cycles of PEM-ICE was 86.5% (95% CI, 71.2-95%), meeting our primary endpoint of improvement over historical outcomes to 70%. The PET2 ORR was 97.3% with 11% PR and 2.7% PD. PET2 scores were Deauville 1 in 45% (n=17), Deauville 2 in 27.0% (n=10), Deauville 3 in 8.1% (n=3), Deauville 4 in 13.5% (n=5), and Deauville 5 in 5.4% (n=2). New areas of PET-positivity in two cases were biopsied showing noncaseating granuloma in one case and EBV but no cHL in another. Five patients received the optional third cycle of PEM-ICE chemotherapy with 35 of the 37 evaluable patients proceeding to AHSCT. Seven patients had radiation as part of the conditioning regimen with an additional 4 patients receiving consolidative radiation following transplant. After a median follow up of 27 months, the median PFS was 26.9 months with survival probability at 24 months of 88.2% (Figure 1). Median OS was not reached with too few events but remained 95.1% at 27 months. The addition of PEM to ICE did not impair stem cell mobilization and all patients successfully collected, with 35 (87%) within 2 apheresis sessions (range 1-7). No patients had engraftment delays or failure. Of the 42 patients, all received at least one dose of PEM and were therefore eligible for toxicity analyses. 34 patients (81%) experienced adverse events (AEs) attributed to PEM and 22 patients (52.3%) had grade 3-4 AEs comprised of cytopenias, elevated AST/ALT, hyponatremia, hypophosphatemia, and fatigue. Five patients had severe AEs attributed to PEM which included anemia, back pain, decreased EF, fever, and thrombocytopenia. There were no significant PEM-related autoimmune events that delayed a patient's treatment on protocol. There were two grade 5 toxicities on the protocol including a patient with cardiac arrest during stem cell collection and a patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome attributed to engraftment syndrome. Both were judged "possibly" related to PEM. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab with ICE chemotherapy is a tolerable and efficacious regimen with high CMR rate as assessed by PET/CT. Despite short follow up, patients had excellent PFS and OS in the post-transplant setting. The results support further investigation of PEM-ICE as second-line treatment for AHSCT eligible patients with relapsed and refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Casulo: BMS: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Allen: Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daichii Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Secure Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria. Karmali: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gordon: Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No royalties; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Winter: Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: new combination of study agent with standard of care chemotherapy regimen

Background Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is relatively rare, accounting for 3-15% of extranodal NHL and less than 1% of all NHL. Patients often present with pain and swelling or pathologic fracture of the affected area of the skeleton, and B symptoms are often less prevalent. Many cases are limited stage at presentation. Patients are usually treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or similar induction therapy. Based on older studies showing improved outcomes associated with the addition of radiation (many completed prior to the rituximab era), patients often still receive combined-modality therapy today. However, it remains unknown whether consolidative radiation therapy (RT) confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction. We sought to address this question in a multicenter retrospective study. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes in a modern cohort of patients who underwent treatment for primary bone DLBCL using chemotherapy regimens in the rituximab era either with or without consolidative RT. Data was collected from 13 academic medical centers in the U.S., with patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Patients were identified using each institution's hematologic malignancy registries. Analysis was limited to patients with primary bone DLBCL, with stage I-II disease (primary site +/- locoregional lymph nodes) that could be encompassed in a radiation field. Patients who received CIT alone or CIT followed by RT were included. Treatment selection was at the treating physician's discretion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for: demographics, chemotherapy regimens, radiation treatments, and PET scan data. Local IRB approval was obtained at sites. All data was distributed in a de-identified fashion. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included: response after induction CIT induction and the need for additional therapies. Chi-square test analysis was used to compare categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous and ordinal measures. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups via the log-rank test. Multi-variable analysis (MVA) for OS and RFS was performed using RT vs no RT, PET status post CIT (negative vs positive) and rituximab in induction (Y/N) as variables. Results A total of 127 patients were included: 91 who received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 36 who received CIT alone (no RT group). The median age of patients at diagnosis in the RT group and no RT group was 58.5 and 57.0, respectively. For CIT, the majority of patients received R-CHOP (84%). Despite focusing on 2005-2019, a small percentage of patients (5 - 14%) in each group (RT and no RT) did not receive rituximab with their induction therapy. The OS at 10 years was 74.5% in the RT group and 86.5% in the no RT group (p = 0.29). The RFS at 10 years was 70.9% in the RT group and 78.2% in the no RT group (p = 0.85). Among the 91 patients who received RT, 67 (77.0%) received a dose of 36 Gy or higher. There was no difference in OS (p = 0.63) or RFS (p = 0.90) in patients who received > 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy of radiation. On MVA for OS, RT was not associated with improved OS, although rituximab as part of induction was (p = 0.048). On MVA for RFS, neither RT nor rituximab were associated with improved RFS. For rituximab the trend was in the direction of rituximab benefit (p = 0.11). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that, in the rituximab era, patients with limited stage primary bone DLBCL have excellent outcomes overall. In this study, neither RFS or OS appeared to be improved with the addition of consolidative RT. Rituximab, however, was associated with improved OS on MVA. Outcomes do not appear to differ based on the dose of RT (> 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy). Our data suggests that RT may have less benefit for primary bone DLBCL in the rituximab era, although it is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from consolidative radiation therapy. A larger data set would likely be needed to evaluate this. We plan to present data regarding PET responses at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Caimi: XaTek: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from patents (wife); Amgen Therapeutics.: Consultancy; ADC Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Epperla: Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Genzyme: Honoraria. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; SeaGen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Fenske: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance rituximab in MCL has improved survival and supports the exploration of maintenance with novel targeted agents. Ibrutinib is a BTK inhibitor approved for relapsed/refractory MCL. We report the final analysis of safety and efficacy of Ibrutinib maintenance (I-M) as monotherapy following chemo-immunotherapy induction for treatment-naive MCL in a multicenter phase II trial. METHODS: Pts with CR/PR to frontline chemo-immunotherapy (+/- autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT)) received I-M 560 mg daily for up to 4 years. The primary endpoint was 3-year PFS rate. Secondary endpoints were to determine PR to CR conversions, median OS and the safety profile of I-M. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was measured using an NGS-MRD assay on peripheral blood (detection resolution of 1 cell per million; clonoSEQ®; Adaptive Biotechnologies) prior to and 1, 6 and 18-24 mo(s) after initiation of I-M. RESULTS: 36 pts were enrolled to complete accrual. Median age was 60 years (range 46-90). For induction, most pts were treated with BR (n=17, 47%) or a cytarabine-containing regimen (n=18, 50%). Eighteen (50%) pts underwent autoSCT. Thirty-four (94%) and 2 (6%) had CR and PR as best response to induction respectively, with 1 PR to CR conversion on I-M. At a median follow-up of 47 months, 10 (28%) pts completed a full I-M course, 7 (19%) remain on I-M, 15 (42%) discontinued I-M for treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) and 4 (11%) discontinued I-M for other reasons (PD x 1, secondary malignancies requiring treatment x 2, death cause unknown x 1). Three pts died during I-M, 2 deaths deemed unrelated to I-M (aspiration pneumonia, 2 nd malignancy) and 1 from unknown cause; 1 pt was lost to follow-up. Four pts were treated with rituximab maintenance after stopping I-M prematurely for toxicity without evidence of disease progression prior to or after change in therapy. At the time of data cut-off, MRD was assessed in 22 of 36 pts (available samples) at varying time points (Fig 1) with a dominant clone identified in all 22 pts. Pts were deemed MRD (-) if no sequences were detected at a threshold of 10 -6. Seventeen pts were MRD (-), 4 MRD indeterminate and 1 MRD (+) with radiographic CR after induction; the latter remained MRD (+) at 18 months with CR. All MRD indeterminate pts were MRD (-) when checked after 1 month on I-M. Six pts MRD (-) post-induction became MRD (+) during their I-M course. Of these pts, 2 reverted to MRD (-) with continued I-M; of the remaining 4 pts, 1 had PD and the others maintain stable clinical responses with ongoing I-M though MRD has not been rechecked. 3-year PFS and OS rates were 91% and 94% respectively (Figure 2A, B). PFS was improved in pts who received autoSCT prior to enrollment (Fig 2C, p=0.03) with a trend for improved OS (Figure 2D, p=0.057). MRD did not correlate with PFS (p=0.65) and OS (p=0.45) given few events. Atrial fibrillation/flutter occurred in 10 pts (28%; G1-2 n=7, 19%, G≥3 n = 3, 8%), 8 (22%) with new onset and 2 (6%) with worsening grade. HTN occurred in 20 pts (55%; G1-2 n=13, 33%, G≥3 n = 7, 22%), 15 (42%) with new onset and 5 (14%) with worsening grade. Incidences of both atrial fibrillation/flutter and HTN increased over time with ongoing I-M exposure (Table). Four pts had a 2 nd solid malignancy, 2 while on treatment and 2 after stopping I-M. TRAEs led to permanent dose reductions in 8 (22%) pts, 2 for neutropenia, 2 for fatigue, 2 for myalgias, 1 each for diarrhea and mucositis. Fifteen (42%) pts permanently discontinued I-M, most commonly for atrial fibrillation/flutter (n=8, 22%; n=5, 14% for G1-2). CONCLUSION: I-M 560 mg daily after response to frontline chemo-immunotherapy is feasible in MCL and results in durable PFS and OS. Toxicities including rates of high-grade atrial fibrillation/flutter and HTN are consistent with ibrutinib's known safety profile with increased incidence with longer exposure; discontinuation of I-M for atrial fibrillation/flutter in 22% of pts is higher than expected. Changes in NGS-MRD were noted in a small number of pts during maintenance. Extended follow-up and correlation of changes in MRD with PFS and OS are needed to determine clinical relevance of I-M and MRD status. Further studies evaluating maintenance with next generation BTK inhibitors as alternatives to ibrutinib should be explored to mitigate toxicity. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Karmali: Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy. Abramson: Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Stephens: JUNO: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Mingsight: Research Funding; Arqule: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: 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. Winter: Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria. Ma: Juno: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Petrich: Daiichi-Sankyo: Current Employment; Abbvie: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Hochberg: Leuko: Consultancy; Trapelo Health: Consultancy. Kuhr: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment. Lee: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment. Gordon: Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No royalties; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: We will report on the use of ibrutinib maintenance after front-line induction therapy in MCL.

Background: Outcomes are poor for patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who relapse early or are refractory to first-line therapy. Furthermore, patients receiving second-line standard-of-care (SOC) therapy often report poor health-related quality of life (QoL; Lin V, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:e20070). In the ZUMA-7 (NCT03391466) pivotal Phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of axi-cel (an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor [CAR] T-cell therapy) versus SOC, we conducted the first comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with CAR T-cell therapy versus SOC as second-line treatment in relapsed/refractory (R/R) LBCL. Methods: PRO instruments, including the EORTC QLQ-C30 (cancer-specific 30-item questionnaire including global health status, functional, and symptom scales) and the EQ-5D-5L (a general questionnaire with 5 QoL domains plus a global assessment), were administered at baseline (prior to treatment), Day 50, Day 100, Day 150, Month 9, and every 3 months from randomization up to 24 months or time of event-free survival event (disease progression, death from any cause, or new lymphoma therapy), whichever occurred first. The QoL analysis set was defined as all patients who had a baseline PRO and ≥1 measure completed at Day 50, Day 100, or Day 150. Prespecified hypotheses for 3 PRO domains (EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning, EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QoL, and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale [VAS]) were tested using a mixed-effect model with repeated measures at Day 100 and subsequent time points if previous time points were statistically significant. False Discovery Rate was used to adjust P values across key endpoints; sensitivity analyses were conducted to control for covariates and patterns of missingness. A clinically meaningful change was defined as 10 points for each EORTC QLQ-C30 score and 7 points for EQ-5D-5L VAS score. Exploratory analyses on other domains of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L were also performed. Results: Of 359 patients enrolled in the ZUMA-7 study, 296 patients (165 axi-cel, 131 SOC) had baseline PROs and ≥1 follow-up measure and were included for analysis. Overall, 70% of patients had primary refractory disease, 42% had high second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (2-3), and 30% were ≥65 years old. For patients in the QoL analysis set treated with axi-cel versus SOC, there was a statistically significant (P Additional exploratory analyses of PRO endpoints (eg, EORTC QLQ-C30 role functioning, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, diarrhea, and EQ-5D-5L index [US value set]) also showed improvements with axi-cel over SOC. Conclusion: ZUMA-7, the first randomized, global, multicenter Phase 3 study of axi-cel versus SOC in second-line R/R LBCL, showed that treatment with axi-cel results in clinically meaningful improvement in QoL over SOC at Day 100 as measured by multiple validated PRO instruments. Score comparisons at later timepoints warrant cautious interpretation, particularly in the SOC arm, as attrition due to disease progression, new lymphoma therapy, or death may select patients with the best outcomes. The data also suggest faster recovery to pretreatment QoL with axi-cel compared with SOC. The superior clinical outcomes and patient experience with axi-cel over SOC should help inform treatment choices in second-line R/R LBCL. These data are reported on behalf of all ZUMA-7 investigators and contributing Kite members. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Elsawy: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Chavez: MorphoSys, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys, Bayer, Karyopharm, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie, TeneoBio, and Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Merk: Research Funding. Avivi: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Speakers Bureau. Larouche: Gilead: Consultancy. Wannesson: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cwynarski: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau. Osman: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy. Davison: Merck: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Celegene: Consultancy. Rudzki: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; MSD: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy. Dahiya: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Dorritie: OncLive/Institutional Perspectives on Cancer presentation: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Hillman Cancer Center: Current Employment; Juno/BMS: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; SITC presentation: Honoraria. Jaglowski: CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Radford: AstraZeneca: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria. Morschhauser: Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: 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; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria; Genmab: 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; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cunningham: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Clovis Oncology: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; 4SC: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; OVIBIO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Martin Garcia-Sancho: Kern Pharma: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Incyte: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Eusa Pharma: Consultancy; Clinigen: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel/Accommodations/Expenses. Tzachanis: Partner: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding. Karmali: Roche: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; EUSA: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding. Kekre: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Thieblemont: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses . Enblad: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy. Dreger: Riemser: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Malladi: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Gilead Science: Consultancy. Joshi: Open Health: Current Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; various clients via employment: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wang: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; additional companies through employment with Open Health: Consultancy, Current Employment, Research Funding. Solem: OPEN Health: Current Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; multiple clients through employment at OPEN Health: Research Funding. Thornton Snider: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Gilead: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. To: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Other: stock or other ownership ; NantWorks: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Kersten: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding.

Background: Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) is a highly active therapy for relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Nonetheless, most patients (pts) ultimately develop progressive disease (PD). There is little guidance on the optimal treatment approach(es) for these pts. We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis with a primary objective to assess treatment patterns and outcomes in pts with R/R aggressive B-cell lymphoma who develop PD after anti-CD19 CARTs. Methods: Pts with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with anti-CD19 CART between 2015 and 2020 across 12 US academic medical centers were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected along with CART toxicities and response. Regimens administered as salvage post CART were assessed. Univariate analyses (UVA) were performed to determine impact of demographic and clinical variables on survival outcomes. All p-values were two-tailed. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 400 pts received anti-CD19 CARTs and were included for analysis. For the entire cohort: median PFS and OS from time of CART infusion were 11 months [mo] and 27 mo respectively. On log-rank testing, pts who received ≥3 lines of pre-CART therapy and those with refractory disease pre-CART had significantly worse PFS (p=0.004 & 0.001) and OS (both p With median follow-up 22.4 mo, 190 pts (48%) had PD after CART; demographic and clinical variables of pts with and without PD are detailed in Table 1. Biopsy to confirm PD and assess CD19 status was done in 69 pts (36%) with CD19 negative relapse seen in 11 (16%). Of pts with PD, median PFS and OS from time of PD was 83 days (in pts who received salvage) and 174 days (for all PD pts) respectively. Pts with PD were more likely to have elevated LDH (p=0.001) and extranodal disease (p=0.003) at apheresis. For pts with PD after CART: 125 (65.5%) received further therapies. Pts were more likely to receive salvage therapies if their best response to CART was CR (p=0.026) or PR (p=0.015). Response rates of select first- and second-line therapies and PFS of first line therapies received after CART failure are detailed in figure 1. ORR and CRs were highest for polatuzumab, bendamustine, & rituximab (pola-BR; 73% & 40%), followed by BTK inhibitors (BTKi; 50% & 38%), and bispecific antibodies (bsAb) (50% & 25%). Five of 7 pts who received a BTKi had non-germinal center (GC) cell of origin (COO; 1 unknown COO). On log-rank testing, pts with elevated LDH (p=0.003) at time of apheresis and those with intermediate/high IPI (p=0.013) had inferior PFS with first salvage regimens. Median PFS was highest for pola-BR (4.5 mo, n=14), followed by bsAb (2.5 mo, n=8), lenalidomide +/- anti-CD20 antibody (1.8 mo, n=13), checkpoint inhibitors (CPI; 1.6 mo, n=10), BTKi (1.2 mo, n=8), radiation alone (1.2 mo; n=17), chemotherapy (1.1 mo, n=12), and tafasitamab + lenalidomide (0.9 mo, n=5). Median PFS for all treated pts was 1.8 mo. OS from start of first salvage regimen was highest for CPI (OS 12.4 mo, n=10), followed by pola-BR (8.9 mo, n=14), BTKi (8.8 mo, n=8), lenalidomide +/- anti-CD20 (8.7 mo, n=13), radiation alone (7.1 mo, n =17), bsAb (5.9 mo, n=8), chemotherapy (5.4 mo, n=12), and tafasitamab + lenalidomide (1.2 mo, n=5). 12 pts (6.3%) later received an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT). In alloHCT pts at last follow-up, 10 were evaluable for response: 7 had CR and 5 remain in CR. Clinical characteristics of pts who received alloHCT are detailed in table 2. Notably, median age was 59 years (41-68), 1 (8.3%) had a prior alloHCT, and 6 (50%) had prior autologous HCT. The majority had CR or PR as best response to CART (CR n=6, 50%; PR n=3, 25%), and only 1 pt (8.3%) with PD as best response to CART was salvaged with alloHCT. Conclusions: This is the largest reported analysis to date of pts with aggressive B-cell lymphoma who develop PD post-CART. The highest ORRs were with pola-BR, bsAb, and BTKi as first line of salvage. High response rates with BTKi may be attributed to non-GC COO in the majority of treated pts and perhaps a beneficial immunomodulatory effect on previously administered CARTs. AlloHCT remains a potential curative therapy for select pts with over half with durable remission; however, few ultimately received alloHCT. Despite increased use of novel therapies, survival in pts who progress after CART is still dismal warranting more effective therapies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures 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. Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. 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. Ma: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winter: Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria. Gordon: Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No royalties; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Danilov: Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Stephens: Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JUNO: Research Funding; Mingsight: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Arqule: Research Funding; Celgene: 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. Shah: Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Umoja: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Lily: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Shouse: Beigene Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Barta: Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Seagen: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria. Karmali: Karyopharm: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.