Search

Complete metabolic response (CMR) on positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) was the sole independent predictor of overall survival in the PET sub-study of the phase III GALLIUM trial (NCT01332968) in first-line treatment of high tumour burden follicular lymphoma (FL). The aim of this analysis was to investigate further the outcome of patients not achieving CMR. Methods: Two international experts re-reviewed PET-CT scans from patients failing to achieve CMR assessed by the Independent Review Committee (IRC) blinded otherwise to IRC results. Metabolic response category and Deauville score (DS) were assigned. Progression-free survival (PFS) was investigator assessed with contrast-enhanced CT (ceCT). Kaplan–Meier methodology was used to estimate landmark PFS and time-to-next treatment (TTNT) from end-of-induction by DS. Patients who experienced CT-based progressive disease at end-of-induction were excluded. Results: Fifty-four patients were reviewed. Six had CMR, 37 partial metabolic response, two no metabolic response and nine progressive metabolic disease. Patients were reassigned to CMR because fluorodeoxyglucose uptake was considered as i) inflammatory (n = 2), ii) incidental neoplasia (n = 2) or iii) where fluorodeoxyglucose uptake was visually close to liver uptake but quantitatively lower (n = 2). There was a trend for shorter PFS and TTNT for patients with DS-5 than DS-4. High-grade mesenteric uptake at end-of-induction was common, occurring in 20 patients with non-CMR, fourteen of whom achieved CMR at all other sites. Only 3/14 (21%) patients with mesenteric uptake as the only site of disease experienced progression or death within 24 months (PFS24) whereas 4/6 patients (67%) with mesenteric and additional sites of fluorodeoxyglucose-avid disease had a PFS24 event. All patients with early progression had measurable disease on ceCT at fluorodeoxyglucose-avid sites at end-of-induction. Conclusion: After induction immunochemotherapy, CMR was assigned after reassessment in some patients, where increased fluorodeoxyglucose uptake was considered due to inflammation/incidental neoplasia rather than lymphoma. Quantitative assessment to confirm the visual impression of residual uptake in lesions is suggested. Isolated mesenteric fluorodeoxyglucose uptake is likely a common false-positive finding at end-of-induction and does not warrant changes in clinical management nor disease surveillance unless there is measurable disease on ceCT or clinical suspicion of active disease.

Introduction Prednisolone has important potential side-effects, one of which is steroid-induced diabetes mellitus (DM). Due to the exposure to a high cumulative dosage of steroids during first-line treatment, patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) could face increased risk of new onset steroid-induced DM or dysregulation of a pre-existing DM. This nationwide observational cohort study evaluated the risk of new onset DM in lymphoma patients and the impact on pre-existing DM in lymphoma survivors following treatment with steroid-containing regimens. Methods Adult NHL patients (≥18 years) treated with ≥3 cycles of steroid-containing immunochemotherapy, such as R-CHOP(-like) and R-CVP, between 2002 and 2015 were identified in the Danish Lymphoma Register and matched to five random individuals from the general population on birth year, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, baseline DM status (DM or not), and DM duration. NHL patients and matched comparators were followed from start of treatment for the patients until the event of interest (DM, insulin prescription), death, relapse, NHL diagnosis (for matched comparators), or censoring (emigration, missing, or end of study on 31 December 2018), whichever came first. DM was captured by either a diagnosis of any DM (ICD-10 codes: E10-E14) in the Danish National Patient Register or any redeemed anti-diabetic prescription registered in the National Prescription Register (insulin or oral anti-diabetic medicine; ATC A10A or A10B). In the analysis of insulin prescriptions following lymphoma treatment initiation, patients with any redeemed prescription of insulin prior to start of lymphoma treatment were excluded. Time-varying incidence rates (IRs) per 1,000 person years and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated using a spline-based Poisson regression approach with two-month time splits and five knots. The Aalen-Johansen estimator was used to compute the cumulative risk of an event treating death, relapse, and NHL diagnosis (in comparators) as competing events. Risk differences at specific time points were calculated using pseudo-observations. Crude and adjusted cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) were obtained using Cox regression. Results A total of 4,703 NHL patients were included in the present study. Median age was 66 years and median follow-up was 8.5 years. Among the NHL patients, 4,325 patients did not have pre-existing DM and were matched to 21,625 comparators without DM. The time-varying IR of DM among comparators was 8-10 cases/1000 person years. The IRR of DM for patients vs comparators was higher for patients in the first year following treatment initiation (maximum IRR: 2.40), lower from 1 to 5 years (minimum IRR: 0.52), and higher from 5 to 10 years (maximum IRR: 1.18) (Fig. 1). The cumulative incidence of DM was higher for NHL patients at six months (0.58 percentage units (%U), p Among the NHL patients, 378 had pre-existing non-insulin dependent DM and were matched to 1,890 comparators. The cumulative incidence difference of any insulin use was higher for patients at 6 months (14.29%U, p Conclusion In conclusion, patients treated with steroid-containing immunochemotherapy did not experience a higher risk of diabetes mellitus compared to matched comparators beyond the first year. Matched comparators had a higher cumulative incidence of diabetes mellitus after 2 years, which was partly explained by the high competing risk of death in the patient group. NHL patients with pre-existing non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus had an increased cumulative incidence of any insulin prescriptions; however, the difference was diminished when assessing the risk of at least five insulin prescriptions, suggesting that the impact of steroids on diabetes regulation is limited in time when taking competing risks into account. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Frederiksen: Abbvie: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Vestergaard: Novo Nordisk Foundation: Other: Head of Research at Steno Diabetes Center North Jutland funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Research Funding. Jørgensen: Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Clausen: Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML ; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poulsen: Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Ekstroem Smedby: Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee.

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.

There is a lack of data regarding treatment and prognosis for the growing group of oldest old patients with lymphoma. Therefore, we studied 2347 patients aged >= 85 years from the Danish and Swedish lymphoma registers 2000-2016 (Denmark) and 2007-2013 (Sweden). Outcome was assessed using relative survival (RS). The 2-year RS overall for patients with aggressive lymphomas was 38% [95% confidence interval (CI) 35-42%], of whom 845 (66%) patients received active treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, other). For aggressive lymphomas, not receiving active treatment was associated with an inferior 2-year RS of 12% (95% CI 9-17%) compared to 49% (95% CI 45-53%) for patients who received active treatment (excess mortality rate ratio 2 center dot 84, 95% CI 2 center dot 3-3 center dot 5; P < 0 center dot 0001). For patients with indolent lymphoma, the 2-year RS was 77% (95% CI 72-82%). Here, 383 (46%) patients received active treatment at diagnosis, but did not have better 2-year RS (75%, 95% CI 67-81%) compared to those who did not receive active treatment (83%, 95% CI 74-89%). We conclude that outcomes for the oldest old patients with lymphoma are encouraging for several subtypes and that active treatment is associated with improved outcome amongst the oldest old patients with aggressive lymphomas, indicating that age itself should not be a contraindication to treatment.

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.

Background Patients with hematological cancer who experience relapse or progressive disease often face yet another line of treatment and continued mortality risk that could increase their physical and emotional trauma and worsen their health-related quality of life. Healthcare professionals who use patient-reported outcomes to identify who will have specific sensitivities in particular health-related quality of life domains may be able to individualize and target treatment and supportive care, both features of precision medicine. Here, in a cohort of patients with relapsed or progressive hematological cancer, we sought to identify health-related quality of life domains in which they experienced deterioration after relapse treatment and to investigate health-related quality of life patterns. Method Patients were recruited in connection with a precision medicine study at the Department of Hematology, Aalborg University Hospital. They completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after the relapse diagnosis or progressive cancer. Modes of completion were electronically or on paper. Clinically relevant changes from baseline to 12 months were interpreted according to Cocks’ guidelines. We quantified the number of patients with moderate or severe symptoms and functional problems and the number who experienced improvements or deterioration from baseline to 12 months. Results A total of 104 patients were included, of whom 90 (87%) completed baseline questionnaires and 50 (56%) completed the 12-month assessments. The three symptoms that patients most often reported as deteriorating were fatigue (18%), insomnia (18%), and diarrhea (18%). The three functions that patients most often reported as deteriorating were role (16%) and emotional (16%) and cognitive (16%) functioning. Conclusion In this study, patient-reported outcome data were useful for identifying negatively affected health-related quality of life domains in patients with relapsed or progressive hematological cancer. We identified patients experiencing deterioration in health-related quality of life during treatment and characterized a potential role for patient-reported outcomes in precision medicine to target treatment and supportive care in this patient group.

Background: Generalizability of results from clinical trials with narrow in-/exclusion criteria are a concern as significant deviations in efficacy or toxicity may occur when treatments are used in populations of elderly and more comorbid patients. The cost-effectiveness of novel therapies may also be less favorable if real-world treatment effects are inferior to clinical trial results. In diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), a recent US study showed that baseline organ function-based eligibility criteria had substantial impact on survival with ineligible patients being at higher risk of dying from progressive lymphoma (1). Aims: The present study explored the impact of commonly used in-/exclusion criteria in key completed and ongoing first line DLBCL trials on survival in a Danish population-based study of patients with de novo DLBCL. Patients and methods: DLBCL patients enrolled in the Danish Lymphoma Registry (LYFO) and treated with R-CHOP in the period 2008-19 were screened for completeness of data to match trial eligibility criteria. The key organ/hematology eligibility criteria of completed or ongoing all-comers DLBCL studies (REMoDL-B, Goya, Polarix and Hovon84) were collected (bilirubin, ALAT, creatinine, eGFR, leucocytes, neutrophils, thrombocytes and ECOG). First, high-level trial matching on disease risk group (Ann Arbor, bulky disease, international prognostic index (IPI)) and age-groups were performed so that patients assessed for trial eligibility had a relevant risk profile. Subsequently, patients were divided into eligible or ineligible based on selected in/exclusion criteria. For each trial, overall survival (OS) from treatment start were compared for eligible and ineligible patients using inverse probability of treatment weighted Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Crude OS and OS adjusted for residual imbalances in IPI and age were estimated. When possible, the OS curves from standard arms of the original trials were superimposed on OS plots. For each trial, the Shapley value of each criterion was calculated, using the HRs as well as the 5y restricted loss of lifetimes (RLOLs). The Shapley value measures the average influence of each eligibility criterion on the estimated IPI- and age-adjusted HR/5y RLOL. Results: A total of 3,150 R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients without discordant low-grade lymphoma were identified in the surveyed period. A total of 1,666 patients (52.89% of surveyed population) were available for the REMoDL-B trial, 1,431 (45.43%) for Goya, 1,125 (35.71%) for Polarix, and 1,432 (45.46%) for Hovon84. The variations of numbers for each trial evaluation were explained by trial inclusion criteria and missing data in LYFO. Crude OS estimates for patients with and without all necessary information were similar (data not shown). OS curves for eligible and ineligible patients are shown in Figure 1 and, when possible, with superimposed trial results (Goya, REMoDL-B, Hovon84). Survival differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients were robust to further adjustment of imbalances in age and IPI. Associated crude and adjusted 2 and 5-year OS rates for trial eligible and ineligible are shown in Table 1. The largest numerical difference in 2-year crude OS between eligible and ineligible was observed in the REMoDL-B trial (ineligible had 26% lower 2-year OS rate). The largest numerical difference in 2-year OS adjusted for IPI and age between eligible and ineligible was observed for the Polarix trial (ineligible had 17% lower 2-year OS rate). The strongest drivers of OS differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients in terms of the tested eligibility criteria were thrombocyte count (HR-contribution calculated from Shapley values -0.11; -0.14) and ECOG (HR-contribution -0.09; -0.21). Liver function parameters (bilirubin and ALAT) had low impact on OS (HR-contribution 0.00; -0.05 and 0.00; 0.07). Conclusions: The present population-based study confirms that trial ineligible patients have worse survival even after adjustments in imbalances in age and disease risk category. Thus, trial eligibility criteria have substantial impact on generalizability of results to a wider unselected population. Interestingly, the trial eligible patients identified in the present study had very similar outcomes to R-CHOP treated patients in the original trials supporting the possible use of RWD as synthetic control arms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jørgensen: Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Larsen: BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Odense University Hospital, Denmark: Current Employment; Gilead: Consultancy. Clausen: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poulsen: Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

PURPOSE The majority of young adults with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) are cured, but chemotherapy-induced infertility can have profound psychosocial consequences. Providing data on parenthood rates and use of assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs) after contemporary HL treatment is important for patient counseling and survivorship care. MATERIALS AND METHODS All Danish patients with HL diagnosed during 2000-2015 at the ages 18-40 years who achieved remission after first-line therapy were included and matched on age, sex, and parenthood status to five random persons from the general population. Parenthood rates were defined as the rate of first live birth per 1,000 person years, starting 9 months after HL diagnosis. Nationwide birth and patient registers were used to capture parenthood outcomes and ARTs use. RESULTS A total of 793 HL survivors and 3,965 comparators were included (median follow-up 8.7 years). Similar parenthood rates were observed for male and female HL survivors when compared with matched comparators (56.2 v 57.1; P = .871 for males and 63.8 v 61.2; P = .672 for females). For male HL survivors, BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone) therapy was associated with lower parenthood rates as compared to the matched comparators (28.1 v 60.8; P = .020). Live birth after ARTs were more common for HL survivors than for comparators (males 21.6% v 6.3%; P < .001; females 13.6% v 5.5%; P = .001). There were no differences in gestational age, Apgar score, or newborn measurements between HL survivors and matched comparators. CONCLUSION The parenthood rates for HL survivors who have not experienced relapse were generally similar to the general population. However, ARTs were used more often before the first live birth in HL survivors, which is relevant information when discussing possible long-term side effects and fertility-preserving treatment options.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to explore hematological cancer survivors' experiences of participating in a shared care follow-up based on alternating routine physician visits and nurse-led telephone consultations at the Department of Hematology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark.DESIGN: The design was an exploratory qualitative interview study based on a semi-structured interview guide.METHOD: Twelve patients who had participated in the shared care follow-up were interviewed. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.RESULTS: Our findings suggest that hematological patients found the nurse-led telephone consultations convenient and helped alleviate anxiety. Despite fewer visits to the hospital and less physical examinations, the patients' sense of security was maintained. Furthermore, completing questionnaires and the emotional and psychosocial focus in nurse consultations were considered beneficial. Finally, using the telephone was considered to be personal and an acceptable way of talking about topics of a sensitive nature.CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that hematological cancer survivors value alternating routine visits and nurse-led telephone consultations as part of cancer survivorship care as well as the emotional and psychological focus of the shared care follow-up. It seems that their sense of security was maintained due to retention of physical examinations.IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The findings from this study underline the importance of the flexibility and adaptability of cancer follow-up in order to meet patients' needs and preferences. Furthermore, this study underlines the importance of cancer survivorship care that goes beyond disease-related support.

BackgroundDiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most frequent lymphoid neoplasm among adults,and approximately 30–40% of patients will experience relapse while 5–10% will suffer from primary refractory disease caused by different mechanisms, including treatment-induced resistance. For refractory and relapsed DLBCL (rrDLBCL) patients, early detection and understanding of the mechanisms controlling treatment resistance are of great importance to guide therapy decisions. Here, we have focused on genetic variations in immune surveillance genes in diagnostic DLBCL (dDLBCL) and rrDLBCL patients to elaborate on the suitability of new promising immunotherapies.MethodsBiopsies from 30 dDLBCL patients who did not progress or relapse during follow up and 17 rrDLBCL patients with refractory disease or who relapsed during follow up were analyzed by whole-exome sequencing, including matched individual germline samples to include only somatic genetic variants in downstream analysis of a curated list of 58 genes involved in major immune surveillance pathways.ResultsMore than 70% of both dDLBCLs and rrDLBCLs harbored alterations in immune surveillance genes, but rrDLBCL tumor samples have a lower number of genes affected compared to dDLBCL tumor samples. Increased gene mutation frequencies in rrDLBCLs were observed in more than half of the affected immune surveillance genes than dDLBCLs.ConclusionGenetic variants in the antigen-presenting genes affect a higher number of rrDLBCL patients supporting an important role for these genes in tumor progression and development of refractory disease and relapse.

Aim: To estimate current real-world costs of drugs and supportive care for the treatment of multiple myeloma in a tax-based health system. Methods: Forty-one patients were included from a personalized medicine study (2016–2019). Detailed information was collected from patient journals and hospital registries to estimate the total and mean costs using inverse probability weighting of censored data. Results: Total observed (censored) costs for the 41 patients was €8.84 million during 125 treatment years, with antineoplastic drugs as the main cost driver (€5.6 million). Individual costs showed large variations. Mean 3-year cost per patient from first progression was €182,103 (€131,800–232,405). Conclusion: Prediction of real-world costs is hindered by the availability of detailed costing data. Micro-costing analyses are needed for budgeting and real-world evaluation of cost-effectiveness.

Background PV is a clonal myeloid neoplasm characterized by activating mutations in JAK2 and increased red blood cell production. Reduction of thrombosis risk through lowering of hematocrit (Hct) and thus blood viscosity is critical, but management of constitutional symptoms is also important. HU is an effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment (tx) for PV, but pts who develop resistance to or intolerance of HU have limited tx options. A Phase I study of idasanutlin, an MDM2 antagonist leading to increased p53 activity, showed encouraging efficacy and potential disease-modifying effects via rapid reduction in JAK2 V617F variant allele frequency in 11 pts with PV. These results prompted the larger, international Phase II study of idasanutlin in HU-resistant/intolerant PV (NCT03287245); data from the initial phase of the study are reported here. Methods Pts meeting the 2016 WHO criteria for PV were eligible for inclusion if they had HU-resistant/intolerant disease according to the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria and were phlebotomy dependent (≥ 1 phlebotomy in the 16-wk period prior to screening). Prior PV tx with ruxolitinib (rux) or interferon was allowed. Idasanutlin was given orally once daily on days 1-5 of 28-day cycles for up to 24 mo. The starting dose was 150 mg; increase to 200 mg was allowed for non-responders at cycle 3, day 28, and reduction to 100 mg was permitted for toxicity and for pts treated beyond cycle 12. Antiemetic prophylaxis was mandatory in cycle 1 throughout the study and later became mandatory in all cycles. The primary endpoint (wk 32) was the composite response of Hct control (HTC) and spleen volume reduction > 35% by CT/MRI in pts with splenomegaly (> 450 cm3) and HTC alone in pts without splenomegaly. Key secondary endpoints included safety, complete hematologic response (CHR; defined as HTC and normalization of platelets/leukocytes) and ELN response. Results A total of 27 pts were included in this study and received tx with idasanutlin. Median age was 56 years (range, 34-74) and 16 pts (59.3%) were male (Table 1). All pts had JAK2 V617F mutation; 7 had previous exposure to rux. Median tx duration was 257 days (range, 5-677); the median number of treatment cycles was 8 (range, 1-23). Dose modifications occurred in 17 pts (63.0%; Table 2). A total of 3 serious AEs occurred: atrial flutter, atrial fibrillation and nausea/vomiting (n = 1 each). The serious cardiac AEs occurred in pts with pre-existing hypertension and a past incident of heart failure not symptomatic upon enrollment, respectively. No deaths, transformation to acute myeloid leukemia, progression to myelofibrosis or thrombotic events occurred during the study. AEs occurring in ≥ 15% of pts are listed in Table 3; gastrointestinal toxicity and fatigue were the most common events. The population for primary endpoint evaluation consisted of pts with response assessed at wk 32 (n = 16). One of 13 pts with baseline splenomegaly achieved a composite response (7.7%; Table 4). Nine of 16 pts (56.3%) among all evaluable pts achieved HTC: 6 of 11 rux-naive pts (54.5%) and 3 of 5 rux-exposed pts (60.0%). Eight of 13 pts (61.5%) among all pts had HTC duration ≥ 12 wk beyond wk 32: 5 of 9 rux-naive pts (55.6%) and 3 of 4 rux-exposed pts (75.0%). At wk 32, 8 of 16 pts (50.0%) achieved a CHR, with 6 of 13 (46.2%) having a CHR duration ≥ 12 wk beyond wk 32. Overall response rates per modified ELN response criteria in pts with baseline splenomegaly, pts without baseline splenomegaly and in all pts were 69.2% (9 of 13), 66.7% (2 of 3) and 68.8% (11 of 16), respectively; 9 of 15 pts (60%) among all pts had a response duration ≥ 12 wk beyond wk 32. Median (range) laboratory value changes at wk 32 were: platelets, −253 × 109/L (−2083 to +175) and leukocytes, −4.8 × 109/L (−25.3 to +3.4). At wk 32, 6 of 14 pts (42.9%) had a ≥ 50% reduction in the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score. Conclusions Idasanutlin showed relevant clinical activity in pts with HU-resistant/intolerant PV and also in a subset of pts with prior rux tx. However, the low-grade gastrointestinal toxicity profile of idasanutlin was not effectively mitigated with antiemetic prophylaxis and led to frequent discontinuations. These results iterate the importance of tolerability of novel therapies administered over the long term for pts with PV. Disclosures Mascarenhas: Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution). Higgins:Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Anders:Roche: Current Employment, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Burbury:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. El-Galaly:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Gerds:Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gupta:Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol MyersSquibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kovic:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Maffioli:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Mesa:AbbVie: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Received travel support., Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Advisory board and speaker fees from Pfizer.; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); University of Milan: Current Employment; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support from Gilead.; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Omeros: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Astellas: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Research grant from Amgen Inc.. Vannucchi:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Blueprint: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Yacoub:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support; Dynavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in private company; Cara Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Background Activating mutations in JAK2 are the molecular hallmark of PV. However, achieving molecular remission is not a validated endpoint in PV, as its correlation with patient-relevant endpoints, such as thrombotic events or disease progression, is not well established. The expression of MDM2, a negative regulator of wild-type p53, is significantly higher in CD34+ cells from patients with PV vs those from healthy controls. Therefore, MDM2 antagonists such as idasanutlin (idasa) may have selective and potentially disease-modifying effects in PV. This exploratory analysis reports baseline mutational profiling and serial measurements of JAK2 V617F variant allele frequency (VAF) from patients treated with idasa in the Phase II NP39761 study (NCT03287245). Methods Patients with PV, as defined by the 2016 World Health Organization criteria, were eligible for inclusion if their disease was HU resistant/intolerant according to European LeukemiaNet criteria and they were phlebotomy dependent (≥ 1 phlebotomy in the 16-wk period prior to screening). Prior PV therapy with ruxolitinib and/or interferon was allowed. Idasa was given orally once daily on days 1-5 of 28-day cycles for up to 24 mo. The starting dose was 150 mg, but dose increase (to 200 mg) or decrease (to 100 mg) was allowed per protocol-defined criteria. The primary efficacy endpoints were hematocrit control (HTC), defined as maintaining acceptable hematocrit levels with ≤ 1 phlebotomy between cycle 1, day 1 (C1D1) and wk 8 and no phlebotomy after wk 8, and complete hematologic remission (CHR), defined as HTC together with platelets < 400 × 109/L and white blood cell count < 109/L on the day of response assessment (or most recent test). JAK2 V617F VAF was analyzed at screening and at C3D28, C5D28 and wk 32. The JAK2 V617F VAF was determined using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Baseline blood samples were sequenced using the Foundation Medicine FoundationOne Heme next-generation sequencing panel, which interrogates > 400 DNA-sequenced genes, to explore the genetic landscape of PV beyond JAK2 V617F. Results All 27 patients enrolled in the study harbored JAK2 V617F. Baseline and ≥ 1 later JAK2 VAF measurements were available in 23 patients, allowing for analysis. The median age was 56 y (range, 34-74), and 7 patients (26%) had been previously treated with ruxolitinib. Median treatment duration was 257 days (range, 5-677), and the median number of treatment cycles was 8 (range, 1-22). JAK2 V617F VAFs at baseline were highly variable, ranging from 7% to 96% (median, 66%). A reduction in JAK2 V617F VAF was observed as early as after 3 cycles (median reduction, 39%; n = 19) and was sustained in patients receiving treatment, with a median reduction of 58% at C5D28 (n = 17) and of 76% at wk 32 (n = 13). The median reductions in JAK2 V617F VAF were significantly higher for patients with CHR and HTC than in nonresponders on C3D28 (CHR, P < 0.01; HTC, P = 0.04) and C5D28 (CHR, P < 0.01; HTC, P = 0.03), with a similar trend also at wk 32 (CHR, P = 0.06; HTC, P = 0.19) (Figures). Baseline targeted sequencing (n = 16) identified several additional subclonal mutations. However, no TP53 mutations were detected. Variants in TET2 and ASXL1 were detected in 37% (6 of 16) and 20% (3 of 16) of patients, with VAFs of 2%-51% and 38%-50%, respectively. Notably, 68% of the patients had variants detected in 1 to 3 DNA repair genes, including ATM (VAF, 47%-52%), ATR (VAF, 49%), BRCA2 (VAF, 47%-51%), PARP1 (VAF, 52%), PARP3 (VAF, 48%), FANCM (VAF, 47%-50%), BLM (VAF, 48%) and MSH3 (VAF, 49%). In the absence of sequencing of patient-matched non-hematologic tissue and the VAFs being ≈50%, it is possible some of these variants are germline. Whether such variants predispose to PV is unknown. Conclusions Idasa has relevant clinical activity in patients with PV who are resistant to or intolerant of HU and showed rapid JAK2 V617F VAF reduction in a subset of patients as early as after 3 treatment cycles. The median JAK2 VAF reduction was significantly greater in patients who achieved CHR and HTC after 3 and 5 cycles of idasa treatment, suggesting that early molecular response was associated with higher likelihood of clinical response. Baseline mutations were seen in several genes commonly mutated in PV. A high frequency of variants in DNA repair genes has not previously been reported in PV and may contribute to genomic instability in this disease. Figure Disclosures Passamonti: Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. El-Galaly:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Gerds:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Apexx Oncology: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Research Funding. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol MyersSquibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy. Higgins:Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Huw:Roche: Current Employment, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Maffioli:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Mesa:Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Received travel support., Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Astellas: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support from Gilead.; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Advisory board and speaker fees from Pfizer.; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Research grant from Amgen Inc.; Omeros: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); University of Milan: Current Employment. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Yacoub:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in private company; Cara Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Dynavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mascarenhas:Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution).

Radiotherapy (RT) can be curative in patients with localized follicular lymphoma (FL), with historical series showing a 10-year disease-free survival of 40 to 50%. As 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography with computerized tomography (PET-CT) upstages 10 to 60% of patients compared to CT, we sought to evaluate outcomes in patients staged by PET-CT, to determine if more accurate staging leads to better patient selection and results. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study under the direction of the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group (ILROG). Inclusion criteria were: RT alone for untreated stage I to II FL (grade 1-3A) with dose equivalent ≥24 Gy, staged by PET-CT, age ≥18 years, and follow-up ≥3 months. End points were freedom from progression (FFP), local control, and overall survival (OS). A total of 512 patients treated between 2000 and 2017 at 16 centers were eligible for analysis; median age was 58 years (range, 20-90); 410 patients (80.1%) had stage I disease; median RT dose was 30 Gy (24-52); and median follow-up was 52 months (3.2-174.6). Five-year FFP and OS were 68.9% and 96%. For stage I, FFP was 74.1% vs 49.1% for stage II (P < .0001). Eight patients relapsed in-field (1.6%). Four had marginal recurrences (0.8%) resulting in local control rate of 97.6%. On multivariable analysis, stage II (hazard ratio [HR], 2.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-3.10) and BCL2 expression (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.47) were significantly associated with less favorable FFP. Outcome after RT in PET-CT staged patients appears to be better than in earlier series, particularly in stage I disease, suggesting that the curative potential of RT for truly localized FL has been underestimated.

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

In the present study, we quantify the progress in overall survival (OS) during the period 2000-2016 among Danish patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). This population-based study, including 3820 adult patients with AML, demonstrates a significantly improved OS over time with the 2-year age-standardised OS increasing from 22% in 2002 to 31% in 2016. The improvement in OS was exclusively seen in patients with AML aged ≥50 years, with absolute improvements in 2-year OS from 2002 to 2016 of ≥10% among patients aged 50-75 years and a small absolute increase in those aged >75 years.

BACKGROUND: While many patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) undergo routine radiographic surveillance during their first remission, no consensus exists on the modality, duration, frequency, or need for routine imaging studies. We retrospectively examined the effect of surveillance imaging on relapse detection and overall survival (OS) in FL patients. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed FL with a response to induction therapy were identified from the Lymphoid Malignancies Enterprise Architecture Database (LEAD) at Emory University and from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic. Patients were evaluated for both relapse and method of relapse detection (i.e. clinical concerns vs radiologic detection via surveillance imaging in an asymptomatic patient). RESULTS: Of 148 LEAD cohort patients, 55 (37%) relapsed, with the majority (n=35, 64%) detected clinically. In the MER cohort, 63 (54%) of 117 relapses were detected clinically. There was no significant difference in OS from the date of diagnosis between the two methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (hazard ratio [HR]=0.61 [95% CI (0.13–2.94)], p=0.54) and MER (HR=1.02 [95% CI (0.47–2.21)], p=0.96) cohorts. Similarly, there was no significant difference in OS from the date of relapse between the two methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (HR=0.47 [95% CI (0.10–2.27)], p=0.35) and MER (HR=1.02 [95% CI (0.47–2.21)], p=0.96) cohorts. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest a limited role for routine surveillance imaging in patients with FL who complete front-line therapy. Future studies should evaluate which patients may benefit from a more aggressive surveillance approach and should explore novel methods of relapse detection.

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

PURPOSE: Personalized therapies are leading to an increasing number of marketing authorizations based on single-arm trials, which increases the demand for better post-authorization monitoring strategies. The aim of the present study was to estimate the power over time as data accrue in population-based registries for detecting deviations from the expected efficacy/safety of chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy approved for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (RR-LBCL).METHODS: The number of real-world RR-LBCL patients was projected over time in a general population of 5, 15, and 25 million citizens using lymphoma registry data. For each scenario, we computed the power over time for detecting significant deviations in efficacy (1-year overall survival [1yOS]) when comparing to historical controls (SCHOLAR-1 study; 1yOS, 28%) and RR-LBCL patients treated with CAR-T cell therapy in a single-arm trial (ZUMA-1; 1yOS, 59%) as well as deviations in selected adverse events (grade ≥3 aphasia) from the ZUMA-1 trial. We assumed a 10% absolute deviation in 1yOS (efficacy) and a relative increase of 50% in grade ≥3 aphasia (safety).RESULTS: Assuming a general population of 5, 15, and 25 million, the accrual time needed to achieve 80% power for detecting a significant increase over the 1yOS reported in SCHOLAR-1 was 9, 4, and 3 years, respectively, while 80% power for detecting a significant decrease in 1yOS compared to ZUMA-1 required 10.5, 4.5, and 3 years of data accrual, respectively. However, corresponding estimates for aphasia were >20, 8, and 5 years, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Projections of the statistical power for detecting important deviations in efficacy/safety from that reported in pivotal clinical trials(s) provide critical information about the expected performance of post-authorization monitoring programs.

In a recent study by our group we showed a disappointing absence of survival improvement among elderly acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients from 2001 until 2016. The importance of which is undersc...

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is suspected of being a risk factor for patients with cancer. This study aimed to assess the clinical consequences of CHIP in patients with lymphoma intended for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in a population-based setting. We identified 892 lymphoma patients who had undergone stem cell harvest at all transplant centers in Denmark. A total of 565 patients had an available harvest sample, which was analysed for CHIP by next-generation sequencing, and the median follow-up was 9.1 years. Of the patients who were intended for immediate ASCT, 25.5% (112/440) carried at least one CHIP mutation. In contrast to previous single-center studies CHIP was not associated with inferior overall survival (OS) in multivariate analyses. However, patients with mutations in genes of the DNA repair pathway (PPM1D, TP53, RAD21, BRCC3) had a significant inferior OS (HR after 1 year of follow-up 2.79, 95% confidence interval 1.71–4.56; p < 0.0001), which also was evident in multivariate analysis (p = 0.00067). These patients had also increased rates of therapy-related leukemia and admission to intensive care. Furthermore, in patients who did not undergo immediate ASCT, a significant inferior OS of individuals with DNA repair mutations was also identified (p = 0.003).

Background Patients with B-cell neoplasms in remission are monitored with regular physician visits at the hospital. The current standard follow-up procedure is not evidence-based or individualized to patient needs. To improve and individualize the follow-up, we investigated the feasibility of a shared care follow-up initiative, with alternating physician visits and nurse-led telephone consultations and assessments based on patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. Methods Patients ≥18 years diagnosed with B-cell neoplasms were eligible for the study when they were in remission and stable without treatment for at least 6 months. Patients were assigned to alternating visits with physicians and nurse-led telephone consultations. The nurse-led telephone consultations were based on PROs, which were collected with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm – Symptom Assessment Form, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Patients completed questionnaires before every nurse-led consultation. We also applied the Patient Feedback Form to survey patient acceptance of the requirement of questionnaire completion. We applied descriptive statistics, in terms of counts (n) and proportions (%), to describe the study population and all endpoints. Results Between February 2017 and December 2018, 80 patients were enrolled. Adherence, measured as the recruitment rate, was 96% (80/83), and the drop-out rate was 6% (5/80). During the study period, 3/80 (4%) patients relapsed, and 5/80 (6%) patients returned to the standard follow-up, because they required closer medical observation. Relapses were diagnosed based on unscheduled visits requested by patients (n = 2) and patient-reported symptoms reviewed by the nurse (n = 1). The response rate to questionnaires was 98% (335/341). A total of 58/79 (74%) patients completed the Patient Feedback Form; 51/57 (89%) patients reported improved communication with health care professionals; and 50/57 (88%) patients reported improved recollection of symptoms as a result of completing questionnaires. Conclusion Based on patient adherence, a low relapse rate, and positive patient attitudes towards completing questionnaires, we concluded that a shared care follow-up, supported by PROs, was a feasible alternative to the standard follow-up for patients with B-cell disease in remission.

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

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

Summary With rising life expectancy, the importance of patient‐related prognostic factors and how to integrate such data into clinical decision‐making becomes increasingly important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of smoking status in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) treated with intensive chemotherapy. We conducted a nationwide cohort study based on data obtained from the Danish National Leukaemia Registry (DNLR). The study comprised Danish patients aged 18–75 years, diagnosed with AML between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2012. Medical records were reviewed and data on smoking status were collected. A total of 1040 patients (median age 59 years) were included, and 602 patients (58·9%) were categorised as ever‐smokers and the remaining as never‐smokers. Kaplan–Meier survival estimates revealed that ever‐smokers had a significant shorter median overall survival (OS) at 17·2 months [95% CI (14·9;19·1)] compared to never‐smokers at 24·5 months (95% CI [19·2;30·7]). Multivariate analysis revealed smoking status as a significant prognostic factor for inferior OS with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·22 [95% CI (1·04;1·44)]. In conclusion, smoking status was found to be associated with inferior OS in intensively treated AML patients.

Cancer‐related psychological distress may lead to depression and anxiety among survivors. The vast majority of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) become long‐term survivors, but the risk of mental health problems after HL is not well‐characterized. Using national population‐based registries, we investigated the cumulative incidence of psychotropic drug (antidepressants, antipsychotics, and anxiolytics) use (proxies for depression and anxiety) in HL patients as well as if an increased risk would normalize over time for patients in remission. The study included 945 HL patients aged 18‐92 years and 4725 matched persons. In total, 215 HL patients (22.8%) received a prescription of any psychotropic drug (PD) at some point after date of diagnosis compared to 545 persons (11.5%) in the matched cohort. Cumulative incidences with death/relapse as competing risk confirmed that HL patients were at higher risk of receiving psychotropic drug prescriptions, but the increased risk was transient and normalized to the matched population 5 years into survivorship. Increased age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and disease stage were associated with higher risk of psychotropic drug prescriptions. Given the increased rate of psychotropic drug prescriptions after HL diagnosis, screening for symptoms of depression and anxiety is warranted after HL diagnosis and first years into survivorship., In this Danish nationwide cohort study of 945 Hodgkin lymphoma patients, we investigated the risk of anxiety and depression following diagnosis, using psychotropic drug prescriptions as proxy for anxiety and depression. Our findings showed that Hodgkin lymphoma patients had higher 5‐year cumulative incidence of receiving a prescription for a psychotropic drug (21.5%) as compared to a matched background population (8.4%).

High-dose prednisolone is used in first-line treatment for lymphoma, but the potential adverse impact on bone health is unclear. Danish patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma diagnosed between 2000 and 2012 were matched to the background population. Osteoporotic events (osteoporosis treatment or low-energy fracture) were identified using the Danish National Patient Registry and Prescription Registry. In total, 2589 patients and 12,945 controls were included. Lymphoma patients had increased risk of osteoporotic events compared to the matched population (hazard ratio 1.61 [95% confidence interval 1.40;1.84]). The 5- and 10-year cumulative risks of osteoporotic events for lymphoma patients were 10.0% [8.6;11.4] and 16.3% [13.8;18.7], whereas corresponding risks in the background population were 6.8% [6.3;7.3] and 13.5% [12.4;14.6]. Patients without osteoporotic event in the first two years after treatment were not at higher risk of osteoporotic events in subsequent years. Risk factors for osteoporotic events were female sex and age >70 years.

Summary Although 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F‐FDG PET) is commonly used for initial staging and therapeutic response evaluation in aggressive lymphomas, its prognostic utility for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is controversial. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the correlations of interim PET (iPET) and end‐of‐treatment PET (ePET) response with survival outcomes in 89 consecutive advanced MCL patients treated with frontline R‐CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone). iPET positivity was strongly associated with inferior five‐year overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) 7·84, P

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common lymphoma subtype. Disease progression or relapse following frontline chemoimmunotherapy, largely in the form of standard R-CHOP, occurs in 30-40% patients. Relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL represents a major unmet medical need. In particular, patients with primary refractory disease or those whose lymphoma relapses after autologous stem cell transplantation have historically had poor outcomes.Material and methods: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) therapy is a promising novel treatment with curative potential in this setting. CART is based on ex vivo genetic modification of autologous T-cells to express chimeric receptors targeting antigens highly expressed in tumors such as CD19 in DLBCL. After lymphocyte-depleting therapy, patients are infused with CARTs that expand in vivo and target CD19-positive lymphoma cells.Results: In initial phase I-II trials, investigators have demonstrated complete responses in 40-50% of patients with R/R DLBCL, resulting in durable remission approaching 3 years of follow-up in most of these patients without further treatment. The logistics of delivery are complex as cell products require timely long-distance transfer between hospitals and production facilities. The unique toxicity profile of CARTs, including the risk of fatal immunological and neurologic events, also requires specific hospital wide management approaches and education. The substantial direct and indirect costs of CART will limit access even in countries with well resourced health care systems.Conclusions: While only two products are commercially available at present, further approvals in coming years appear likely. Future directions include CARTs with reactivity to tumor antigens other than CD19 and products targeting multiple tumor antigens to overcome resistance. The availability of CART has altered the current treatment algorithm for R/R DLBCL, and indications will likely expand to earlier lines of therapy and other hematologic malignancies.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, While classical nodal mantle cell lymphoma (cMCL) is often associated with involvement of multiple extranodal sites, isolated extranodal disease (ED) at the time of diagnosis is a rare event; data on the outcome of these forms are lacking. On behalf of the European MCL Network, we conducted a retrospective analysis on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of MCL presenting with isolated or predominant ED (MALT MCL). We collected data on 127 patients with MALT MCL diagnosed from 1998 to 2015: 78 patients (61%) were male with a median age of 65 years. The involved sites include: upper airways + Waldeyer ring (40; 32%), gastrointestinal tract (32; 25%), ocular adnexa (17; 13%), oral cavity and salivary glands (17; 13%) and others (13; 1%); 7 patients showed multiple extranodal sites. The median follow-up was 80 months (range: 6–182), 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 45% (95% CI: 35–54) and 5-year overall survival (OS) was 71% (95% CI: 62–79). In an explorative setting, we compared MALT MCL with a group of 128 cMCL patients: MALT MCL patients showed a significantly longer PFS and OS compared with nodal cMCL; with a median PFS of 4.5 years vs 2.8 years (p = 0.001) and median OS of 9.8 years vs 6.9 years (p = 0.018), respectively. Patients with MALT MCL at diagnosis showed a more favorable prognosis and indolent course than classical nodal type. This clinical variant of MCL should be acknowledged to avoid possible over-treatment.

Introduction: Immune surveillance is the dynamic process whereby the immune system identifies and kills tumor cells based on their aberrant expression of stress-related surface molecules or presentation of tumor neoantigens. It plays a crucial role in controlling the initiation and progression of hematologic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, and it has been reported that diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) fails to express specific cell-surface molecules that are necessary for the recognition and elimination of tumor cells.Areas covered: This review is based on a systematic search strategy to identify relevant literature in the PubMed and Embase databases. Ten candidate genes are identified based on mutational frequency, and functions with detailed mapping performed for hotspot alterations that may have a functional impact on malignant transformation and decreased immune surveillance efficacy.Expert opinion: Ongoing development of technology and bioinformatics tools combined with data from large clinical cohorts have the potential to define the mutational landscape associated with immune surveillance in DLBCL. Specific functional studies are required to make an unambiguous link between genetic aberrations and biological impact on impaired immune surveillance

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

Marginal zone lymphoma of the central nervous system (CNS MZL) is rare. The clinical features, treatment, and prognosis are not well characterized. We performed a multicenter retrospective study of CNS MZL. Twenty‐six patients were identified: half with primary and half with secondary CNS involvement. The median age was 59 years (range 26‐78), 62% female and 79% with ECOG performance status ≤ 1. The most common disease site was the dura (50%). Treatment was determined by the treating physician and varied substantially. After a median follow up of 1.9 years, the estimated 2‐year progression‐free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 59% and 80%, respectively. Secondary CNS MZL was associated with 2‐year OS of 58%. CNS MZL is rare, but relative to other forms of CNS lymphoma, outcomes appear favorable, particularly among the subset of patients with dural presentation and primary CNS presentation., Marginal zone lymphoma of the central nervous system (CNS MZL) is rare. In this multicenter retrospective study of 26 patients, the estimated 2‐year overall survival rate was 80%. Outcomes appear favorable, particularly among the subset of patients with primary dural presentation.

Within recent years, many precision cancer medicine initiatives have been developed. Most of these have focused on solid cancers, while the potential of precision medicine for patients with hematological malignancies, especially in the relapse situation, are less elucidated. Here, we present a demographic unbiased and observational prospective study at Aalborg University Hospital Denmark, referral site for 10% of the Danish population. We developed a hematological precision medicine workflow based on sequencing analysis of whole exome tumor DNA and RNA. All steps involved are outlined in detail, illustrating how the developed workflow can provide relevant molecular information to multidisciplinary teams. A group of 174 hematological patients with progressive disease or relapse was included in a non-interventional and population-based study, of which 92 patient samples were sequenced. Based on analysis of small nucleotide variants, copy number variants, and fusion transcripts, we found variants with potential and strong clinical relevance in 62% and 9.5% of the patients, respectively. The most frequently mutated genes in individual disease entities were in concordance with previous studies. We did not find tumor mutational burden or micro satellite instability to be informative in our hematologic patient cohort.

Malignant lymphomas comprise a heterogeneous group of diseases with important differences in pathogenesis, management strategies, and outcome [1]. To obtain information about prognosis in daily pra...

Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is rare in diffuse large cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We present a DLBCL case with TLS developing upon first treatment with R‐CHOP despite prophylactic measures. Overnight, the patient developed severe hyperkalemia, which resulted in a fatal arrhythmia. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) is an oncologic emergency resulting from massive cancer cell lysis that occurs spontaneously or upon the start of chemotherapy. The release of intracellular tumor cell content (potassium, phosphorus, and uric acid) into the bloodstream leads to critical hyperuricemia, hyperkalemia, hyperphosphatemia, and hypocalcemia 1. TLS ranges from mild and transient asymptomatic electrolyte derangement to severe cases of renal failure, cardiac arrhythmias, and death, but fulminant TLS is a rare event in diffuse large cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We report a case of fatal TLS in a patient with DLBCL upon the start of R‐CHOP (Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone).

Accurate and reproducible staging is crucial for management of malignant lymphomas. Disease stage influences treatment decisions more significantly than any other clinical information in most lymphoma subtypes, and contributes with important prognostic information on its own or as part of clinical prognostic scores. Information derived from medical imaging is the single most important determinant of disease stage, and the introduction PET/CT for lymphoma has led to substantial changes in the concept as well as practice of lymphoma staging. Over time, the most important change in lymphoma staging has been the abandonment of extensive pathologic staging intended in the original Ann Arbor classification. The 2014 Lugano Classification represents the most recent expert recommendation for staging of lymphoma. This revision recognizes the improved diagnostic accuracy of PET/CT over stand-alone CT and recommended PET/CT for routine staging of all FDG-avid lymphomas. Routine bone marrow biopsies are also discouraged in Hodgkin lymphoma as well as in selected cases of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The scope of this review is to give the reader insight into the history of staging, the purpose of lymphoma staging in the context of contemporary treatment strategies, and the advantages of PET/CT staging over conventional staging. We also discuss the controversies of PET/CT replacing conventional bone marrow biopsies in different lymphoma subtypes and summarize recommendations by the recent Lugano classification.

Introduction For most cancer types, cancer incidence as well as cancer-specific mortality is higher in men compared to women. The underlying reasons for this remain unclear but hypotheses include sex differences in environmental exposure to carcinogens, health-seeking behavior and biology, such as hormonal, anatomical, and molecular disparities. For lymphomas, the impact of sex seems to differ by subtype, treatment, and calendar time. For example, in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), male sex has historically been considered an established negative prognostic factor but in contemporary studies, therapeutic advances appear to have attenuated the prognostic value of sex. In contrast, a negative impact of male sex on prognosis has become manifest during the last decades in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, with sex differences in rituximab clearance in elderly proposed as one explanation. Previous studies have not considered the longer life expectancy of women when predicting incidence and prognosis, and comprehensive studies on the impact of sex on incidence and excess mortality in lymphomas are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to quantify and outline sex differences in lymphoma incidence and lymphoma excess mortality by subtype in a large, population-based cohort. Methods Adult patients diagnosed with lymphoma 2000-2019 were identified via the Swedish lymphoma register (>95% national coverage). Sex-specific incidence rates were computed as the number of new cancer cases per 100,000 person-years/year and age-standardized to the Swedish population in 2019 (using population counts from Statistics Sweden). Male-to-female incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for age and year of diagnosis, were estimated using Poisson regression models. Sex-specific 5-year relative survival was calculated as the ratio of the observed lymphoma patient and the matched (sex, age, and calendar year) population 5-year survival and age-standardized according to the International Cancer Survival Standards. Male-to-female 5-year excess mortality rate ratios (EMRR) including 95% CIs were estimated including age and calendar year in the Poisson regression models. Results A total of 36 859 patients with lymphoma were identified during the study period. Median age for all patients was 69 (range 16-99) years. In the whole cohort there was a male predominance of 56%. Distribution of patients by sex, and male-to-female IRR and EMRR adjusted for age and year of diagnosis by major lymphoma subtype are presented in Table 1, and graphically in Figure 1. Overall, significantly higher incidence rates among men were observed for all lymphoma subtypes except marginal zone lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. The higher male-to-female IRRs remained largely stable over calendar time. For some subtypes, male-to-female IRR differed by age. For example, in HL, male and female IRs were similar up to 35 years, whereafter the male-to-female IRR increased. For both Burkitt lymphoma and Nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma the higher male-to-female IRR was most pronounced among patients under the age of 50, although incidence was higher among men of all ages for both subtypes. Regarding survival, there was a trend for higher excess mortality among men for several subtypes (Table 1, Fig 1). Significantly higher EMRRs among male patients were seen in HL, aggressive lymphomas not otherwise specified, and small lymphocytic lymphoma. Conclusion In this large population-based study we observe a significantly higher incidence rate among men for all but two lymphoma subtypes. Further, there was a trend for worse survival among male lymphoma patients for most lymphomas although only significantly worse for three subtypes, potentially due to small numbers for rare subtypes and limited adjustment. As of yet, reasons for sex differences in incidence and excess mortality of lymphoma are unknown. Better understanding of underlying factors to these differences may improve management of lymphomas and increase knowledge of lymphoma biology and etiology. Thus, further studies on sex differences in lymphoma with detailed data regarding disease-specific patient characteristics, treatment and patient-related factors such as comorbidity and socioeconomic status are warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Weibull: Jansen-Cilag: Other: part of a research collaboration between Karolinska Institutet and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV for which Karolinska Institutet has received grant support. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Smedby: Jansen-Cilag: Other: part of a research collaboration between Karolinska Institutet and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV for which Karolinska Institutet has received grant support.

Introduction: Central nervous system (CNS) relapse in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is uncommon but is associated with poor outcomes. In selected high risk patients (pts), high dose methotrexate (HDMTX) is often used as CNS prophylaxis with frontline (1L) DLBCL therapy despite uncertain efficacy, optimum dose and timing of delivery. A recent UK study (Wilson et al 2020) showed that intercalated HDMTX (i-HDMTX) was associated with increased toxicity and R-CHOP delays compared to end of treatment (EOT) delivery. Although hypothesis generating, the study size was insufficient to determine whether EOT was non-inferior in terms of CNS relapse risk. Methods: We conducted an international, multicentre retrospective analysis of consecutive DLBCL or high grade BCL pts between 2007-20 from 47 centers in Europe, Australia and N. America. Pts were included if they received R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like 1L therapy with curative intent as well as HDMTX CNS prophylaxis (≥1 cycle). Concurrent intrathecal (IT) prophylaxis was permitted. Pts with known CNS involvement at baseline and those treated with more intensive protocols (e.g. R-DA-EPOCH) were excluded. i-HDMTX was defined as any pt receiving a HD-MTX cycle before the final R-CHOP cycle. CNS relapse events were excluded if occurring after first systemic lymphoma relapse/progression. Time to event endpoints were measured from diagnosis to first event or censor and analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Time to CNS relapse was analysed using competing risk Fine and Gray method (for death and non-synchronous systemic relapse). To mitigate for possible immortality bias in the EOT arm, a landmark analysis for pts alive and free from progression at 6 months was conducted. We aimed to exclude a 5% difference in 2-year (y) CNS relapse rates. Results: 1,384 pts were analysed. 750 received i-HDMTX and 634 received EOT HDMTX. Key baseline characteristics are summarised in Table 1. Median follow up was 37.9 months. 44.2% had high CNS IPI (4-6) with no significant difference between i-HDMTX and EOT groups (45.1% vs 43.1%, p=0.087). ≥2 cycles of HDMTX were used in 86.6% with no difference between groups (85.6% vs 87.9%, p=0.22). Concurrent IT prophylaxis use was higher for EOT pts (55.6% vs 38.1% p 78 CNS relapses (42 i-HDMTX, 36 EOT) were observed: parenchymal in 41 (53%), parenchymal and leptomeningeal in 16 (21%) and isolated leptomeningeal in 21 (27%). There was no significant difference in 2y CNS relapse rates between i-HDMTX and EOT in all pts: 5.2% vs 3.9%, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.58-1.47), p=0.74, 2y difference -0.2% (-2.0-2.5) or landmark analysis: 2.8% vs 4.1%, HR: 0.93 (0.56-1.55), p=0.79, 2y difference: -0.3% (-1.8-2.2%) (Fig 1a/b). Exploratory analyses focusing on pts with isolated CNS relapse (n=57) demonstrated similar results (2y rates 3.6% vs 3.0%, p=0.99). On multivariable analysis (MVA) of risk factors for CNS relapse, renal/adrenal involvement was the only variable associated with increased CNS relapse risk (adjusted HR 1.74 (1.03-2.92), p=0.038). Notably, IT prophylaxis was not associated with reduction in CNS relapse. In 600 high CNS IPI (4-6) pts, there was no difference in CNS relapse risk between i-HD-MTX and EOT (3y rates 9.4% vs 8.6%, HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.52-1.62)). In a composite high risk group including CNS IPI 4-6 and/or any of the following: ≥3 extranodal sites, renal, adrenal, testicular or breast involvement (n=885) there was no difference in 3y CNS relapse rates between groups (i-HDMTX 7.6% vs EOT 7.4%, HR 0.94 (0.58-1.53)). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the i-HDMTX and EOT groups were as follows: 3y PFS 70.7% vs 76.7% (p=0.098), 3y OS 79.9% vs 87.0% (p=0.0016). However, there were no PFS/OS differences between groups on landmark analysis (n=1259) (Fig 1c). On analysis of pts experiencing ≥1 R-CHOP delay of ≥7 days, use of i-HDMTX was the only factor on MVA associated with increased delays (p Discussion: We found no evidence that EOT delivery increases CNS relapse risk when compared to i-HDMTX in this large analysis of pts treated with 1L R-CHOP. Delays to R-CHOP cycles were increased with i-HDMTX. Findings in a high risk subgroup were unchanged and rates of CNS relapse in this HDMTX treated group were similar to published comparable high risk cohorts receiving infrequent CNS prophylaxis. Where HDMTX prophylaxis is used, delivery could be deferred until R-CHOP completion. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wilson: Takeda: Other: Conference fees; Janssen: Other: Conference fees; Abbvie: Honoraria. Eyre: Janssen: Honoraria; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ahearne: Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Schorb: Roche: Research Funding; Riemser Pharma GmbH: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ku: Antegene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Narkhede: Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genmab: Other: Medical writing support, Research Funding; TG Therapeautics: Research Funding. Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Patents & Royalties; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Santarsiere: Janssen: Honoraria. Shah: Abbvie, Janssen and Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roulin: Janssen: Other: Travel and meetings. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hamad: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Lopez-Garcia: Roche: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Travel and accommodation grants; Janssen: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants; Celgene: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Fresenius: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Novonordisk: Other: Speaker Honoraria. El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee. Cheah: Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory. Ferreri: Gilead, Novartis, Juno, PletixaPharm, Roche, Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, Beigene, Pharmacyclics, Hutchison Medipharma, Amgen, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer: Research Funding. Fox: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: speaker fees. Cwynarski: Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. McKay: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; KITE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Beigene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: Many lymphoma patients receive high doses of glucocorticoids as part of standard therapy, and several recent observational studies have highlighted a possible risk of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) and excess bone fracture risk. As a substantial fraction of lymphoma patients become long-term survivors, studies that focus on mitigating the negative effects of treatment toxicities on survivorship are important. The objective of the SIESTA trial was to determine if primary prophylaxis with oral alendronate (ALN) is safe and effective against (GIO) in lymphoma patients. Methods: SIESTA was a single-center randomized and double-blinded phase 2 study performed at the Department of Hematology, Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark, enrolling lymphoma patients that were planned for glucocorticoid-containing chemotherapy regimens such as (R-)CVP and all variants of (R)-CHOP. Patients were randomized to weekly oral ALN 70mg or placebo with a treatment duration of 52 weeks. Study assessments included bone mineral density (BMD) measurements at baseline, after completion of chemotherapy at 4-6 months (EOT), and after 12 months, as well as vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) at baseline and at 12 months. The primary study endpoint was change in lumbar spine T-score from baseline to 12 months. Key secondary endpoints were change in T-score from baseline to 12 months at total hip and femoral neck levels, vertebral compression fractures and early T-score changes. Biomarker analyses were exploratory. The target recruitment was 60 patients in a three-year period. Results: A total of 59 patients (36 Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 15 follicular lymphoma, 8 other) were enrolled with 22 of 30 patients in the ALN arm and 23 of 29 patients in the placebo arm completing the study (efficacy group). Patient characteristics in the two arms were balanced with exception of more advanced stage diseases (Ann Arbor stage III-IV) in the ALN arm (70·0% vs 41·4%), and a lower median baseline T-score at the lumbar spine in the ALN arm (median T-score -0·6 vs 1·0). Patients in the ALN group received a median of 3,291 mg prednisone versus 3,398 mg for the placebo group. Median change in T-score from baseline to 12 months at the lumbar spine level (primary endpoint) was +0·2 for the ALN arm and -0·2 for the placebo arm (P=0·013) (figure 1), with stronger effect for female patients (median change; ALN +0·25; placebo -0·25) (figure 2). ALN had no effect on BMD for total hip (P=0·30) and femoral neck (P=0·58) at 12 months (figure 1). ALN had no significant early effects on BMD for any measured sites (4-6 months). No new fractures were observed. Nine patients experienced AEs related to the upper gastro-intestinal (GI) system (7 grade 1-2, 2 grade 3-4) with 5 AEs being assessed as related to the study treatment (3 in the ALN group and 2 in the placebo group). One patient (placebo group) discontinued study treatment due to upper GI AE (bleeding ulcer). Biomarker analyses (C-terminal telopeptide cross links (CTX) as marker of bone resorption and N-terminal propeptides of collagen type 1 (P1NP) as marker for bone formation) showed reduced bone resorption for ALN treated patients opposed to the placebo treated patients. From baseline to EOT the mean change in CTX was -0.17 in the ALN group and 0.10 in the placebo group respectively (P Interpretation: ALN was a safe and effective primary prophylaxis against GIO in lymphoma patients planned for glucocorticoid-containing chemotherapy regimens. The treatment effects were clinically meaningful across all patient subgroups, but the largest effect size was observed in females. Biomarker analyses supported reduced bone resorption for ALN treated patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Vestergaard: Novo Nordisk Foundation: Other: Head of Research at Steno Diabetes Center North Jutland funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

The advent of novel immunotherapy (CAR-T cell therapy, bispecific CD20×CD3 antibodies) have highlighted the importance of T-cells in the treatment of lymphoma. However, overall T-cell characteristics have not been properly examined in patients receiving conventional chemotherapy. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the T-cell receptor (TCR) has enabled the possibility of identifying hundred thousands of unique T-cell clones in a single patient sample. Here we analyzed the impact of systemic TCR diversity and T-cell clonotypes in patients with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin-lymphoma (HL) receiving high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell support (HDT/ASCT). Autologous peripheral blood stem cell harvest samples from patients with lymphoma (predominantly B-cell NHL) were collected as part of a national population-based study (Husby et al. - Leukemia 2020). We performed high-throughput RNA-based sequencing of the V, D and J segment of the TCR β-chain to identify unique clonal rearrangements. To ensure supreme quality for TCR repertoire calculations, samples with less than 100.000 aligned reads to the TCR β chain were omitted from further analysis. By using the MiXCR bioinformatic pipeline we analyzed the number of unique clonotypes and TCR repertoire diversity, as calculated by the Simpson index. T-cell clonotype and diversity were for categorical analyses split in two groups by the median, respectively. A total of 96 patients with lymphoma who were intended for HDT/ASCT were included and analyzed for TCR characteristics. In brief, median age was 56 years, 64% were male and major subtypes were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (37%), follicular lymphoma (24%), Hodgkin lymphoma (16%), and mantle cell lymphoma (14%). Median follow-up time was 6.7 years. Number of unique T-cell clonotypes was not associated with age (Fig. 1A), but low levels were highly associated with inferior survival (Fig. 1B, p=0.008), especially in the first year of follow-up. In contrast, elderly patients had a trend toward lower TCR diversity (Fig. 1C, p=0.08), but this did not impact overall survival (Fig. 1D). Low T-cell clonotype levels was also significantly associated with presence of clonal hematopoiesis (Fig. 1E, p=0.033). No association with clonal hematopoiesis was found with regard to TCR diversity (Fig. 1F). Furthermore, we investigated TCR repertoire in relation to subsequent severe infections (defined as sepsis, pneumonia, or invasive fungal infection). Number of unique T-cell clonotypes did not have an impact (Fig. 1F), but remarkably patients with a high T-cell diversity had significant increased incidence of severe infections in the first 500 days after sampling (Fig. 1G, p=0.029). This implies that patients who have a high T-cell diversity before high-dose chemotherapy, are more capable of mounting an immune response against infectious pathogens. These findings should be validated in larger homogenous cohorts. However, they imply the importance of inherent immune characteristics in patients with lymphoma. Although the immune response is exceedingly complex, we have identified systemic T-cell characteristics that associate with several important clinical variables. Assessment of systemic immunological parameters in patients with aggressive lymphoma may in the future inform on choice of optimal personalized therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee. Larsen: Odense University Hospital, Denmark: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy.

Introduction: A cancer diagnosis is associated with profound psychological distress that potentially can lead to mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) are a heterogenous group of indolent and aggressive cancer diseases with high variability in treatment selections and patient outcomes. Some patients are chronically ill with recurrent need for mild chemotherapy whereas others face immediately life-threatening, yet curable disease. To gain valuable insights into the psychological distress associated with NHLs, the present study investigated the incident psychotropic drug (PD - antidepressants, anxiolytics, and antipsychotics) use, contact patterns to psychiatric departments, and intentional self-harm (including suicide) in Danish NHL patients relative to sex- and age matched individuals from the background population. Methods: The study was carried out as a nationwide population-based matched cohort study based on prospectively collected data from several Danish registries. All adult NHL patients (≥18 years) diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 were identified in the Danish Lymphoma Registry and included if they had not been treated with any kind of PD within the last 10 years prior to date of NHL diagnosis (index date). NHL patients were matched on age and sex with five random comparators from the Danish background population on the index date. Comparators had to be alive and without PD use 10 years prior to the index date. Incident PD use was defined as first redeemed prescription of PD after index date. Prescriptions were captured in the National Prescription Registry and described by cumulative incidences using the Aalen-Johansen estimator with death and NHL relapse as competing risk. Contacts with psychiatric departments and registration of intentional self-harm or completed suicide were captured in the Danish National Patient Registry. Patients were subcategorized according to type of lymphoma (Table 1). Results: In total, 7,201 NHL patients and 36,005 matched comparators were included (median follow-up 7.1 years). Follicular lymphoma (FL, 44.4%) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, 41.0%) were the most common subtypes (Table 2). Two-year cumulative incidence of PD use was higher in NHL patients overall (16.2%, 95%CI 15.4-17.0%) compared to matched comparators (5.7%, 95%CI 5.5-5.9%). Patients with aggressive NHL subtypes tended to have the highest incidence of PD use (Figure 1). Antidepressants (two-year cumulative incidence, 9.0%, 95%CI 8.4-9.6) and anxiolytics (8.2%, 95%CI 7.6-8.8) were the most used PDs in all NHL subtypes. The risk of PD use was higher in the first years following diagnosis, but except for patients with indolent NHL subtypes, the risk of PD use normalized over time to that of the background population. As for the risk of any psychiatric department contacts, there was no difference in two-year cumulative incidences between NHL patients (range 0.6-0.9%) and the matched comparators (range 0.6%-0.9%), whereas the two-year cumulative incidence of intentional self-harm and suicide was slightly higher for NHL patients (0.3%) compared to the matched comparators (0.2%, p=0.01). Conclusion: This study suggests that NHL patients have a significantly higher risk of mental health problems compared to the Danish background population, (when) using PD prescriptions as a proxy measure. The risk of intentional self-harm and completed suicide was also higher, but numerical differences were very small. Overall, the results emphasize the need for directing clinical attention on mental health in newly diagnosed NHL patients and screening for relevant symptoms during follow-up to provide best possible support to patients suffering from anxiety and depression. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Kragholm: Novartis: Honoraria. Nielsen: Lundbeck: Honoraria, Other: Investigator, Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Prior Advisor, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Prior advisor; Janssen & Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Investigator; Servier: Honoraria; Teva A/S: Honoraria; Eli Lilly: Honoraria, Other: Prior Advisor; Takeda: Other: Prior advisor; Medivir: Other; Boehringer: Other: Investigator. Brown: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dahl-Soerensen: Takeda: Other: Travel grant. Frederiksen: Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Mannering: Novartis: Research Funding; Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (SOBI): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jørgensen: Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Clausen: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML . El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee.

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

Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.

Introduction: R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine, prednisolone) remains the standard of care for first-line (1L) treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with a long-term event free survival of 60-70% in patients (pts) who complete the recommended treatment course of 6-8 cycles (Coiffier, et al. Blood 2010). However, significant numbers of pts are unable to tolerate R-CHOP due to comorbidity or frailty, which confers susceptibility to consequences of treatment-related toxicities. These pts are less likely to achieve complete remission and are at higher risk of relapse as they receive a lower chemotherapy dose intensity due to treatment discontinuation, interruptions, or reductions (Długosz-Danecka, et al. Cancer Med 2019). Identifying these pts upfront could facilitate recruitment into studies of alternate therapies, thereby sparing them the unfavorable risk/benefit profile of R-CHOP treatment. The aim of this study was to develop a predictive tool to identify pts newly diagnosed with DLBCL who are unlikely to tolerate anti-CD20 with CHOP. Methods: We performed an exploratory analysis based on 1,407 newly diagnosed DLBCL pts from the Phase III GOYA trial [NCT01287741] who were treated with R-CHOP or obinutuzumab in combination with CHOP (G-CHOP). To identify pts who did not tolerate anti-CD20 + CHOP, we selected a hybrid binary endpoint: 1) adverse events (AEs) leading to withdrawal of cyclophosphamide and/or doxorubicin; 2) average relative dose intensity of cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin We separated data into 5-folds with a training (n=1051) and a hold-out test set (n=355) to be evaluated in the future. Candidate predictive variables were selected on the basis of known baseline characteristics, which contribute to patient frailty, comorbidity and chemotherapy toxicity. Prediction performance was evaluated by 4-fold cross validation (CV) on the training set. We first associated variables with clinical outcomes to estimate variable importance. We combined highly informative variables to fit a logistic regression model that maximized prediction and evaluated robustness. Results: Of 1,407 evaluable pts that initiated anti-CD20 + CHOP, the hybrid tolerability binary endpoint occurred in 188 (13.4%) (Figure A). There were 104 (7.4%) pts with AEs leading to withdrawal of cyclophosphamide and/or doxorubicin; 162 (11.5%) instances of reduced average relative dose intensity of cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin We identified a model including: albumin, percentage of bone marrow lymphocytes, CCI, creatinine clearance and previous history of heart, vascular or diabetes comorbidities (Table). Our TRAIL model was trained on 742 pts with complete data. We achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 75.5% and a CV AUC of 74.9% (sensitivity = 75%, specificity = 69.6%) (Figure B). To create a simpler model using information available in the routine clinical setting, we removed bone marrow lymphocytes and trained a model on 1022 pts with complete data achieving a CV AUC of 70.1% (sensitivity = 68.1%, specificity = 67.2%). Other top ranking models with complete data on all pts achieved AUCs >70% and included age, hemoglobin, T-cell counts, proportion of TH cells, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Implementations of CCI alone performed less well with a CV AUC of 62.9%. Conclusions: Future analyses will evaluate TRAIL on the hold-out test set to estimate a final unbiased measure of performance as well as an evaluation in an independent clinical trial. This model has the potential to be used as clinical decision support to guide physician judgement and enable patient enrollment into future clinical trials for alternate therapies, as well as alleviate anti-CD20 or R-CHOP associated toxicities for 1L DLBCL patients who are unlikely to derive the full benefit of this treatment. Disclosures Bataillard: Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Roche Products Limited (temporary clinical fellowship as a fixed-term sabbatical from Hematology specialty training fellowship at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust): Current Employment. Harris:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment. El-Galaly:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Kwan:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Henneges:Genentech, Inc. (via Syneos Health): Current Employment; University of Wurzburg: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Paulson:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current equity holder in private company, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.