Search

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

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

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

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

Patients with a history of malignancy have been shown to be at an increased risk of COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. Poorer clinical outcomes in that patient population are likely due to the underlying systemic illness, comorbidities, and the cytotoxic and immunosuppressive anti-tumor treatments they are subjected to. We identified 416 cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection being managed for their malignancy at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, between March and July of 2020. Seventy-five (18.0%) patients died due to COVID-related complications. Older age (>60), male gender, and current treatment with immunotherapy were associated with shorter overall survival. Laboratory findings showed that higher platelet counts, ALC, and hemoglobin were protective against critical illness and death from COVID-19. Conversely, elevated inflammatory markers such as ferritin, d-dimer, procalcitonin, CRP, and LDH led to worse clinical outcomes. Our findings suggest that a thorough clinical and laboratory assessment of infected patients with cancer might help identify a more vulnerable population and implement more aggressive proactive strategies.

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

Innovations in immuno-oncology for lymphomas have outpaced therapeutic developments in any other cancer histology. In the 1990s, rituximab, a CD20 monoclonal antibody, drastically changed treatment paradigms for B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (B-NHLs). In parallel, the concept that T cells could be genetically reprogrammed and regulated to address tumor cell evasion was developed. Twenty years later, this concept has materialized—3 customized engineered CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) constructs have been embraced as third-line therapies and beyond for aggressive B-NHL. Responses with CARTs are durable in 30% to 40% of patients, with consistent results in older patients, primary refractory disease, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and patients with concurrent secondary central nervous system disease, all features historically associated with poorer outcomes. Challenges associated with the administration of CARTs include cumbersome and time-consuming manufacturing processes, toxicities, and cost, not to mention a substantial risk of relapse. Fortunately, as our understanding of how to manipulate the immune system to achieve full antitumor potential has grown, so has the rapid development of off-the-shelf immunotherapies, with CD20/CD3 bispecific antibodies standing out above all others. These agents have shown promising activity in aggressive B-NHL and have the potential to circumvent some of the challenges encountered with customized engineered products. However, toxicities remain substantial, dosing schedules intensive, and experience limited with these agents. Novel customized and off-the-shelf therapeutics as well as rational combinations of these agents are underway. Ultimately, growing experience with both customized engineered and off-the-shelf immunotherapies will provide guidance on optimal methods of delivery and sequencing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction: CAR T-cell therapy (CART) has dramatically improved outcomes for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL, but the majority of pts still have poor outcomes due to progressive disease and toxicities. Here we used a machine learning algorithm to rank the prognostic impact of specific comorbidities measured by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) in DLBCL pts indicated for CART in a multicenter learning cohort (LC) and a separate validation cohort (VC). Methods: pts with r/r DLBCL included in RWE analysis underwent leukapheresis for CART at 10 academic centers. CIRS was assessed at the time of T-cell collection (Salvi et al, 2008). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were measured from T-cell collection. Random survival forest (RSF) modeling of PFS and OS was repeatedly applied to random subsets of the LC to determine the most important CIRS categories and comorbidity levels in the presence of known prognostic factors. Cox proportional hazards models of PFS and OS were fit to both cohorts. Associations between comorbidities and CART adverse events were evaluated with Fisher’s exact test. Results: The LC comprised 577 pts, median age of 63 (range, 19-90); 90% had ECOG 0-1. Median number of prior therapies was 3 (range, 1-11). GCB subtype was found in 54% of pts, with 38% non-GCB and 8% unknown. Twenty-seven pts (4.7%) died before CART infusion. Of the 550 pts who received CART, 71% got axicabtagene ciloleucel, 22% tisagenlecleucel, and 7% lisocabtagene maraleucel. The median CIRS score was 7 (range, 0-25) with 54% having CIRS ≥7. The median PFS was 11 months (95% CI: 8 – 15) and OS 30 months (95% CI: 23 – NA), with a median follow-up time of 20 months. Although CIRS ≥7 was significantly associated with PFS (HR=1.26) and OS (HR=1.35) in univariable analysis, it did not remain significant in multivariable models. According to a RSF tree depth-weighted nodal split score, severe comorbidities in the following CIRS categories had the greatest impact on PFS: respiratory, upper GI, renal, and hepatic (denoted Severe4, 9% of pts). When accounting for other significant variables, Severe4 was independently associated with inferior PFS (HR=2.45, p Citation Format: Geoffrey Shouse, Andy Kaempf, Max Gordon, David Yashar, Audrey M Sigmund, Gordon Smilnak, Steven M Bair, Agrima Mian, Lindsey Fitzgerald, Amneet Bajwa, Samantha Jaglowski, Neil Bailey, Mayzar Shadman, Krish Patel, Deborah M Stephens, Manali Kamdar, Brian T Hill, Jordon Gauthier, Reem Karmali, Loretta Nastoupil, Adam S Kittai, Alexey V Danilov. Impact of a validated composite comorbidity score on outcomes in patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL): A multicenter real-world evidence (RWE) study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Third AACR International Meeting: Advances in Malignant Lymphoma: Maximizing the Basic-Translational Interface for Clinical Application; 2022 Jun 23-26; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Blood Cancer Discov 2022;3(5_Suppl):Abstract nr A27.

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

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

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

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

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

LBA7564 Background: Patients with r/r B-NHL have a dismal prognosis. DIAL (Dual Immunomodulation in Aggressive Lymphoma) was a multi-center randomized phase II study testing the efficacy of nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) plus varlilumab (CD27 agonist) in this population. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg IV every 2 weeks for 4 months, 480 mg IV monthly thereafter; group 1) alone or combined with varlilumab (3 mg/kg IV monthly; group 2). Cross-over (group 1 to 2) was allowed for progression. Primary endpoint was overall response (ORR) per LYRIC criteria. A sample size of 48 patients per arm would provide 80% power to detect increase in ORR from 25% to 45% using a one-sided test (p = 0.15). Pre-specified interim analysis occurred after half of the patients completed first radiologic assessment. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Exploratory endpoints included tumor genomic assessment and immune profiling of blood and tumor. Results: 53 patients were enrolled (27 in group 1; 26 in group 2). Interim analysis included 24 patients from each arm. Mean age was 65.2 years, 34 (70.8%) were male, and 36 (75%) received prior CAR-T cell therapy. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were observed in 8 (33.3%) and 7 (30.4%) of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Common AEs (> 5%) of any grade included fatigue, lymphopenia, diarrhea, rash. There were no treatment-associated deaths. Toxicity profile was similar between arms. Table summarizes efficacy outcomes. ORR was achieved in 6 patients (12.5%), not statistically different between arms; 4 responses were complete. Seven patients crossed over (1 responded after crossing). Median OS (8.6 vs 7.3 months; p = 0.39) and PFS (2.7 vs 1.4 months; p = 0.06) were similar between arms. Subgroup analysis of patients with prior CAR-T cell therapy showed similar ORR (5/36; 14%), not statistically different between arms. Correlative analysis results will be presented at conference. The trial met futility criterion on interim analysis and enrollment ceased based on pre-specified stopping rule. Conclusions: Dual immunomodulatory therapy did not enhance anti-tumor activity in patients with aggressive B-NHL compared to nivolumab alone. Response rates were low and consistent with previous data using PD-1 inhibitors in this population. Prior therapy with CAR-T cell does not seem to sensitize patients to PD-1 blockade. Toxicity profile was acceptable and dual therapy did not increase the rate of AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT03038672. [Table: see text]

Normal human cells can either synthesize cholesterol or take it up from lipoproteins to meet their metabolic requirements. In some malignant cells, de novo cholesterol synthesis genes are transcriptionally silent or mutated, meaning that cholesterol uptake from lipoproteins is required for survival. Recent data suggest that lymphoma cells dependent upon lipoprotein-mediated cholesterol uptake are also subject to ferroptosis, an oxygen- and iron-dependent cell death mechanism triggered by accumulation of oxidized lipids in cell membranes unless the lipid hydroperoxidase, glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4), reduces these toxic lipid species. To study mechanisms linking cholesterol uptake with ferroptosis and determine the potential role of the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) receptor as a target for cholesterol depleting therapy, we treated lymphoma cell lines known to be sensitive to the reduction of cholesterol uptake with HDL-like nanoparticles (HDL NPs). HDL NPs are a cholesterol-poor ligand that binds to the receptor for cholesterol-rich HDLs, scavenger receptor type B1 (SCARB1). Our data reveal that HDL NP treatment activates a compensatory metabolic response in treated cells toward increased de novo cholesterol synthesis, which is accompanied by nearly complete reduction in expression of GPX4. As a result, oxidized membrane lipids accumulate, leading to cell death through a mechanism consistent with ferroptosis. We obtained similar results in vivo after systemic administration of HDL NPs in mouse lymphoma xenografts and in primary samples obtained from patients with lymphoma. In summary, targeting SCARB1 with HDL NPs in cholesterol uptake–addicted lymphoma cells abolishes GPX4, resulting in cancer cell death by a mechanism consistent with ferroptosis.

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

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

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

Normal human cells can either synthesize or uptake cholesterol from lipoproteins to meet their metabolic requirements. Some malignant cells absolutely require cholesterol uptake from lipoproteins for survival because de novo cholesterol synthesis genes are transcriptionally silent or mutated. Recent data suggest that lymphoma cells dependent upon lipoprotein-mediated cholesterol uptake are also dependent on the expression of the lipid hydroperoxidase enzyme glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) to prevent cell death by ferroptosis. Ferroptosis is an oxygen-and iron-dependent cell death mechanism that results from the accumulation of oxidized lipids in cell membranes. To study mechanisms linking cholesterol uptake with ferroptosis, we employed lymphoma cell lines known to be sensitive to cholesterol uptake depletion and treated them with high-density lipoprotein-like (HDL) nanoparticles (HDL NPs). HDL NPs are a cholesterol-poor ligand of the receptor for cholesterol-rich HDL, scavenger receptor type B-1 (SCARB1). Our data reveal that HDL NP treatment activates a compensatory metabolic response in treated cells favoring de novo cholesterol synthesis, which is accompanied by reduced expression of GPX4. As a result, accumulation of oxidized membrane lipids leads to cell death through a mechanism consistent with ferroptosis. Furthermore, ferroptosis was validated in vivo after systemic administration of HDL NPs in mouse lymphoma xenografts and in primary samples obtained from patients with lymphoma. In summary, targeting SCARB1 with HDL NPs in cholesterol uptake addicted lymphoma cells abolishes GPX4 and cancer cell death ensues through a mechanism consistent with ferroptosis.

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

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

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

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) with historically poor outcomes. Virtually all patients will eventually experience refractory or relapsed (R/R) disease, with a virulent course of resistance and serial relapses, making treatment challenging. The available therapies for R/R MCL are not curative with conventional therapy, their goal being to palliate and prolong survival. A variety of agents approved for R/R MCL, including Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi), changed the treatment landscape of R/R MCL. In the pre-BTKi era, the median progression-free survival (PFS) in R/R disease was 4–9 months. With the introduction of ibrutinib, the median PFS improved to 13–14.6 months. Despite these impressive results, the duration of response is limited, and resistance to BTKi inevitably develops in a subset of patients. Outcomes after progression on BTKi are extremely poor, with a median overall survival (OS) of 6 to 10 months. Certain therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, have shown promising results after BTKi failure. The preferred combination and sequencing of therapies beyond BTKi remain unestablished and are currently being investigated. In this review, we describe the current evidence for the available treatment of R/R MCL after progression on BTKi.

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

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

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

Introduction The treatment of aggressive B-cell NHL has evolved rapidly over the last 5 years, owing to the FDA approval of 3 CD19 CAR T-cell constructs (CARTs) along with other novel targeted therapies. Real world practice data suggest that CARTs have been successfully administered in populations typically excluded from clinical trials. However, data on how to best utilize novel targeted agents as a pathway to CARTs and feasibility of CARTs in rare histologies remains limited. This retrospective multicenter study describes patient (pt) selection and practice patterns in pts treated with CD19 CARTs and provides insight on feasibility of CARTs in special populations. Methods Adult pts with R/R aggressive B-cell NHL treated with CD19 CARTs between 2015- 2020 across 12 US academic centers were identified. Data on demographic and clinical characteristics, disease and toxicity outcomes were collected. Univariate analyses (UVA) were performed to determine impact of demographic/clinical variables on survival. Survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier method. Subgroup analysis was performed for pts with secondary central nervous system lymphoma (sCNSL). Results Clinical and demographic features were recorded from 400 pts (Table 1). Median age was 59 years (range 18-84). Of 271 pts with immunohistochemistry data, 79 (29%) had double-expressor lymphoma. Of 178 pts with FISH data captured, 62 (35%) had double/triple-hit lymphoma. Most common histological subtypes included 271 (68%) pts with de novo DLBCL, 81 (20%) with transformed FL, 13 (3%) with Richter's syndrome, and 8 (2%) with PMBCL. Rare histologies included 7 (2%) with transformed MZL, 5 (1%) with PTLD and 2 (0.5%) with grey zone lymphoma. 24 (6%) pts had sCNSL at time of CART apheresis. Two (0.5%) pts were HIV-positive. Median number of lines of therapy prior to CART was 2 (range 1-8); 182 (46%) pts received ≥ 3 lines. 114 (28%) pts previously had an autologous stem cell transplant. Targeted therapies used as salvage regimens at any point prior to CART are listed in Table 2: commonly used salvage targeted therapies included lenalidomide based therapy (imids, n=37, 9%), BTK inhibitors (BTKis, n=30, 8%), checkpoint inhibitors (CBIs, n=17, 4%) and polatuzumab-containing regimens (n=10, 3%). 2 (1%) pts received loncastuximab, and no pts received tafasitamab. Six (1.5%) pts proceeded to CART despite complete response to most recent pre-CART therapy. 191 (48%) pts received bridging between apheresis and CART infusion, choice of bridging noted in Table 2: the majority received chemotherapy (n=103, 54%); 28 (15%) received radiation (XRT); 25 (13%), 24 (13%) and 18 (9%) pts received imids, polatuzumab-containing regimens, or BTKis, respectively. With median follow-up of 22.4 months (mo) for the overall group, median (m) PFS was 11 mo (n=363); mOS, was 27 mo (n=397; Fig 1). Pts with sCNSL had a mPFS and mOS of 2 and 4 mo, respectively (Fig 1). On UVA, factors predicting poorer PFS and OS in the overall group included ≥3 pre-CART lines (p For outcomes according to bridging regimens: mPFS after CART for most commonly used systemic bridging therapies was 86 days (d) for platinum-based chemotherapy, 77 d for imids, 90 d for BTKis, 98 d for polatuzumab-bendamustine/rituximab, and 274 d for XRT. Median PFS for XRT bridging (274 d) was statistically better when compared to mPFS for listed systemic therapies combined (p Conclusion Survival outcomes with CARTs in our data set are consistent with those reported in clinical trial settings. CARTs are utilized in real world practice in rare subsets of aggressive R/R B-cell NHL not routinely included in clinical trials. Despite early data suggesting pts with sCNSL benefit from CART, our data suggest outcomes with CART are dismal in this group. Targeted therapies including imids, polatuzumab, BTKis and CBIs are feasible choices for salvage and/or bridging as a pathway to CARTs. Bridging with XRT resulted in improved mPFS post CART as compared to bridging with systemic therapies and suggests differences in pt selection for each with systemic therapies likely favored in those with more widespread disease burden. Minimal use of CD19-targeted agents pre-CART is attributed to later approval of these agents and concern for potential loss of CD19 antigen leading to CART resistance. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Shouse: Kite Pharma: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Honoraria. Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Stephens: Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arqule: Research Funding; Mingsight: Research Funding; JUNO: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ma: Loxo: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winter: BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria. Gordon: Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No royalties; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Danilov: Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding. Shah: Umoja: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Lily: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Barta: Seagen: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Acrotech: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria. Epperla: Genzyme: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau. Torka: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karmali: Epizyme: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.