Search

This open-label, multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study assessed the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab consolidation therapy in adult patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; International Prognostic Index 3-5 and/or double-/triple-hit or double MYC/BCL-2 expressors) who achieved complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) following run-in with 6 cycles of R-chemotherapy (NCT03023878). Of the 47 patients enrolled, 28 received blinatumomab. Five patients (17.9%) experienced grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse events of interest (neutropenia, n = 4; infection, n = 1). Two deaths reported at the end of the study were unrelated to treatment with blinatumomab (disease progression, n = 1; infection, n = 1). 3/4 patients with PR and 4/4 patients with SD after R-chemotherapy achieved CR following blinatumomab. Consolidation with blinatumomab in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk DLBCL who did not progress under R-chemotherapy was better tolerated than in previous studies where blinatumomab was used for treatment of patients with lymphoma.

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

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

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

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

Background Socioeconomic factors including race, ethnicity, and poverty level have been associated with disparities in survival among adult patients with acute leukemia. Insurance status is also likely to affect survival outcomes in these patients but has not been well studied. We investigated the impact of insurance status at time of diagnosis on survival in adult patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Patients and Methods Adult patients diagnosed with B-lineage ALL between January 1, 2007 and October 31, 2017 were included, with follow-up through January 19, 2018. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for the 2 groups. Cox proportional hazard regression methods were used for univariate and multivariate analyses. Results A total of 136 patients were included in the study, 29 without insurance and 107 with insurance at time of diagnosis. Patients without insurance were younger and more likely to be Hispanic or Latino compared with insured patients. When controlling for confounding variables, patients without insurance had worse PFS. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the 2 groups. Hispanic or Latino ethnicity was associated with improved PFS and OS in multivariate analyses. Conclusions Adult patients with ALL without health insurance at time of diagnosis had worse PFS when controlling for other relevant clinical factors. Lack of insurance may be an obstacle to timely, effective maintenance therapy in the outpatient setting. Further research is needed to understand how insurance status impacts survival and ways to mitigate any disparities.

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

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

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.

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) in older patients, commonly defined as ≥60 years of age, is a disease for which survival rates have historically been significantly lower compared with younger patients. Older HL patients appear to have different disease biology compared with younger patients, including increased incidence of mixed cellularity histology, Epstein-Barr virus–related, and advanced-stage disease. For prognostication, several studies have documented the significance of comorbidities and functional status in older HL patients, as well as the importance of achieving initial complete remission. Collectively, selection of therapy for older HL patients should be based in part on functional status, including pretreatment assessment of activities of daily living (ADL), comorbidities, and other geriatric measures (eg, cognition, social support). Treatment of fit older HL patients should be given with curative intent, regardless of disease stage. However, attention should be paid to serious treatment-related toxicities, including risk of treatment-related mortality. Although inclusion of anthracycline therapy is important, bleomycin-containing regimens (eg, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) may lead to prohibitive pulmonary toxicity, and intensive therapies (eg, bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone) are too toxic. Brentuximab vedotin given sequentially before and after doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine to fit, untreated advanced-stage older HL patients was recently shown to be tolerable and highly effective. Therapy for patients who are unfit or frail because of comorbidities and/or ADL loss is less clear and should be individualized with consideration of lower-intensity therapy, such as brentuximab vedotin with or without dacarbazine. Altogether, therapy for older HL patients should be tailored based upon a geriatric assessment, and novel targeted agents should continue to be integrated into treatment paradigms.

We investigated the cytolytic and mechanistic activity of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor natural killer (CD19.CAR.NK92) therapy in lymphoma cell lines (diffuse large B-cell, follicular, and Burkitt lymphoma), including rituximab- and obinutuzumab-resistant cells, patient-derived cells, and a human xenograft model. CD19.CAR.NK92 therapy significantly increased cytolytic activity at E:T ratios (1:1–10:1) via LDH release and prominent induction of apoptosis in all cell lines, including in anti-CD20 resistant lymphoma cells. The kinetics of CD19.CAR.NK92 cell death measured via droplet-based single cell microfluidics analysis showed that most lymphoma cells were killed by single contact, with anti-CD20 resistant cell lines requiring significantly longer contact duration with NK cells. In addition, systems biology transcriptomic analyses of flow-sorted lymphoma cells co-cultured with CD19.CAR.NK92 revealed conserved activation of IFNγ signaling, execution of apoptosis, ligand binding, and immunoregulatory and chemokine signaling pathways. Furthermore, a 92-plex cytokine panel analysis showed increased secretion of granzymes, increased secretion of FASL, CCL3, and IL10 in anti-CD20 resistant SUDHL4 cells with induction of genes relevant to mTOR and G2/M checkpoint activation, which were noted in all anti-CD20 resistant cells co-cultured with CD19.CAR.NK92 cells. Collectively, CD19.CAR.NK92 was associated with potent anti-lymphoma activity across a host of sensitive and resistant lymphoma cells that involved distinct immuno-biologic mechanisms of cell death.

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

We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis across 10 US academic medical centers to evaluate treatment patterns and outcomes in patients age ≥60 years with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) from 2010-2018. Among 244 eligible patients, median age was 68, 63% had advanced stage (III/IV), 96% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0-2, and 12% had documented loss of ≥1 activity of daily living (ADL). Medical comorbidities were assessed by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS-G), where n = 44 (18%) had total scores ≥10. Using multivariable Cox models, only ADL loss predicted shorter progression-free (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, P = .007) and overall survival (OS; HR 2.52, P = .02). Most patients (n = 203, 83%) received conventional chemotherapy regimens, including doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD; 56%), AVD (14%), and AVD with brentuximab vedotin (BV; 9%). Compared to alternative therapies, conventional regimens significantly improved PFS (HR 0.46, P = .0007) and OS (HR 0.31, P = .0003). Survival was similar following conventional chemotherapy in those ages 60-69 vs ≥70: PFS HR 0.88, P = .63; OS HR 0.73, P = .55. Early treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was more common with CIRS-G ≥10 (28% vs 12%, P = .016) or documented geriatric syndrome (28% vs 13%, P = .02). A competing risk analysis demonstrated improved disease-related survival with conventional therapy (HR 0.29, P = .02) and higher mortality from causes other than disease or treatment with high CIRS-G or geriatric syndromes. This study suggests conventional chemotherapy regimens remain a standard of care in fit older patients with cHL, and highlights the importance of geriatric assessments in defining fitness for cHL therapy going forward.

7515 Background: Primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER) are predictors of poor prognosis in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In this multicenter retrospective study, we describe outcomes of PRD and ER in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL treated with salvage therapy (ST) and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: Of 14 sites, adult patients with R/R cHL who received ST and underwent ASCT were enrolled. PRD was defined as progression on frontline chemoimmunotherapy or within 6 months of diagnosis. ER was defined as relapse from 6 months-1 yr of diagnosis. Pts who relapsed >1 yr of diagnosis were called late relapses (LR). Study objectives were Overall response rates (ORR), CR rates, PFS, and OS. Results: Of 986 total pts, 160 had PRD, 365 had ER and 461 had LR. Significantly higher number of pts with PRD, but not ER, had bulky disease (41% vs 27%, p1 line of ST (44% vs 30% vs 23%, p

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.

Pregnancy-associated lymphoma (PAL) is an uncommon entity that lacks detailed prospective data. It poses significant management challenges that incorporate maternal and fetal risks associated with treatment or delayed intervention. Herein, we review the current literature for the diagnosis, management, and supportive care strategies for PAL. Establishment of a multidisciplinary team, including hematology-oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, and neonatology, is critical in the management of PAL. For staging, ultrasound and MRI are preferred modalities with use of computerized tomography in select situations. Data for the safety and effectiveness of therapy for PAL is largely based on retrospective studies. The timing of lymphoma-directed antenatal systemic therapy depends on the trimester, gestational age, lymphoma subtype and aggressiveness, and patient wishes. Therapy in the first trimester is usually not advocated, while treatment in the second and third trimesters appears to result in similar outcomes for PAL compared with non-pregnant patients with lymphoma. An overarching goal in most PAL cases should be to plan for delivery at term (i.e., gestational age > 37 weeks). For supportive care, most antiemetics, including agents such as neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, have been used safely during pregnancy. For prevention or treatment of infections, particular antibiotics (i.e., macrolides, cephalosporins, penicillins, metronidazole), antivirals (i.e., acyclovir, valacyclovir, famciclovir), and antifungals (amphotericin B) have demonstrated safety and with use of growth factors reserved for treatment of neutropenia (vs. primary prophylaxis). Therapy for PAL should be individualized with goals of care that balance maternal and fetal well-being, which should include a multidisciplinary care team and overall intent for term delivery in most cases.

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.

Older adults with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), commonly defined as age ≥ 60 years, represent approximately 20% of the total HL population. Historically, they have significantly inferior outcomes compared with younger patients. The cause of this is multifactorial, including biologic differences (e.g., mixed cellularity and EBV-related disease); high incidence of advanced stage disease; and frequency of comorbidities and decreased organ reserve leading to poorer tolerability of therapy with increased toxicity, including treatment-related mortality. Pretreatment evaluation for older HL patients should entail a geriatric assessment (GA), with evaluation of functional status and comorbidities (e.g., geriatric cumulative illness rating scale, CIRS-G) to determine fitness. Furthermore, treatment selection should be based in part on GA, with fit older patients receiving curative chemotherapy-based regimens and unfit or frail patients considering less intensive or non-chemotherapy-based platforms. Additionally, there may be consideration for pre-phase of therapy (e.g., pulse steroids) in order to improve performance status. The inclusion of anthracycline therapy appears important, while bleomycin-containing regimens (e.g., ABVD) may be associated with prohibitive pulmonary toxicity, and intensive therapies such as BEACOPP are too toxic. benefit ratio/benefit ratio, a priori omission of bleomycin may also be considered (i.e., AVD), especially for patients older than 70 years of age. In addition, newer regimens for older HL patients integrating novel therapeutic agents into frontline treatment have emerged as effective and tolerable options. Data incorporating brentuximab vedotin sequentially before and after AVD chemotherapy represent the best-reported outcomes in older HL patients to date. In the relapsed/refractory setting, salvage chemotherapy regimens followed by autologous stem cell transplantation should be considered for fit patients, while less intensive treatment, including the use of novel targeted agents, is an option for unfit or frail patients. In this review, we examine the epidemiology, importance of GA, and current treatment options for older HL patients.

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.

Background: Early reports suggested that cancer patients have a 1.7-fold increased risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and higher rates of severe events and mortality compared with general population. Patients with hematologic malignancies may have worse COVID-19 outcomes, due to an impaired humoral immune response from their underlying malignancy and concurrent anticancer therapy. In this multi-center, retrospective, observational study, we evaluate the associations of COVID-19 outcomes with patient and lymphoma disease characteristics. Methods: EMRs at 10 study centers across the USA identified 519 patients with a diagnosis of lymphoma, CLL, or other lymphoid malignancies, who had a documented positive result of SARS-CoV-2 PCR or nucleocapsid antibody testing. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations of individual characteristics with COVID-19 outcomes, adjusted for center (NYU vs. other). The interactions between each of the variables was also included in these models; since the interactions were generally small and non-significant, only the main effect of center was included. Two-sided p-values ≤0.05 were considered significant; there were no adjustments for multiple variables or endpoints. Each analysis was based on complete data for that analysis. Results: Tables 1 and 2 provide demographic and clinical characteristics, respectively, of the 519 patients. The mean age was 61.9 years, with 296 (57%) male and 374 (72%) white patients. NYU had the largest cohort (318 patients), with the remaining centers contributing a range of 3 to 69 patients (median 14). Logistic regression models for the association of each COVID-19 outcome with individual clinical and patient characteristics included adjustments for the center (NYU/other). While center effects were statistically significant, center by covariate interaction effects were not and are not included in the final models. The odds ratio (OR) estimates and p-values for each patient and CLL/lymphoma clinical variable are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The risks of experiencing a severe event, death, and hospital admission increased with age; for each 10 years of age increase, the ORs were 1.58 for experiencing severe events, 1.78 for death, and 1.65 for hospital admission. The risks of poor outcome were higher in males than in females (OR 1.93 for severe events, 1.85 for death, and 1.47 for hospital admission). Patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >5 had a higher risk of severe events (OR 2.46), mortality (3.30) and hospital admission (2.73) compared to patients with CCI ≤5. Compared to patients with HL, patients with aggressive NHL had a higher risk of severe events (OR 4.05), mortality (4.68) and hospital admission (4.65). Patients with CLL similarly had a higher risk of severe events (OR 4.64), mortality (4.65) and hospital admission (5.93) compared to HL patients. Patients with indolent NHL had a higher risk of hospital admission (OR 3.95) but not a higher risk of mortality compared to HL. Patients in remission at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis had a lower risk of severe events (OR 0.42), mortality (0.36) and hospital admission (0.40) relative to those who were not in remission. Patients who received cytotoxic chemotherapy within 28 days of their COVID-19 diagnosis had a higher risk of severe events (OR 2.54), mortality (2.79), and hospital admission (2.31). Patients who received an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody within 6 months of COVID-19 diagnosis had a higher risk of severe events (OR 2.60), mortality (2.17) and hospital admission (3.28). Conclusions: In addition to demographic and comorbidity risk factors identified in previous studies, our study shows that patients with aggressive NHL and CLL, or patients who have received recent cytotoxic chemotherapy or anti-CD20 mAB, may be at risk for poor COVID-19 outcome. The difference in risk between NHL and HL patients is likely associated with young age of HL patients but may also be related to differences in underlying innate and adaptive immune defects. Patients at high risk for poor outcome should be a priority for studies of monoclonal antibody prophylaxis. If defects in humoral immunity are at the root of poor outcome, this may be compounded by poor response to vaccination. Multivariate analysis of this data will be completed in advance of the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Olszewski: Celldex Therapeutics: Research Funding; PrecisionBio: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Barta: Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Seagen: Honoraria; Acrotech: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri: AbbVie: Other: Advisory Boards; Incyte: Other: Advisory Boards; Celgene: Other: Advisory Boards; BMS: Other: Advisory Boards; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards; Kite: Other: Advisory Boards; Gilead: Other: Advisory Boards; Epyzime: Other: Advisory Boards. Leslie: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; PCYC/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seagen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Diefenbach: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; Incyte: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; IMab: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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.

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

Background: Chemoimmunotherapy is considered standard initial therapy for follicular lymphoma (FL) with high tumor burden (HTB). Obinutuzumab and Bendamustine (OB) with maintenance Obinutuzumab (mO) is considered a standard therapy for the frontline treatment of HTB FL (GALLIUM, Marcus et al, NEJM 2017). Venetoclax (VEN), an oral BCL2 inhibitor, is an attractive target in FL given the high BCL2 expression; though single agent activity has been disappointing (Davids et al. JCO 2017). BCL2 inhibition is thought to be synergistic with chemotherapy. Thus, the PrE0403 study evaluated the OB-VEN combination in frontline HTB FL. Here we present end of induction (EOI) outcomes. Methods: The primary objective of this Phase II study was to estimate the complete remission (CR) rate at EOI. Potential participants must have had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of FL grade 1, 2, or 3a with HTB defined by GELF or high risk defined by FLIPI-1 criteria. They must have had adequate performance status and organ function. Notably, creatinine clearance must have been ≥50 mL/min. Participants must have not had prior treatment for FL. Eligible participants were treated with Bendamustine IV 90 mg/m2 Day (D) 1 & 2, Obinutuzumab IV 100 mg D1, 900 mg D2, 1000 mg D8 and D15 of Cycle (C) 1 then D1 of each cycle, and VEN 800 mg orally daily D1-10 every 28 days for 6 total cycles. Due to a high rate of laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during C1 in the first 21 patients, VEN was removed from C1 and given in C2-6 only. Participants with a CR at EOI were treated with mO IV 1000 mg D1 every 8 weeks for 2 years. Those with a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) were treated with mO as well as VEN 800 mg orally daily for 2 years. Pneumocystis jiroveci Pneumonia (PJP) and antiviral prophylaxis was required as was G-CSF support. Response was assessed via Lugano Criteria at EOI including PET/CT and bone marrow assessment. Adverse Events (AEs) were evaluated using CTCAE v5.0. To be considered promising, OB-VEN should improve the null hypothesis CR rate of 50% (OB) to 65%. With an 85% power and a one sided 15% type I error, 56 participants would be needed with an estimated 51 eligible. Support for the study was from Genentech, Member of the Roche Group. Results A total of 56 participants were enrolled and treated between 12/2017 and 11/2020; baseline characteristics are listed in Table 1. TLS was closely monitored in C1 and 8/21 participants developed TLS when VEN was administered in C1; 0/35 when it was not. However, monitoring for TLS in C1 became less stringent when VEN was not administered. Treatment related Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 47/56 participants (83.9%) with serious adverse events in 31 of 56 (55.5%). Atypical infections were seen; there was one treatment related death on study due to cytomegalovirus (CMV) encephalitis as well as PJP pneumonia which occurred after induction C6. Enrollment was temporarily suspended and CMV monitoring was implemented with no further occurrences. Another participant receiving mO later developed BK virus nephropathy following mO C6 and now requires ongoing hemodialysis. Another was diagnosed with Respiratory Syncytial Virus pneumonia 30 days after C6 and later PJP pneumonia after C2 of mO. Common (incidence >10%) AEs during induction are listed in Table 2. 45 of 56 (80.4%) participants were able to receive all 6 cycles of OB-VEN. CR was seen in 41 of 56 participants (73.2%, 2 sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 59.7-84.2%) at the EOI. 30 participants (53.5%) went onto maintenance. With a median follow up of 20.9 months, estimated 2 year Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) (90% CI) is 94.4% (82.4-98.3%) and 85.8% (68.8-93.9%) respectively. Conclusions This Phase II study of OB-VEN in untreated HTB FL showed high CR rate and met its primary endpoint with early signs of prolonged PFS. Laboratory TLS was identified but it was unclear if attributed solely to VEN, as baseline laboratory TLS rate for OB is unknown. The rate of Grade ≥3 AE of 83.9% (compared to 69% for OB in GALLIUM, Hiddeman JCO 2018) and the observation of opportunistic infections including CMV encephalitis, PJP pneumonia and BK nephropathy, suggests the combination is highly immunosuppressive. Therefore, while the study met its primary outcome, the combination of OB-VEN at 800 mg for 10 days, plus mO, does not have an acceptable risk/benefit profile. Participants will continue to be followed for efficacy and safety during the maintenance phase. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; SeaGen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Nowakowski: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy. 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. Kahl: AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is not approved for follicular lymphoma or in combination with bendamustine and obinutuzumab

Background: Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) is a highly active therapy for relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Nonetheless, most patients (pts) ultimately develop progressive disease (PD). There is little guidance on the optimal treatment approach(es) for these pts. We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis with a primary objective to assess treatment patterns and outcomes in pts with R/R aggressive B-cell lymphoma who develop PD after anti-CD19 CARTs. Methods: Pts with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with anti-CD19 CART between 2015 and 2020 across 12 US academic medical centers were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected along with CART toxicities and response. Regimens administered as salvage post CART were assessed. Univariate analyses (UVA) were performed to determine impact of demographic and clinical variables on survival outcomes. All p-values were two-tailed. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 400 pts received anti-CD19 CARTs and were included for analysis. For the entire cohort: median PFS and OS from time of CART infusion were 11 months [mo] and 27 mo respectively. On log-rank testing, pts who received ≥3 lines of pre-CART therapy and those with refractory disease pre-CART had significantly worse PFS (p=0.004 & 0.001) and OS (both p With median follow-up 22.4 mo, 190 pts (48%) had PD after CART; demographic and clinical variables of pts with and without PD are detailed in Table 1. Biopsy to confirm PD and assess CD19 status was done in 69 pts (36%) with CD19 negative relapse seen in 11 (16%). Of pts with PD, median PFS and OS from time of PD was 83 days (in pts who received salvage) and 174 days (for all PD pts) respectively. Pts with PD were more likely to have elevated LDH (p=0.001) and extranodal disease (p=0.003) at apheresis. For pts with PD after CART: 125 (65.5%) received further therapies. Pts were more likely to receive salvage therapies if their best response to CART was CR (p=0.026) or PR (p=0.015). Response rates of select first- and second-line therapies and PFS of first line therapies received after CART failure are detailed in figure 1. ORR and CRs were highest for polatuzumab, bendamustine, & rituximab (pola-BR; 73% & 40%), followed by BTK inhibitors (BTKi; 50% & 38%), and bispecific antibodies (bsAb) (50% & 25%). Five of 7 pts who received a BTKi had non-germinal center (GC) cell of origin (COO; 1 unknown COO). On log-rank testing, pts with elevated LDH (p=0.003) at time of apheresis and those with intermediate/high IPI (p=0.013) had inferior PFS with first salvage regimens. Median PFS was highest for pola-BR (4.5 mo, n=14), followed by bsAb (2.5 mo, n=8), lenalidomide +/- anti-CD20 antibody (1.8 mo, n=13), checkpoint inhibitors (CPI; 1.6 mo, n=10), BTKi (1.2 mo, n=8), radiation alone (1.2 mo; n=17), chemotherapy (1.1 mo, n=12), and tafasitamab + lenalidomide (0.9 mo, n=5). Median PFS for all treated pts was 1.8 mo. OS from start of first salvage regimen was highest for CPI (OS 12.4 mo, n=10), followed by pola-BR (8.9 mo, n=14), BTKi (8.8 mo, n=8), lenalidomide +/- anti-CD20 (8.7 mo, n=13), radiation alone (7.1 mo, n =17), bsAb (5.9 mo, n=8), chemotherapy (5.4 mo, n=12), and tafasitamab + lenalidomide (1.2 mo, n=5). 12 pts (6.3%) later received an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT). In alloHCT pts at last follow-up, 10 were evaluable for response: 7 had CR and 5 remain in CR. Clinical characteristics of pts who received alloHCT are detailed in table 2. Notably, median age was 59 years (41-68), 1 (8.3%) had a prior alloHCT, and 6 (50%) had prior autologous HCT. The majority had CR or PR as best response to CART (CR n=6, 50%; PR n=3, 25%), and only 1 pt (8.3%) with PD as best response to CART was salvaged with alloHCT. Conclusions: This is the largest reported analysis to date of pts with aggressive B-cell lymphoma who develop PD post-CART. The highest ORRs were with pola-BR, bsAb, and BTKi as first line of salvage. High response rates with BTKi may be attributed to non-GC COO in the majority of treated pts and perhaps a beneficial immunomodulatory effect on previously administered CARTs. AlloHCT remains a potential curative therapy for select pts with over half with durable remission; however, few ultimately received alloHCT. Despite increased use of novel therapies, survival in pts who progress after CART is still dismal warranting more effective therapies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Epperla: Genzyme: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau. Torka: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Ma: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winter: Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria. Gordon: Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No royalties; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Danilov: Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Stephens: Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JUNO: Research Funding; Mingsight: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Arqule: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shah: Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Umoja: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Lily: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Shouse: Beigene Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Barta: Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Seagen: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria. Karmali: Karyopharm: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.

Pro-inflammatory peptides present in wheat and related grains are associated with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity. We hypothesize that these peptides induce enteric responses that may exacerbate the gastrointestinal manifestations of graft-versus-host disease after an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Therefore, we propose that a gluten free diet should be tested as a prophylactic and/or therapeutic intervention against gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease for patients undergoing an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

The anti-tumor effects of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation depend upon engraftment of donor cells followed by a graft-versus-tumor (GVT) effect. However, pre-clinical and clinical studies have established that under certain circumstances, anti-tumor responses can occur despite the absence of high levels of durable donor cell engraftment. Tumor response with little or no donor engraftment has been termed "microtransplantation." It has been hard to define conditions leading to tumor responses without donor cell persistence in humans because the degree of engraftment depends very heavily upon many patient-specific factors, including immune status and degree of prior therapy. Likewise, it is unknown to what degree donor chimerism in the blood or tissue is required for an anti-tumor effect under conditions of microtransplantation. In this review, we summarize some key studies supporting the concept of microtransplantation and emphasize the importance of recent large studies of microtransplantation in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML). These AML studies provide the first evidence of the efficacy of microtransplantation as a therapeutic strategy and lay the foundation for additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials that will refine the understanding of the mechanisms involved and guide its further development as a treatment modality.

Introduction Relapses involving the central nervous system (CNSrel) occur in ~5% of patients (pts) with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the rituximab era (Ghose et al, Clin LML 2015) with rates exceeding 10% in high risk groups (Villa et al, Ann Onc 2010; Schmitz et al, JCO 2016). CNSrel are generally thought to occur in the first 4-6 months from diagnosis. Prophylaxis (PPx) administration, route, and frequency are not standardized, and the impact of PPx on CNSrel risk is incompletely understood. Methods We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of pts with aggressive NHL (excluding Burkitt's) without known CNS involvement (inv) who received single-route CNS PPx with during front-line (FL) anthracycline-based therapy (tx) from 2013-2019 across 19 US academic institutions. Recipients of chemotherapy for prior CLL or indolent NHL were ineligible. Method, frequency, and outcomes of CNS PPx administration were evaluated, with significance assessed by various statistical methods via two-tailed P Results 1030 patients were identified who met eligibility criteria. Clinical features included median age 61 years (yrs; range 16-86), 40.9% female, ECOG PS 0-1 82.8%, elevated LDH 65.3%, >1 extranodal (EN) site 42.3%, stage 3/4 disease 79.2%. NHL histologies included diffuse large B cell (DLBCL; 75.2%), high grade B cell (16.3%), transformed follicular lymphoma (5.6%) and 3% other; among pts with DLBCL, 46.4% had germinal center (GCB) subtype and 40.5% had non-GCB. 26.2% (n=210) of evaluable pts had double-hit lymphoma (DHL). Among pts with known HIV status, 7.2% (n=65) were HIV-positive. 85.7% had EN inv; common sites included bone (35.4%), liver (13.7%), gastrointestinal (12.7%), lung (11.8%), and marrow (11.5%). FL regimens included RCHOP (45.9%), REPOCH (46.5% total; 79.1% with dose-adjustment), 7.6% other. PPx was given intravenously (IV) in 20% of pts vs 77% intrathecally (IT), over a median 2.9 vs 4.1 doses respectively; see Table 1 for factors associated with PPx route. PPx was generally well-tolerated, with 10.7% PPx-related toxicity reported; see Table 2. CNSrel after FL tx was 5.3% overall without significant difference by PPx route (7% IV vs 5% IT, p=0.178). This lack of difference between PPx routes was observed in all subgroup analyses performed, including by: age, stage, histology, number of EN sites, individual EN site inv, elevated LDH, CNS-IPI, DHL status, HIV status, FL regimen, number of PPx doses. There was no significant difference in anatomic site(s) of CNSrel by PPx route. CNSrel occurred bimodally: 24% by end of FL tx vs 76% delayed (average 2.3 yrs, range 0.4-5.2 yrs). Rates of CNSrel were significantly higher with CNS-IPI high vs moderate risk (8.3 vs 4.1%, p=0.03; Figure 1), elevated LDH (6.9 vs 2.6%, p=0.007) and multiple inv EN sites (7.5% for 2+ vs 4% for 0-1, p=0.01); each additional EN site further increased risk (p=0.03 for trend; Figure 2). Increased CNSrel was noted in pts with testis (13.7 vs 5%, p=0.004) and liver inv (11.1 vs 4.6%, p=0.002) vs those without inv at respective sites. No significant difference was noted at other EN sites, including renal/adrenal (4.8 vs 5.6%, p=0.71), marrow (8.9 vs 5.1%, p=0.09), or lung (8.6 vs 5.1%, p=0.12). All EN site-CNSrel correlations were unchanged when accounting for PPx route. With median follow-up of 2.3 yrs, median PFS and OS for the overall group have not been reached; 2-yr PFS and OS were 70 and 85% respectively. PFS and OS were each predicted by CNS-IPI (p Conclusion Use of single-route ppx demonstrated similar CNSrel vs established outcomes for this population in the rituximab era, with no difference by PPx route. CNSrel remains a rare but devastating complication, with greater risk even after single-route PPx in those with higher EN burden and inv of key EN sites. Disclosures Kahl: Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy. Spinner:Notable Labs: Honoraria. Advani:Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy. Voorhees:AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Grover:Genentech: Research Funding; Tessa: Consultancy. Huntington:Genentech: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; DTRM: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy. Spurgeon:Beigene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; VelosBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Honoraria; Verastem: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Olszewski:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Landsburg:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; ADC Therapeutics: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Bayer: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Karmali:Takeda: Research Funding; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stephens:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Verastem: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Arqule: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; MingSight: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy. Smith:Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Khan:Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. 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. Portell:Bayer: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding.

Introduction Ibrutinib was FDA approved for relapsed or refractory (R/R) marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) based on a phase II clinical trial that showed an overall response rate of 48% (Noy et al, Blood 2017). However, factors associated with response to ibrutinib in R/R MZL and outcomes of patients after progression on ibrutinib are unknown. Given the poor survival in other B-cell lymphomas such as mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) after progression on ibrutinib (Martin P et al, Blood 2016), we sought to evaluate clinicopathologic characteristics predictive of ibrutinib failure in R/R MZL, and describe outcomes of patients who experienced progression on ibrutinib therapy. Methods We performed a multicenter retrospective study of MZL patients treated at 19 US medical centers. Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years diagnosed with MZL from 2010-2019, who received ibrutinib for R/R MZL. Patients achieving a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) with ibrutinib were considered ibrutinib responders, while those who had stable disease (SD) or progression of disease (PD) were classified as non-responders. The primary endpoint was to evaluate factors predictive of primary progression (PD) on ibrutinib. Secondary endpoints include evaluation of predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) following ibrutinib therapy, assessment of outcomes based on the sequencing of ibrutinib therapy, and evaluation of outcomes following ibrutinib failure. PFS was defined as time from the start of ibrutinib therapy until lymphoma relapse/progression or death from any cause, censoring at last clinical assessment if no progression or death. OS was defined as time from the start of ibrutinib treatment until death or last follow-up. A multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed to model ibrutinib progression on the clinicopathologic factors (see Table). To identify significant predictors for OS and PFS, we used a multivariable Cox model. Results 101 patients with R/R MZL received ibrutinib, of whom 99 had sufficient data for inclusion in the analysis. Among these patients, 63% (n=62) had CR/PR to ibrutinib (ibrutinib responders, CR=17, PR=45) and 37% (n=37) had no response (ibrutinib non-responders, SD=25, PD=12). The median duration of follow-up was 1.8 years (range=0.1-5.4 years) and 2 years (range=0.2-6.3 years) for ibrutinib responders and non-responders, respectively. Baseline characteristics of the R/R MZL patients stratified by ibrutinib response are shown in the Table. Among all the baseline factors examined for association with ibrutinib progression, only primary refractory disease (refractory to frontline therapy, RR=3.78, 95%CI=1.36-10.45, p=0.01) was predictive of a higher probability of primary progression on ibrutinib on multivariable analysis. The median OS was significantly better for responders (NR [not reached], 95%CI=3.2-NR) compared to non-responders (3.4 years, 95%CI=1.4-NR) (Figure 1A). Achieving CR/PR with ibrutinib (HR=0.22, 95%CI=0.09-0.52) and lack of complex cytogenetics (HR=0.22, 95%CI=0.08-0.59) were predictors of superior PFS. Similarly, ibrutinib response (HR=0.13, 95%CI=0.03-0.53) and lack of complex cytogenetics (HR=0.19, 95%CI=0.04-0.87) were predictors of better OS. There was no difference in PFS or OS based on the timing of ibrutinib administration (second vs third vs fourth line and beyond, Figure 1B and 1C). The median post ibrutinib relapse/progression OS (PROS) for patients who initially responded then progressed on ibrutinib (secondary progression, n=19) was 4 years (Figure 1D). The median PROS for patients who had no response to ibrutinib were stratified according to SD vs PD. The median PROS for those who had SD was NR and those with PD was 0.1 year (Figure 1E). Conclusion This is the largest series of R/R MZL patients treated with ibrutinib. A history of primary refractory disease was predictive of primary progression on ibrutinib, while the presence of complex cytogenetics was associated with inferior PFS and OS. In contrast to MCL, the outcomes of patients who progress on ibrutinib in R/R MZL are not poor except for the primary progression cohort (those with PD as the best response to ibrutinib). Improving therapeutic options for patients who experience PD with ibrutinib treatment represents an urgent unmet need and these patients should be prioritized for evaluation of novel therapeutic approaches. Figure Disclosures Epperla: Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Reddy:Genentech, BMS: Research Funding; KITE Pharma, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene: Consultancy. Caimi:Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene Corp: Other: Incyte Corporation - Ownership - Pharmacyclics, Inc. - Ownership - Celgene Corp. - Other, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Greenwell:Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma LLC, Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Janakiram:Takeda, Fate, Nektar: Research Funding. Olszewski:Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: 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. Palmisiano:AbbVie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Awan:Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Dava Oncology: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Blueprint medicines: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy. Barta:Monsanto: Consultancy; Atara: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Grover:Genentech: Research Funding; Tessa: Consultancy. Bartlett:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; BTG: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding. Christian:Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; F Hoffman-La Roche: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZenica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herrera:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Ixazomib activity and transcriptomic analyses previously established in T cell (TCL) and Hodgkin (HL) lymphoma models predicted synergistic activity for histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitory combination. In this present study, we determined the mechanistic basis for ixazomib combination with the HDAC inhibitor, belinostat, in HL and TCL cells lines (ixazomib-sensitive/resistant clones) and primary tumour cells. In ixazomib-treated TCL and HL cells, transient inhibition followed by full recovery of proteasomal activity observed was accompanied by induction of proteasomal gene expression with NFE2L2 (also termed NRF2) as a prominent upstream regulator. Downregulation of both NFE2L2 and proteasomal gene expression (validated by quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction) occurred with belinostat treatment in Jurkat and L428 cells. In addition, CRISPR/Cas9 mediated knockdown of NFE2L2 in Jurkat cells resulted in a significant decrease in cell viability with ixazomib compared with untreated control cells. Using transcriptomic and proteasomal activity evaluation of ixazomib, belinostat, or ixazomib + belinostat treated cells, we observed that NFE2L2, proteasome gene expression and functional recovery were abrogated by ixazomib + belinostat combination, resulting in synergistic drug activity in ixazomib-sensitive and -resistant cell lines and primary cells. Altogether, these results suggest that the synergistic activity of ixazomib + belinostat is mediated via inhibition NFE2L2-dependent proteasomal recovery and extended proteasomal inhibition culminating in increased cell death.

Background Serological assays to determine HIV incidence have contributed to estimates of HIV incidence, monitoring of HIV spread, and evaluation of prevention strategies. Two frequently used incidence assays are the Sedia HIV-1 LAg-Avidity EIA (LAg) and the Bio-Rad avidity incidence (BRAI) assays with a mean duration of recent infection (MDRI) of 130 and 240 days for subtype B infections, respectively. Little is known about how these assays perform with recombinant HIV-1 strains. We evaluated the concordance of these assays in a population infected mainly with HIV-1 CRF06_cpx. Material/Methods Remnant serum samples (n = 288) collected from confirmed, newly-diagnosed HIV-positive persons from Estonia in 2013 were tested. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from clinical databases. LAg was performed according to the manufacturer’s protocol and BRAI testing was done using a validated protocol. Samples with LAg-pending or BRAI-invalid results were reclassified as recent if they were from persons with viral loads

Nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) is constitutively expressed in many primary acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) and leukemic stem cell (LSC) samples. Inhibition of nuclear NF-κB ex vivo results in cyto...