Search

Purpose: Ibrutinib has transformed the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), though its use is limited by toxicity and resistance. In this study, we utilized an “add on” approach for patients who had been treated with ibrutinib in the front-line or relapsed/refractory settings with detectable MRD. Umbralisib and ublituximab (U2) were added on to ibrutinib, patients were treated until achieving undetectable-MRD (U-MRD), and then they entered a period of treatment-free observation (TFO). Patients and Methods: Patients were eligible if they received ibrutinib in any line of therapy for at least 6 months and had detectable MRD (flow cytometry, Results: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled of whom 27 were evaluable for efficacy. Patients received ibrutinib for a median of 21 months (range 7–67) prior to study enrollment. Fourteen patients (52%) have achieved U-MRD per protocol whereas 78% had at least one U-MRD evaluation. Seventeen patients (63%) have entered TFO after a median of 6.4 months on triplet therapy. Progression-free survival at 12 months was estimated at 95%. Grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension 7%, diarrhea 4%, and increased ALT/AST 4%. Conclusions: This triplet approach utilizes the addition of U2 to ibrutinib as an MRD-driven time-limited therapy. This therapy was well tolerated and effective. TFO following this therapy appears durable in ongoing follow-up.

Supplementary Data from Adding Umbralisib and Ublituximab (U2) to Ibrutinib in Patients with CLL: A Phase II Study of an MRD-Driven Approach

Purpose:Ibrutinib has transformed the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), though its use is limited by toxicity and resistance. In this study, we utilized an “add on” approach for patients who had been treated with ibrutinib in the front-line or relapsed/refractory settings with detectable MRD. Umbralisib and ublituximab (U2) were added on to ibrutinib, patients were treated until achieving undetectable-MRD (U-MRD), and then they entered a period of treatment-free observation (TFO).Patients and Methods:Patients were eligible if they received ibrutinib in any line of therapy for at least 6 months and had detectable MRD (flow cytometry, –4 cutoff for U-MRD). U2 was added to ibrutinib, and patients were monitored serially for MRD. Once U-MRD was achieved or a total of 24 cycles were administered, patients entered a period of TFO. The primary study objective was rate of U-MRD. Secondary endpoints included safety and durability of clinical benefit after treatment discontinuation.Results:Twenty-eight patients were enrolled of whom 27 were evaluable for efficacy. Patients received ibrutinib for a median of 21 months (range 7–67) prior to study enrollment. Fourteen patients (52%) have achieved U-MRD per protocol whereas 78% had at least one U-MRD evaluation. Seventeen patients (63%) have entered TFO after a median of 6.4 months on triplet therapy. Progression-free survival at 12 months was estimated at 95%. Grade ≥3 adverse events were hypertension 7%, diarrhea 4%, and increased ALT/AST 4%.Conclusions:This triplet approach utilizes the addition of U2 to ibrutinib as an MRD-driven time-limited therapy. This therapy was well tolerated and effective. TFO following this therapy appears durable in ongoing follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with early relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after the receipt of first-line chemoimmunotherapy is poor.METHODS: In this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with large B-cell lymphoma that was refractory to or had relapsed no more than 12 months after first-line chemoimmunotherapy to receive axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy) or standard care (two or three cycles of investigator-selected, protocol-defined chemoimmunotherapy, followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with a response to the chemoimmunotherapy). The primary end point was event-free survival according to blinded central review. Key secondary end points were response and overall survival. Safety was also assessed.RESULTS: A total of 180 patients were randomly assigned to receive axi-cel and 179 to receive standard care. The primary end-point analysis of event-free survival showed that axi-cel therapy was superior to standard care. At a median follow-up of 24.9 months, the median event-free survival was 8.3 months in the axi-cel group and 2.0 months in the standard-care group, and the 24-month event-free survival was 41% and 16%, respectively (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.51; PCONCLUSIONS: Axi-cel therapy led to significant improvements, as compared with standard care, in event-free survival and response, with the expected level of high-grade toxic effects. (Funded by Kite; ZUMA-7 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03391466.).

Most patients with advanced-stage indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma have multiple relapses. We assessed axicabtagene ciloleucel autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.ZUMA-5 is a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial being conducted at 15 medical cancer centres in the USA and two medical cancer centres in France. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma), had relapsed or refractory disease, previously had two or more lines of therapy (including an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody with an alkylating agent), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0 or 1. Patients underwent leukapheresis and received conditioning chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide at 500 mg/mBetween June 20, 2017, and July 16, 2020, 153 patients were enrolled and underwent leukapheresis, and axicabtagene ciloleucel was successfully manufactured for all enrolled patients. As of data cutoff (Sept 14, 2020), 148 patients had received an infusion of axicabtagene ciloleucel (124 [84%] who had follicular lymphoma and 24 [16%] who had marginal zone lymphoma). The median follow-up for the primary analysis was 17·5 months (IQR 14·1-22·6). Among patients who were eligible for the primary analysis (n=104, of whom 84 had follicular lymphoma and 20 had marginal zone lymphoma), 96 (92%; 95% CI 85-97) had an overall response and 77 (74%) had a complete response. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were cytopenias (104 [70%] of 148 patients) and infections (26 [18%]). Grade 3 or worse cytokine release syndrome occurred in ten (7%) patients and grade 3 or 4 neurological events occurred in 28 (19%) patients. Serious adverse events (any grade) occurred in 74 (50%) patients. Deaths due to adverse events occurred in four (3%) patients, one of which was deemed to be treatment-related (multisystem organ failure).Axicabtagene ciloleucel showed high rates of durable responses and had a manageable safety profile in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma.Kite, a Gilead Company.

To evaluate the trend in cytogenetic/molecular testing rate in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and assess the clinical and economic burden of first-line (1 L) treatment with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) by risk status.This retrospective cohort study identified patients with CLL from a U.S. managed care population. Medical records were obtained for eligible patients who initiated 1 L CIT between 1/1/2007 and 7/31/2019 and underwent prognostic testing to classify them as high risk (del(17p),Among the 1,808 patients with CLL, 612 were FISH orHigh-risk CLL patients treated with 1 L chemoimmunotherapy have poorer clinical and economic outcomes compared to non-high risk patients. Assessment of genetic risk remains suboptimal.

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

Patients with hematologic malignancies have poor outcomes from COVID infection and are less likely to mount an antibody response after COVID infection. There is limited data on the efficacy of the COVID vaccines in lymphoma patients, and to suggest the optimal timing of vaccination to elicit immunity in patients receiving immunochemotherapy. This is a retrospective study of adult lymphoma patients who received the COVID vaccine between 12/1/2020 and 11/30/2021. The primary endpoint was a positive anti-COVID spike protein antibody titer following the primary COVID vaccination series. The primary series was defined as 2 doses of the COVID mRNA vaccines or 1 dose of the COVID adenovirus vaccine. Subgroups were compared using Fisher’s exact test, and unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used for univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA) analyses. A total of 243 patients were included in this study; 72 patients (30%) with indolent lymphomas; 56 patients (23%) with Burkitt’s, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL) combined; 55 patients (22%) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL); and 44 patients (18%) with Hodgkin and T-cell lymphomas (HL/TCL) combined. One-hundred fifty-eight patients (65%) developed anti-COVID spike protein antibodies after completing the primary COVID vaccination series. Thirty-eight of 46 (83%) patients who received an additional primary shot and had resultant levels produced anti-COVID spike protein antibodies. When compared to other lymphoma types, patients with CLL/SLL had a numerically lower seroconversion rate of 51% following the primary series whereas patients with HL/TCL appeared to have a robust antibody response with a seropositivity rate of 77% (p=0.04). Lymphoma patients are capable of mounting a humoral response to the COVID mRNA vaccines. Further studies are required to confirm our findings, including whether T-cell immunity would be of clinical relevance in this patient population.

Introduction: Patients (pts) with CLL may be at particular risk of severe COVID-19 given advanced age and immune dysregulation. Two large series with limited follow-up have reported outcomes for pts with CLL and COVID-19 (Scarfò, et al. Leukemia 2020; Mato, et al. Blood 2020). To provide maximal clarity on outcomes for pts with CLL and COVID-19, we partnered in a worldwide effort to describe the clinical experience and validate predictors of survival, including potential treatment effects. Methods: This international collaboration represents a partnership between investigators at 141 centers. Data are presented in two cohorts. Cohort 1 (Co1) includes pts captured through efforts by European Research Initiative on CLL (ERIC), Italian CAMPUS CLL Program, and Grupo Español de Leucemia Linfática Crónica. The validation cohort, Cohort 2 (Co2), includes pts from US (66%), UK (23%), EU (7%), and other countries (4%). There is no overlap in cases between cohorts. CLL pts were included if COVID-19 was diagnosed by PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 and they required inpatient hospitalization. Data were collected retrospectively 2/2020 - 5/2020 using standardized case report forms. Baseline characteristics, preexisting comorbidities (including cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score ≥6 vs. The primary endpoint of this study was to estimate the case fatality rate (CFR), defined as the proportion of pts who died among all pts hospitalized with COVID-19. Chi-squared test was used to compare frequencies; univariable and multivariable analyses utilized Cox regression. Predictors of inferior OS in both Co1 and Co2 were included in multivariable analyses. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) from time of COVID-19 diagnosis (dx). Results: 411 hospitalized, COVID-19 positive CLL pts were analyzed (Co1 n=281, Co2 n=130). Table 1 describes baseline characteristics. At COVID-19 dx, median age was 72 in Co1 (range 37-94) and 68 in Co2 (range 41-98); 31% (Co1) and 45% (Co2) had CIRS ≥6. In Co1, 48% were treatment-naïve and 26% were receiving CLL-directed therapy at COVID-19 dx (66% BTKi ± anti-CD20, 19% Venetoclax ± anti-CD20, 9.6% chemo/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), 1.4% PI3Ki, 4% other). In Co2, 36% were never treated and 49% were receiving CLL-directed therapy (65% BTKi ± anti-CD20, 19% Venetoclax ± anti-CD20, 9.4% multi-novel agent combinations, 1.6% CIT, 1.6% PI3Ki, 1.6% anti-CD20 monotherapy, 1.6% other). Most pts receiving CLL-directed therapy had it held at COVID-19 diagnosis (93% in Co1 and 81% in Co2). Frequency of most COVID-19 symptoms/laboratory abnormalities were similar in the two cohorts including fever (88% in both), lymphocytosis (ALC ≥30 x 109/L; 27% vs. 21%), and lymphocytopenia (ALC < 1.0 x 109/L; 18% vs. 28%), while others varied between Co1 and Co2 (p Median follow-up was 24 days (range 2-86) in Co1 and 17 days (1-43) in Co2. CFRs were similar in Co1 and Co2, 30% and 34% (p=0.45). 54% and 43% were discharged while 16% and 23% remained admitted at last follow-up in Co1 and Co2, respectively. The proportion of pts requiring supplemental oxygen was similar (89% vs. 92%) while rate of ICU admission was higher in Co2 (20% vs. 48%, p Conclusions : In the largest cancer dx-specific cohort reported, pts with CLL hospitalized for COVID-19 had a CFR of 30-34%. Advanced patient age at COVID-19 diagnosis was an independent predictor of OS in two large cohorts. This CFR will serve as a benchmark for mortality for future outcomes studies, including therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 in this population. The effect of CLL treatment on OS was inconsistent across cohorts; COVID-19 may be severe regardless of treatment status. While there were no significant differences in distribution of current lines of therapy between cohorts, prior chemo exposure was more common in Co1 vs. Co2, which may account for difference in OS. Extended follow-up will be presented. Disclosures Roeker: American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Scarfo:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abrisqueta:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Eyre:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; KITE, AZ, Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Muntañola Prat:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; participated in advisory boards; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; participated in advisory boards; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; participated in advisory boards. Villacampa:AstraZeneca: Other: advisory role; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Leslie:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: 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; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Allan:Acerta, Genentech, Abbvie, Sunesis, Ascentage, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Furman:Incyte: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Oncotarget: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Pagel:BeiGene, Astrazeneca, Loxo Oncology, Gilead: Consultancy. Hernandez-Rivas:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rovi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patel:Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Motta:Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Lamanna:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Bei-Gene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vitale:Janssen: Honoraria. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Österborg:BeiGene: Research Funding; Kancera: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Karolinska Univeristy Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden: Current Employment. Hanson:Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria. Eichhorst:ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Oxford Biomedica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Reda:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Varettoni:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marchetti:Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Sponsored meetings; Takeda: Other: Sponsored meetings; Pfeizer: Other: Sponsored meetings. Munir:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Other: Medical writing support, furnished by Scott Battle, PhD, of Health Interactions, was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland; Alexion: Honoraria. Zabalza:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Roche: Other: travel grants; Novartis: Other: travel grants. Janssens:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees. Niemann:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Danish Cancer Society: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk Foundation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Perini:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Patten:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Marasca:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria. Iyengar:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Ferrari:Abbvie: Honoraria. El-Sharkawi:Roche: Other: Conference fees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Itchaki:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ma:Novartis: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bioverativ: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Van Der Spek:AMGEN: Other: Teaching activities. Seymour:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Rigolin:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mauro:Roche: Other; Octopharma: Other; Takeda-Shire: Other; Gilead: Other; Janssen: Other; Abbvie: Other. Laurenti:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Levin:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel compensation; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel compensation; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel compensation. Špaček:Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Walewska:AbbVie: Other: sponsored for educational meetings, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: sponsored for educational meetings, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wiestner:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company; Acerta, Merck, Nurix, Verastem, and Genmab: Research Funding; National Institutes of Health: Patents & Royalties: and other intellectual property. Broom:Gilead: Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau. Kater:Abbvie: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ujjani:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Vandenberghe:Celgene: Other: sponsorship to attend Lugano lymphoma meeting in 2019; Gilead: Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: travel grants; Roche: Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Chong:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tessa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Brown:Janssen, Teva: Speakers Bureau; Gilead, Loxo, Sun, Verastem: Research Funding; Abbvie, Acerta, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Invectys, Juno/Celgene, Kite, Morphosys, Novartis, Octapharma, Pharmacyclics, Sunesis, TG Therapeutics, Verastem: Consultancy. Trentin:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Farina:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sanchez:Abbvie: Other: travel grants; Amgem: Other: travel grants; Janssen: Other: travel grants; Celgene: Other: travel grants; Roche: Other: travel grants. Shadman:Abbvie, Genentech, Astra Zeneca, Sound Biologics , Pharmacyclics, Verastem, ADC therapeutics, Beigene, Cellectar, BMS, Morphosys and Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Mustang Bio, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Genentech, Abbvie, TG therapeutics, Beigene, Astra Zeneca, Sunesis, Beigene: Research Funding. Foglietta:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Jaksic:Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Sportoletti:AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Barr:Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kersting:Celgene: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Huntington:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Herishanu:Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Jacobs:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Genzyme: Speakers Bureau. Portell:BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Astellas: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); University of Milan: Current Employment; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Received travel support., Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support from Gilead.; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Research grant from Amgen Inc.; Omeros: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Advisory board and speaker fees from Pfizer.. Brander:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tolero: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tolero: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding. Rossi:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coscia:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Coombs:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria; LOXO Oncology: Honoraria; Octapharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Schuster:Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Foà:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cuneo:Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bosch:Jansen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Stamatopoulos:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen, Gilead, Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ghia:Adaptive, Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; MEI: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mato:Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding.

The field of lymphoma oncology is becoming increasingly complex as we transition into the personalized medicine era. Not only are more treatment options becoming available, but lymphomas are being further subclassified with nearly 100 subtypes in the most recent World Health Organization classification [1]. One of the main challenges in iNHL is the absence of identified predictive markers to aide in treatment selection and sequencing. Although chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) remains the preferred frontline option for most patients with FL requiring therapy, there is interest in shifting towards chemotherapy-free approaches. Marginal zone lymphoma subtypes are more variable, with the radiation therapy or rituximab monotherapy as the preferred frontline approach for extranodal (EMZL) and splenic (SMZL), and rituximab monotherapy or CIT the favored approach for treatment-naive nodal marginal zone (NMZL). A continued challenge in the frontline treatment of iNHL in patients with iNHL is the lack of predictive and prognostic markers that can identify those at increased risk of poor outcomes. The FL international prognostic index (FLIPI), FLIPI-2, and m7-FLIPI consider clinical and/or molecular features to help risk-stratify patients; however, significant heterogeneity remains among patients in various risk groups and these prognostic scores have different implications if applied to a patient treated with CIT versus a chemotherapy-free approach [2–4]. In the frontline setting, we are still unable to accurately identify patients at increased risk for early relapse, such as progression of disease within 2 years of frontline CIT (POD24), which remains an area of unmet need. Once these patients can be identified prior to starting therapy, novel approaches can be explored in an attempt to change the natural history of disease for these patients. In the relapsed or refractory (R/R) setting, CIT may be appropriate for a minority of patients, but a targeted approach is preferred for most. From June 2020 through March 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for three new targeted therapies in R/R FL and one for R/R MZL. Chemotherapy-free options in R/R FL now include lenalidomide-based therapy, four different phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors, tazemetostat, and anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy. It has become clear that responses to targeted therapies are different among iNHL subtypes, and options for R/R MZL differ significantly from R/R FL. For example, ibrutinib is active across most iNHL subtypes and FDA-approved for R/R MZL, SLL, WM, and R/R MCL but due to disappointing efficacy is not approved in FL (Table ​(Table1,1, Figure ​Figure11). Table 1 Targeted therapies in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas

Certain genetic features in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are associated with inferior outcomes after chemoimmunotherapy (CIT). This retrospective study evaluated treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with CLL, stratified into high-risk and non-high-risk groups, who received first-line ibrutinib or CIT therapy.High-risk group included confirmed presence of del(17p), del(11q), unmutated IGHV, TP53 mutations, or complex karyotype. Weighted high-risk ibrutinib and CIT groups were compared for treatment effects using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Hazard ratios [95% CI] (HR) for time to next treatment (TTNT) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves.Bendamustine/rituximab was the most common CIT regimen initiated for high-risk patients. During the available follow-up (median 34-35 months), 74.7% of the weighted high-risk ibrutinib group received only one line of treatment, compared with 47.2% of the weighted high-risk CIT group. The most common second-line treatment was ibrutinib for those in the CIT groups and venetoclax for the ibrutinib groups. The weighted high-risk ibrutinib group had a significantly longer TTNT (median not reached) than the weighted high-risk CIT group (median 34.4 months) and was 54% less likely to start a new treatment (HR 0.5 [0.3-0.6], P 0.010). Among CIT-treated groups, high-risk patients had significantly shorter median TTNT than non-high-risk patients (P 0.010). However, within the ibrutinib-treated groups, the median TTNT was similar between high-risk and non-high-risk patients (HR 2.2 [1.0-5.0]; P = 0.060).This study found that first-line single-agent ibrutinib therapy was associated with significantly longer TTNT than CIT regimens in real-world patients with high-risk CLL. The results support the use of ibrutinib in high-risk patients. INFOGRAPHIC.

Background: Patients with high-risk (HR)CLL, characterized by cytogenetic/molecular abnormalities, are associated with poor prognosis. Although small molecular inhibitor (SMI) therapies have repeatedly demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with HR CLL compared to CIT in the clinical trial setting, CIT use remains common in real-world (RW) practice. There is limited RW evidence of clinical outcomes in HR and non-HR CLL patients based on first-line (1L) treatment. This study describes treatment patterns and time to next treatment (TTNT) in HR and non-HR patients with CLL receiving ibrutinib (IBR) or CIT as 1L therapy. Methods: At 40 US clinical practices (68% community; 32% academic), medical records were abstracted for adult HR and non-HR CLL patients who initiated 1L single-agent IBR or CIT (index date) between 14Feb2014 - 31Dec2016. HR was defined as having one or more of the following prior to 1L initiation: del(17p), del(11q), TP53 mutation, unmutated IGHV, or complex karyotype (≥ 3 chromosomal abnormalities). Non-HR was defined as testing-confirmed absence of above abnormalities. Baseline characteristics were compared by Chi-square, t- / Mann Whitney U tests; TTNT was assessed by Kaplan-Meier (KM) and cox-proportional hazards regression analyses for: (a) IBR HR vs CIT HR, (b) CIT HR vs CIT non-HR, and (c) IBR HR vs IBR non-HR. Log-rank tests were used to assess statistical significance in TTNT comparison. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was conducted to balance the baseline characteristics between the IBR HR and CIT HR groups. IPTW was not conducted in HR vs non-HR comparisons as baseline differences may reflect the inherent differences associated with risk status. Results: A total of 516 CLL patients were included in this analysis: 271 HR (IBR: 175; CIT: 96 [49.0% BR, 29.2% FCR, 17.7% G-Clb]) and 245 non-HR (IBR: 82; CIT: 163 [54.0% BR, 34.4% FCR, 9.8% G-Clb]). Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were balanced within each pair of comparison groups. For both the weighted IBR and CIT HR groups, mean age was ~66 years with ~40% female, >50% Rai Stage 3-4, >85% ECOG 0-1, ~54% del(17p), ~30% del(11q), ~29% TP53mut, and ~33% unmutated IGHV. Median (range) duration of 1L therapy was 28.6 (1.0-58.1) vs 5.5 (0.5-38.4) months, and median (range) follow-up duration was 33.3 (1.4-58.5) vs 35.3 (1.3-59.5) months, for weighted IBR and CIT HR groups, respectively. KM analysis showed that weighted IBR HR patients had significantly longer median TTNT (Figure 1 and Table 1) and were 54% less likely to start a new treatment compared to CIT HR patients (Hazard Ratio [95% CI]: 0.46 [0.34-0.62]; p During the available follow-up, more weighted IBR HR patients had only one line of treatment compared to weighted CIT HR patients (74.7% vs 47.2%), more CIT non-HR patients had only one line of treatment compared to CIT HR patients (69.9% vs 45.8%), and more IBR non-HR had only one line of treatment compared to IBR HR patients (91.5% vs 81.7%). Majority of patients received SMI therapy in 2L. Most common 2L agents were single-agent IBR in the CIT groups (HR: 86.5%; non-HR: 83.7%) and venetoclax (VEN) in the IBR groups, either as monotherapy (HR: 37.5%; non-HR: 28.6%) or in combination with rituximab (HR: 28.1%; non-HR: 28.6%). Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest RW study to date comparing clinical outcomes in HR CLL patients on 1L IBR vs CIT. HR CLL patients treated with single-agent IBR had significantly longer TTNT than those treated with CIT, despite similar demographics and clinical characteristics. This RW study also demonstrated that IBR therapy provided sustained clinical benefit regardless of risk status and supports the use of IBR in 1L setting, with VEN being the most common 2L agent among those who required next line of therapy post-IBR. Finally, this study highlighted the need of cytogenetic/molecular testing before CIT treatment, consistent with clinical treatment guidelines. Disclosures Huang: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Current Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Deering:EPI-Q, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Harshaw:EPI-Q, Inc.: Current Employment. Bhagnani:EPI-Q, Inc.: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Leslie:ADC therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with a fixed-duration venetoclax (Ven)-based regimen is now a standard of care (SOC) option for both frontline and relapsed refractory (R/R) disease based on results of the CLL14 and MURANO trials (Fischer et al NEJM 2019, Seymour et al NEJM 2018). As fixed-duration Ven regimens are now a SOC, it is expected that an increasing number of patients (pts) will ultimately progress after Ven exposure and require additional CLL-directed therapy. While many discuss re-treatment with Ven as a subsequent treatment option, the current literature contains response data on an extremely limited number of evaluable pts (11 pts MURANO, overall response rate (ORR) 55%; 3 pts VEN 365, ORR 100%). Whether re-treatment with Ven is an acceptable option remains an important unanswered clinical question. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of CLL pts treated with a Ven-based regimen (Ven1) and then re-treated with a second Ven-based regimen (Ven2) in a later line of therapy (LOT). Data were collected from 13 centers and the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence database. CLL pts were eligible for inclusion if they were treated with a Ven-based regimen in any LOT and then re-treated with a Ven-based regimen as a later LOT. Collected data included demographics, prognostic disease characteristics, tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk and incidence, clinical response and reasons for treatment discontinuation (dc). The primary study endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR (CR: complete response, PR: partial response, SD: stable disease, PD: progression of disease, iwCLL 2018). Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression free survival (PFS). All other analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: We identified 25 pts who were re-treated with Ven. Pt characteristics prior to treatment with Ven1 are summarized in Table 1. In 24% of pts (n=6), Ven1 was administered as part of a clinical trial. Median prior LOT was 2 (range 0-10) with 12.0% treatment naïve and 60% with prior BTKi exposure. The majority of pts had ≥1 high-risk prognostic marker: del17p (39%), TP53 mut (27%), complex karyotype ≥5 abnormalities (30%) and unmutated IGHV (84%). For Ven1, treatment regimens, TLS risk, and dose are summarized in Table 2. With a median duration of exposure of 15 months (mos) (64% pts > 12 mos) for Ven1, the ORR was 88% (CR: 48%, PR: 40%, Figure 1A). Ten pts had minimal residual disease (MRD) assessments by flow cytometry; 8 pts (80%) achieved undetectable MRD (10^-4). Most common reasons for Ven1 dc included: toxicity (28%), completion of planned therapy (24%), MD/pt preference (24%), other (12%), alloHSCT (4%) and cost (4%). There was a median of 8.7 mos (36% > 12 mos) between Ven1 and the initiation of Ven2, and 88% did not receive another LOT between Ven1 and Ven2. Reasons for Ven2 initiation were either CLL progression (87.5%) or MRD-positive relapse (12.5%). For Ven2, TLS risk, TLS incidence and dose information are outlined in Table 2. TLS was a rare event during Ven re-treatment (4.5%, lab only). For Ven2, Ven monotherapy was the most common regimen (52%). Standard Ven dose-escalation was used for re-initiation in 17 of 19 pts with available data, however 1 pt started Ven2 at 400 mg daily (no TLS) and another underwent a prolonged ramp-up period. At the time of this analysis, 18 pts had available response assessments for Ven2: ORR is 72.2% (CR: 4, PR: 9, SD: 4 and PD: 1, Figure 1B). Median time from Ven2 to progression or last follow up is 8 mos (0.2-29 mos). Median PFS has not been reached. Estimated 12-month PFS is 69.1%. For pts with a CR to Ven2, median follow up time is 14.5 mos vs 7 mos for pts with PR or SD. Of 25 pts re-treated with Ven, 68% remain on Ven2 presently and 32% have discontinued Ven2, including due to CLL progression (n=4), completion of planned therapy (n=1), unrelated death (n=1), MD/pt preference (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the largest reported cohort of CLL pts re-treated with Ven after a prior Ven-based regimen. The high ORR in this pt population (median 2 prior therapies) suggests that re-treatment is a promising strategy and should be considered in treatment sequencing algorithms. Notably, pts with a CR to Ven2 had a longer median follow up than those with a PR or SD, suggesting a likelihood of deeper responses with time. Given the promising ORR, further research to prospectively validate Ven re-treatment is warranted. Updated data will be presented. Disclosures Allan: Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Acerta, Genentech, Abbvie, Sunesis, Ascentage, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Consultancy. Sail:AbbVie Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Manzoor:Abbvie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or stock options. Pu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Barr:Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Coombs:LOXO Oncology: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Octapharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Schuster:AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Skarbnik:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rhodes:Verastem: Consultancy; Abbvie/Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Barrientos:Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Roeker:American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Leslie:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: 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; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Choi:Pharmacyclics/Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy. Simkovic:Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel expenses. Lansigan:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; BMS Steering Committee for MAGNIFY Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Goy:Morphosys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; MD Anderson: Research Funding; Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment; Infinity Verastem: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; CALBG: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; PracticeUpdate Oncology: Consultancy; RCCA/OMI: Current Employment; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; COTA: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: leadership role; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Hackensack UMC and University of Nebraska: Research Funding. Feldman:Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trillium: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Viracta: 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; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Furman:Verastem: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Oncotarget: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. Mato:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) accounts for approximately 10% of all cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and includes 3 clinically distinct subtypes: extranodal (MALT), splenic (SMZL), and nodal (NMZL). Though commonly grouped in trials of iNHL the clinical behavior, molecular features, and response to therapy of MZL is distinct from other iNHL subtypes and varies among MZL subtypes.Areas covered: This review focuses on the contemporary management of NMZL and SMZL. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies, chemoimmunotherapy, BTK inhibitors, PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, Bcl2 inhibitors, lenalidomide, and CAR-T cell therapy will be covered.Expert opinion: In the era of targeted medicine, the need to develop MZL specific clinicogenetic models with prognostic and predictive value in both the frontline and relapsed/refractory setting is becoming increasingly apparent. Due to the relative rarity of each MZL subtype, the use of novel trial design with correlative studies is imperative to advance the field.

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

Lymphoma patients are at greater risk of severe consequences from COVID-19 infection, yet most reports of COVID-19-associated outcomes were published before the advent of COVID-19 vaccinations and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this retrospective study, we report the real-world outcomes of 68 lymphoma or CLL patients who developed COVID-19 infection during the omicron surge in the US. We found that 34% of patients were hospitalized as a result of COVID-19 infection. The death rate due to COVID-19 was 9% (6/68) in the overall population and 26% (6/23) in hospitalized patients. During the preintervention COVID-19 era, the mortality rate reported in cancer patients was 34%, which increased to 60.2% in hospitalized patients. Thus, the death rates in our study were much lower when compared to those in cancer patients earlier in the pandemic, and may be attributed to modern interventions. In our study, 60% (18/30) of patients with serology data available did not develop anti-COVID-19 spike protein antibodies following vaccination. Most patients (74%, 17/23) who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 infection did not receive COVID-19 mAb treatment. Our results pointed to the importance of humoral immunity and the protective effect of COVID-19 mAbs in improving outcomes in lymphoma patients.

7548 Background: Elderly pts with R/R LBCL are at risk of inferior outcomes, increased toxicity, and inability to tolerate second-line (2L) SOC treatment (Tx) (Di M, et al. Oncologist. 2021). Further 2L SOC Tx is often associated with poor health-related quality of life (QoL) (Lin V, et al. J Clin Oncol . 2020;38:e20070). In the pivotal Phase 3 ZUMA-7 study, we assessed outcomes, including PROs, of 2L axi-cel (an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy) versus SOC in elderly pts with R/R LBCL. Methods: Pts aged ≥65 y were assessed in a planned subgroup analysis. Pts with ECOG PS 0-1 and R/R LBCL ≤12 mo after 1L chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) were randomized 1:1 to axi-cel or SOC (2-3 cycles of platinum-based CIT; pts with partial or complete response [CR] proceeded to HDT-ASCT). PRO instruments, including the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Global Health [GH] and Physical Functioning [PF]) and the EQ-5D-5L VAS, were administered at timepoints including baseline (BL; prior to Tx), Day (D) 50, D100, D150, and Month (M) 9, then every 3 mo up to 24 mo or time of event-free survival event (EFS), whichever occurred first. The QoL analysis set included all pts who had a BL PRO and ≥1 completed measure at D50, D100, or D150. A clinically meaningful change was defined as 10 points for each EORTC QLQ-C30 score, 7 points for EQ-5D-5L VAS score. Results: As of 03/18/2021, 51 and 58 elderly pts were randomized to the axi-cel and SOC arms, respectively, with median ages (range) of 70 y (65-80) and 69 y (65-81). At BL, more axi-cel versus SOC pts had high-risk features, including 2L age-adjusted IPI 2-3 (53% vs 31%) and elevated LDH (61% vs 41%). EFS was superior with axi-cel versus SOC (HR, 0.276, P< 0.0001), with higher CR rates (75% vs 33%). Grade ≥3 Tx-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 94% and 82% of axi-cel and SOC pts, respectively, and Grade 5 Tx-related AEs occurred in 0 and 1 pt. In the QoL analysis set comprising 46 axi-cel and 42 SOC pts, there were statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences in mean change of scores from BL at D100 favoring axi-cel for EORTC QLQ-C30 GH ( P

7575 Background: CA-4948 is a novel oral inhibitor of interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4), which is essential for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in B cell proliferation. IRAK4 forms a Myddosome complex with MYD88 adaptor protein and drives overactivation of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB), causing inflammation and tumor growth. CA-4948 has been reported to be well tolerated and active as monotherapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Preclinical studies demonstrated that tumor resistance and survival via IRAK4 activation could be delayed or reversed. CA-4948 crossed the blood-brain barrier in a murine PDX model of pCNS lymphoma, resulting in tumor response and prolonged survival. In combination with Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, CA-4948 showed in vivo synergy in B-cell NHL. Here we will present an update on the preliminary efficacy data of CA-4948+ibrutinib in R/R hematologic malignancies. Methods: This is an ongoing open-label trial (NCT03328078) of CA-4948 as monotherapy and in combination with ibrutinib. Part A1 (completed) dose escalation of CA-4948 as monotherapy; the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) is 300 mg BID with continuous oral dosing. Part A2 (dose escalation in combination with ibrutinib), and Part B (a basket design of 4 expansion cohorts of CA-4948 and ibrutinib: BTK-naïve MZL, DLBCL, or PCNSL and NHL with adaptive resistance to ibrutinib). The primary endpoints of Parts A1 and A2 include safety, tolerability, and RP2D. The primary endpoints of Part B include CR or ORR, with key secondary endpoints of DOR, DCR, PFS and OS following treatment of CA-4948 at dose levels of 200 (DL1) or 300 mg BID (DL2) with ibrutinib at full prescribed dose. Results: As of December 7th, 2021, 35 heavily pretreated NHL patients have received CA-4948 monotherapy (median age 66 years, range 50-87), of which six patients have been on CA-4948 for approximately 1 year or longer, suggesting CA-4948 has a long-term acceptable safety and tolerability profile at RP2D (dose level of 300 mg BID). In Part A2, 10 patients are treated with CA-4948+ibrutinib (median age 65 years, range 56-82). Median number of prior lines of anti-cancer therapies is 3 (range 1-8). No DLTs were observed at 200 or 300 mg dose levels to date. The preliminary efficacy data of seven evaluable patients with combination therapy showed 1 CR (MCL), 2 PR (MCL and MZL), 3 SD, and 1 PD, 3 of whom had failed prior ibrutinib. The preliminary data indicate the combination therapy may overcome ibrutinib resistance. Conclusions: CA-4948 as a monotherapy and in combination with ibrutinib is well tolerated with an acceptable long term safety profile and promising efficacy. Part A2 is transitioning to Part B basket cohorts of MZL, ABC-DLBCL, PCNSL and NHL with adaptive resistance to ibrutinib. Clinical trial information: 03328078.

7567 Background: Despite the success of axi-cel, ≈60% of patients (pts) have no response or relapse within ̃2 y after Tx (Jacobson C, et al. ASH 2021. #1764), highlighting the need for more therapeutic strategies. In preclinical studies, Rtx augmented CD19 CAR T-cell function and increased tumor reduction and survival in murine models via synergistic targeting with CAR T-cells (Mihara K, et al. Br J Haematol. 2010). Here, we report outcomes of ZUMA-14, a Phase 2, multicenter study of axi-cel in combination with Rtx in pts with R-LBCL after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 y with R/R LBCL. Pts received one Rtx dose (375 mg/m2) on Day -5, a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine on Days -5, -4, and -3, and a single axi-cel infusion of 2×106 CAR T cells/kg on Day 0. Starting on Day 21 post–axi-cel infusion, pts received 1 Rtx dose every 28 d for up to 5 doses. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed complete response (CR) rate. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker assessments. The analysis reported here occurred after all treated pts had ≥12 mo of follow-up. Results: As of 12/2/21, 27 pts were enrolled, and 26 received axi-cel and ≥1 Rtx dose (15 pts received all 6 Rtx doses); 1 pt discontinued Tx due to an adverse event (AE). Median age was 63 y (range, 38-82), 54% of pts were male, 81% had stage III/IV disease, 62% had extranodal disease, 38% had elevated LDH, and 85% had an aaIPI ≥1 (35% aaIPI 2). The CR rate was 65% (95% CI, 44-83), and the ORR was 88% (95% CI, 70-98). With a median follow-up of 17 mo, 65% of the pts had ongoing response, with 57% ongoing in CR. Medians for DOR, PFS and OS were not reached. The estimated DOR and PFS rates at 12 mo were 64% and 56%, respectively. The estimated 12 mo OS rate was 76%, and 6 pts (23%) died of progressive disease. Most pts (92%) experienced Grade ≥3 AEs. Grade ≥3 cytopenias were reported in 85% of pts, with 38% ongoing on Day 30. Grade ≥3 neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 4 pts (15%), and there was no Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Median times to onset of CRS and NEs were 4 d (range, 1-7) and 6 d (range, 3-32), respectively, with median durations of 5 d (range, 2-15) and 7 d (range, 1-39). No pts experienced myelodysplastic syndrome. Median peak CAR T-cell levels were comparable to the ZUMA-1 pharmacokinetic profile. Immune-modulating cytokines, including granzyme B, IL-6, CXCL10, IFN-g and IL-2, were induced in pts following axi-cel and Rtx infusion and were more prominently elevated in responders vs non-responders. Peak Rtx levels were also elevated in responders vs non-responders. Conclusions: Results from ZUMA-14 demonstrated that axi-cel in combination with Rtx elicited a high CR rate with no new safety signals detected in pts with R-LBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT04002401.

PURPOSE Phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors have shown activity in relapsed or refractory (R/R) indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). PI3K inhibitors have been hampered by poor long-term tolerability and toxicity, which interfere with continuous use. Umbralisib, a dual inhibitor of PI3Kδ/casein kinase-1ε, exhibits improved selectivity for PI3Kδ compared with other PI3K inhibitors. This phase IIb trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umbralisib in patients with R/R iNHL. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicohort, open-label, phase IIb study, 208 patients with R/R marginal zone, follicular, or small lymphocytic lymphoma (MZL, FL, or SLL) unresponsive to prior treatments (≥ 1 MZL; ≥ 2 FL/SLL), including ≥ 1 anti-CD20–based therapy, were administered umbralisib 800 mg orally once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or study withdrawal. Primary end point is overall response rate; secondary end points include time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, and safety. RESULTS The median follow-up is 27.7 months (efficacy) and 21.4 months (safety). The overall response rate was 47.1%, and tumor reduction occurred in 86.4% of patients. The median time to response was 2.7-4.6 months. The median duration of response was not reached for MZL, 11.1 months for FL, and 18.3 months for SLL. Median progression-free survival was not reached for MZL, 10.6 months for FL, and 20.9 months for SLL. At least one grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported in 53.4% of patients. TEAEs led to umbralisib discontinuation in 32 patients (15.4%). A total of 31 patients (14.9%) discontinued because of a treatment-related adverse event. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs reported in ≥ 10% of patients: neutropenia (11.5%) and diarrhea (10.1%). Increased ALT/AST (grade ≥ 3) occurred in 6.7%/7.2% of patients. CONCLUSION Umbralisib achieved meaningful clinical activity in heavily pretreated patients with iNHL. The safety profile was manageable, with a relatively low incidence of immune-mediated toxicities and adverse event–related discontinuations.

Phosphoinositide 3-kinase-δ (PI3Kδ) inhibitors are active in lymphoid malignancies, although associated toxicities can limit their use. Umbralisib is a dual inhibitor of PI3Kδ and casein kinase-1ε (CK1ε). This study analyzed integrated comprehensive toxicity data from 4 open-label, phase 1 and 2 studies that included 371 adult patients (median age, 67 years) with relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (follicular lymphoma [n = 147]; marginal zone lymphoma [n = 82]; diffuse large B-cell lymphoma/mantle cell lymphoma [n = 74]; chronic lymphocytic leukemia [n = 43]; and other tumor types [n = 25]) who were treated with the recommended phase 2 dose of umbralisib 800 mg or higher once daily. At data cutoff, median duration of umbralisib treatment was 5.9 months (range, 0.1-75.1 months), and 107 patients (28.8%) received umbralisib for ≥12 months. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 366 (98.7%) of 371 patients, with the most frequent being diarrhea (52.3%), nausea (41.5%), and fatigue (31.8%). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 189 (50.9%) of 371 patients and included neutropenia (11.3%), diarrhea (7.3%), and increased aminotransferase levels (5.7%). Treatment-emergent serious AEs occurred in 95 (25.6%) of 371 patients. AEs of special interest were limited and included pneumonia (29 of 371 [7.8%]), noninfectious colitis (9 of 371 [2.4%]), and pneumonitis (4 of 371 [1.1%]). AEs led to discontinuation of umbralisib in 51 patients (13.7%). Four patients (1.1%) died of AEs, none of which was deemed related to umbralisib. No cumulative toxicities were reported. The favorable long-term tolerability profile and low rates of immune-mediated toxicities support the potential use of umbralisib for the benefit of a broad population of patients with lymphoid malignancies.

Introduction: Data on lymphoma patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) are lacking. A large cancer cohort study showed that number of comorbidities, active cancer, and worse performance status were associated with increased 30-day mortality (Kuderer 2020). Variables contributing to risk of poor outcomes of COVID-19 in lymphoma patients have not been reported. We aimed to investigate the effect of COVID-19 on lymphoma patients' clinical outcomes including the effect of lymphoma-specific therapies on COVID-19 recovery. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study. Data was obtained from 4,302 patients flagged in the electronic health records system with COVID-19, of which 89 lymphoma patients were identified. Presenting clinical information was abstracted from review of unstructured notes as well as structured data. Demographic and baseline parameters were summarized. The differences in the distributions between CD20 antibody treated or non-treated patients were compared using Mann-Whitney's test for continuous variables and Pearson's chi-squared test for categorical variables. The Kaplan-Meier method was utilized to compare the median time from date of diagnosis to date of last follow up or death. Results: 89 lymphoma patients were evaluable. The median age was 67 (range 29-94) with a male predominance (63%). The most common presenting symptoms were fever (54%), shortness of breath (52%), cough (47%), and gastrointestinal (13%). Hypertension and diabetes were present in 51 of 89 (57%) and 19 of 89 (21%) patients, respectively. Laboratory abnormalities included a median absolute neutrophil count of 4.67x103/mcL (range 0-15.9) and lymphocyte count 0.8x103/mcL (range 0-97.7). Inflammatory markers at diagnosis showed median CRP 9.4 mg/dL (0.7-126, n=62) and ferritin of 966 ng/mL (96-14,511, n=42). 76 of 89 (85%) patients required hospitalization, 11 (12%) required mechanical ventilation, and 31 (Case Fatality Rate=35%) died. The overall survival of lymphoma patients is shown in Figure 1A. The presence of hypertension (HR 3.7, p=.005), diabetes (HR 2.6, p=.02), or advanced age ≥70 (HR 2.2, p=.03) were associated with increased COVID-19 related mortality (Figure 1B-D). Lymphoma subtypes included CLL (n=32), DLBCL or Burkitt's (n=18), indolent non-Hodgkin (n=20), Hodgkin (n=6), T cell lymphoma (n=6), and other (n=7). 76% were stage III-IV (n=68), with 40 patients (44%) on active lymphoma treatment at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. 41 patients (48%) received rituximab within the last 3 years, with 11 requiring chronic immune gamma globulin replacement. 25 patients were tested for seropositivity to COVID-19 at median of 42 days from COVID-19 diagnosis (IQR 32-50). 5 of 9 (55%) patients who did not receive CD20 antibody therapy showed immunity. In contrast, out of 16 patients who received anti-CD20 treatment and had a COVID-19 IGG antibody test, only 2 (12.5%) became seropositive (p =.03). Patients who tested seronegative in the CD20 antibody group and had a second negative IgG antibody test (n=6) were a median of 50 days (range 12-82 days) from COVID-19 diagnosis. The median time from diagnosis until a negative COVID-19 PCR test in CD20 antibody treated patients was 56 days (IQR 29-67.5) compared to 14 days (IQR 13-54) (p=0.037) in CD20 antibody naïve patients. Conclusion: Survival was poor in lymphoma patients with hypertension, diabetes, or age ≥ 70. The rate of seropositivity in patients treated with CD20 antibody therapy was significantly lower (12.5% vs 55%). Patients exposed to anti-CD20 therapy also required significantly more days to clear viral shedding (median 56 days vs 14 days). While limited by sample size, this study merits further validation and suggests anti-CD20 therapy may place lymphoma patients at higher risk of prolonged or repeated COVID-19 infection. Further investigations to determine infectivity of patients with prolonged SARS-CoV2 shedding are needed. Disclosures Mato: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding. Leslie:Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau. Goy:Constellation: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; MD Anderson: Research Funding; Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment; Infinity Verastem: Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Hackensack UMC and University of Nebraska: Research Funding; COTA: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: leadership role; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; RCCA/OMI: Current Employment; PracticeUpdate Oncology: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding; CALBG: Research Funding. Feldman:Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Corvus: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria.

Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a standard-of-care treatment for many hematologic malignancies. Progression of disease after ASCT is the primary cause of treatment failure. In this Phase Ib trial, we studied the safety and clinical effect of combined checkpoint inhibition therapy (CPIT) with ipilimumab and nivolumab as a consolidation strategy after ASCT for patients with high-risk diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mature T cell lymphoma (TCL), and multiple myeloma (MM). Starting at 14 to 28 days after ASCT, patients received ipilimumab (1 mg/kg i.v. on day 1 of weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, 16, and 22) and nivolumab (3 mg/kg i.v. on day 1 of weeks 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26). Patients received a median of 5 doses of ipilimumab and 8 doses of nivolumab. Thirty-five patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. Ninety-four percent of the patients experienced immune-related adverse events (irAEs) of any grade. Ninety-seven percent of irAEs resolved spontaneously or after holding study drugs and instituting high-dose corticosteroid therapy. Progression-free and overall survival at 18 months post-ASCT for each disease cohort were 85.7% and 100% for primary refractory DLBCL, 28.6% and 57.1% for relapsed DLBCL, not evaluable and 80% for frontline TCL, 25% and 75% for relapsed TCL, 57.1% and 87% for high-risk transplant-naive MM, and 40% and 100% for MM relapsed within 3 years of first ASCT. We conclude that combined CPIT appears to be tolerable as a consolidation strategy after ASCT and in addition to the potential clinical efficacy observed in some subsets of disease, T cell receptor repertoire, T regulatory cell phenotype, and gut microbiota profiles provide a biologic rationale warranting further study of this approach.

Here, we report on a phase IIa study to determine the intubation rate, survival, viral clearance, and development of endogenous Abs in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with convalescent plasma (CCP) containing high levels of neutralizing anti–SARS-CoV-2 Abs. Radiographic and laboratory evaluation confirmed all 51 treated patients had COVID-19 pneumonia. Fresh or frozen CCP from donors with high titers of neutralizing Abs was administered. The nonmechanically ventilated patients (n = 36) had an intubation rate of 13.9% and a 30-day survival rate of 88.9%, and the overall survival rate for a comparative group based on network data was 72.5% (1625/2241). Patients had negative nasopharyngeal swab rates of 43.8% and 73.0% on days 10 and 30, respectively. Patients mechanically ventilated had a day-30 mortality rate of 46.7%; the mortality rate for a comparative group based on network data was 71.0% (369/520). All evaluable patients were found to have neutralizing Abs on day 3 (n = 47), and all but 1 patient had Abs on days 30 and 60. The only adverse event was a mild rash. In this study on patients with COVID-19 disease, we show therapeutic use of CCP was safe and conferred transfer of Abs, while preserving endogenous immune response., Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia receiving high-titer convalescent plasma showed antibody transfer with preservation of endogenous production, and database survival comparison is promising for the early group.

OBJECTIVESTo determine the rate of intubation, overall survival, viral clearance, and the development of endogenous antibodies in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with convalescent plasma containing high levels of neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We also aimed to describe the laboratory parameters of the plasma products.DESIGNThis was a phase IIa, single institution, prospective study in adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.SETTINGHackensack University Medical Center, a 770-bed research and teaching hospital located in Bergen County NJ, 11 km from New York City. The study was conducted between April 15 and June 18, 2020.PARTICIPANTS47 hospitalized adult patients were treated: 32 in the non-mechanically ventilated group and 15 in the mechanically ventilated group. All patients had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia by radiographic and laboratory evaluation.INTERVENTIONFresh or frozen convalescent plasma from donors with high titers of viral neutralizing antibodies was administered.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESIncidence of intubation, overall survival, and discharge rate of patients divided in cohorts based on severity of disease. Description of infused plasma characteristics. Evaluation of recipients’ pre-treatment viral immunity, immunity transfer from convalescent plasma administration, and late immunity 30 and 60 days after treatment. Rates of viral clearance by nasopharyngeal PCR at 10 and 30 days. Outcomes of patients with no pre-treatment immunity. Survival comparison with institutional data for each cohort.RESULTSAnalysis for the non-mechanically ventilated patients showed an intubation rate of 15.6% (95% CI: 5.3%-32.8%) and a day-30 survival rate of 87.5% (28/32; 95% CI:70.2%-96.4%). The overall survival for a comparative group based on institutional data was 66% (675/1023; p=0.012). The rates of negative nasopharyngeal swab by PR-PCR on day+10 and +30 post treatment were 42.9% (95% CI: 24%-63%) and 78% (95% CI: 56%-93%) respectively. Patients mechanically ventilated had a day-30 mortality of 46.7% (95% CI:21.3%-73.4%); the mortality for a comparative group based on institutional data was 68.5% (217/317; p=0.093). The rates of negative nasopharyngeal swab by PR-PCR at day+10 and +30 was 85.7% (95% CI: 42-100%; n=7) and 100% (95% CI: 63-100%; n=8). Seven patients (15%) had no pre-infusion immunity, and all were found to have anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titers three days post infusion. All evaluable patients were found to have neutralizing antibodies on day+30 (n=30) and on day+60 (n=12) post treatment. There was no difference in outcomes within the ranges of high antiviral neutralizing titers used, mostly greater than 1:1000. There was also no difference between fresh or frozen plasma. The only adverse event was a mild rash in one patient.CONCLUSIONIn this study of adult patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, convalescent plasma was safe and conferred effective transfer of immunity while preserving endogenous immune response. Intubation rates, survival rates compared with institutional data, and viral clearance rates, support the continued evaluation of this antiviral modality.STUDY REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NTC04343755

There is a Blood Commentary on this article in this issue., Key Points Both watch-and-wait and treated CLL patients have high mortality rates when admitted for COVID-19. Receiving a BTKi for CLL at COVID-19 diagnosis severe enough to require hospitalization did not influence case fatality rate in this study., Given advanced age, comorbidities, and immune dysfunction, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients may be at particularly high risk of infection and poor outcomes related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Robust analysis of outcomes for CLL patients, particularly examining effects of baseline characteristics and CLL-directed therapy, is critical to optimally manage CLL patients through this evolving pandemic. CLL patients diagnosed with symptomatic COVID-19 across 43 international centers (n = 198) were included. Hospital admission occurred in 90%. Median age at COVID-19 diagnosis was 70.5 years. Median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was 8 (range, 4-32). Thirty-nine percent were treatment naive (“watch and wait”), while 61% had received ≥1 CLL-directed therapy (median, 2; range, 1-8). Ninety patients (45%) were receiving active CLL therapy at COVID-19 diagnosis, most commonly Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi’s; n = 68/90 [76%]). At a median follow-up of 16 days, the overall case fatality rate was 33%, though 25% remain admitted. Watch-and-wait and treated cohorts had similar rates of admission (89% vs 90%), intensive care unit admission (35% vs 36%), intubation (33% vs 25%), and mortality (37% vs 32%). CLL-directed treatment with BTKi’s at COVID-19 diagnosis did not impact survival (case fatality rate, 34% vs 35%), though the BTKi was held during the COVID-19 course for most patients. These data suggest that the subgroup of CLL patients admitted with COVID-19, regardless of disease phase or treatment status, are at high risk of death. Future epidemiologic studies are needed to assess severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection risk, these data should be validated independently, and randomized studies of BTKi’s in COVID-19 are needed to provide definitive evidence of benefit., Visual Abstract

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.

Background: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for the treatment of R/R large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma (FL), both after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. ZUMA-5 is a Phase 2, multicenter, single-arm study evaluating axi-cel in patients with R/R iNHL (including FL and marginal zone lymphoma [MZL]). In the primary analysis of ZUMA-5 (N=104; 17.5 months median follow-up), the overall response rate (ORR) was 92% (76% complete response [CR] rate), and median peak CAR T-cell levels were numerically greater in patients with FL who were in ongoing response at data cutoff than in those who relapsed (Jacobson et al. ASH 2020. Abstract 700). Here, we report updated clinical and pharmacologic outcomes from ZUMA-5. Methods: Adult patients with R/R FL or MZL after ≥2 lines of therapy (including an anti-CD20 mAb plus an alkylating agent) underwent leukapheresis and conditioning chemotherapy followed by a single axi-cel infusion at 2×10 6 CAR T cells/kg. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed ORR per Lugano classification. The updated efficacy analysis occurred when ≥80 consecutively treated patients with FL had ≥2 years of follow-up post-infusion and included patients with MZL who had ≥4 weeks of follow-up post-infusion. Results: As of March 31, 2021, 149 patients with iNHL (124 FL; 25 MZL) were treated with axi-cel. Of those, 110 patients (86 FL; 24 MZL) were eligible for efficacy analyses. Among eligible patients with FL, median follow-up was 30.9 months (range, 24.7-44.3). Centrally assessed ORR was 94% in patients with FL (79% CR rate). At data cutoff, 57% of eligible patients with FL had ongoing responses; 68% of patients who achieved a CR had ongoing responses. The estimated duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) medians were 38.6 months and 39.6 months in patients with FL, respectively. Among patients with FL who progressed Among eligible patients with MZL, median follow-up was 23.8 months (range, 7.4-39.4). The ORR was 83% in patients with MZL (63% CR rate), with 50% of eligible patients in ongoing response and 73% of patients with a CR in ongoing response at data cutoff. Medians for DOR and TTNT were not reached in patients with MZL; 24-month rates were not estimable and 51%, respectively. Median PFS was 17.3 months in patients with MZL and median OS was not reached (70% OS rate at 24 months). Common Grade ≥3 AEs in all treated patients with iNHL were consistent with prior reporting: neutropenia (33%), decreased neutrophil count (28%), and anemia (25%). Grade ≥3 cytopenias present ≥30 days post-infusion were reported in 34% of patients with iNHL (33% FL; 36% MZL). Consistent with previous reports, Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 7% of patients (6% FL; 8% MZL) and 19% of patients (15% FL; 36% MZL), respectively. Most CRS cases (120/121) and NEs (82/87) of any grade resolved by data cutoff. Among patients with FL who had evaluable samples, 76% (65/86) had detectable CAR gene-marked cells at low levels by 12 months post-infusion; 53% (23/43) had detectable cells 24 months post-infusion. Among evaluable patients with MZL, 67% (8/12) had detectable CAR gene-marked cells 12 months post-infusion; 60% (3/5) had detectable cells 24 months post-infusion. B-cell reconstitution was detectable in 59% of evaluable patients with FL (49/83) and 42% of those with MZL (5/12) by 12 months post-infusion. By 24 months, B cells were detectable in 61% of evaluable patients with FL (25/41) and 50% of those with MZL (2/4). Conclusions: With long-term follow-up in ZUMA-5, axi-cel demonstrated substantial and continued benefit in patients with iNHL. In FL, high response rates translated to durability, with a median DOR of 38.6 months and 57% of eligible patients in ongoing response at data cutoff. In MZL, efficacy outcomes appeared to improve with longer follow-up, with the median DOR and OS not yet reached. Axi-cel maintained a manageable safety profile, with no new safety signals . Disclosures Neelapu: Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene Therapeutics, Cell Medica/Kuur, Incyte, Precision Biosciences, Legend Biotech, Adicet Bio, Calibr, Unum Therapeutics and Bluebird Bio: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals and related to cell therapy: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Poseida, Cellectis, Celgene, Karus Therapeutics, Unum Therapeutics (Cogent Biosciences), Allogene, Precision BioSciences, Acerta and Adicet Bio: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene, Kuur, Incyte, Precision BioSciences, Legend, Adicet Bio, Calibr, and Unum Therapeutics: Other: personal fees. Chavez: Merk: Research Funding; MorphoSys, Bayer, Karyopharm, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie, TeneoBio, and Pfizer: Consultancy; MorphoSys, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Sehgal: Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Epperla: Genzyme: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau. Bachy: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Daiishi: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Munshi: Kite, a Gilead Company, and Incyte: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company, and Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Casulo: Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Maloney: Kite, a Gilead Company, Juno, and Celgene: Research Funding; A2 Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; BioLineRx, Juno, Celgene, Kite, a Gilead Company, Gilead, Novartis, and Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; A2 Biotherapeutics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Juno: Patents & Royalties. Reshef: Bayer: Consultancy; BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper, Bayer: Consultancy; ilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria. Leslie: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; PCYC/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seagen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Oluwole: Pfizer: Consultancy; Curio Science: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Rosenblatt: Synergys: Patents & Royalties; BioGraph 55: Research Funding. Sherman: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dong: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; GliaCure/Tufts: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties. Giovanetti: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yang: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Lui: Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Other: travel support. Bashir: Kite, a Gilead Company: Ended employment in the past 24 months; OmniacPharmConsult Ltd: Other: stock or other ownership. Jung: Amgen, Kura, Gilead, and Turning Point: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Jacobson: Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Axis: Speakers Bureau; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau.