Search

The prognostic relevance of diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is unknown. Hence, we sought to evaluate the impact of DTI on outcomes in MCL using 3 large datasets (1) the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource, (2) patients enrolled in the ALL Age Asthma Cohort/CALGB 50403, and (3) a multisitecohort of patients with MCL. Patients were a priori divided into 2 groups, 0 to 14 days (short DTI) and 15 to 60 days (long DTI). The patients in whom observation was deemed appropriate were excluded. One thousand ninety-seven patients newly diagnosed with MCL and available DTI were included in the study. The majority (73%) had long DTI (n=797). Patients with short DTI had worse eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS ≥2), higher lactate dehydrogenase, bone marrow involvement, more frequent B symptoms, higher MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI ≥6.2), and were less likely to receive intensive induction therapy than long DTI group. The median progression-free survival (2.5 years vs 4.8 years, p

To report the activity of venetoclax in patients with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), we identified 81 patients treated with venetoclax monotherapy (n=50, 62%) or in combination with a BTK inhibitor (n=16, 20%), an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (n=11, 14%), or others at 12 US academic medical centers. Patients had high-risk disease features including Ki67 >30% (61%), blastoid/pleomorphic histology (29%), complex karyotype (34%), and TP53 alterations (49%), and received a median of 3 prior treatments including BTK inhibitors in 91%. Venetoclax alone or in combination resulted in an overall response rate (ORR) of 40% and median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 3.7 and 12.5 months, respectively. The receipt of ≤ 3 prior treatments was associated with higher odds of response to venetoclax in a univariable analysis. In a multivariable analysis, having a high-risk MIPI score prior to venetoclax and disease relapse or progression within 24 months of diagnosis were associated with inferior OS whereas the use of venetoclax in combination was associated with superior OS. Although most patients (61%) had low risk for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), 12.3% of patients developed TLS despite the implementation of several mitigation strategies. In conclusion, venetoclax resulted in good ORR but short PFS in high-risk patients with MCL and may have a better role in earlier lines of treatment and/or in combination with other active agents. TLS remains an important risk in patients with MCL who initiate treatment with venetoclax.

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

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma characterized by an aggressive clinical course in the majority of patients. Despite recent improvements in outcomes, MCL remains incurable and a major therapeutic challenge. BTK inhibitors are the preferred treatment option for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL, including those unfit for chemotherapy or those with chemoresistant disease. In addition to ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, the FDA recently approved zanubrutinib for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory MCL based on the results of two Phase 2 clinical trials showing overall response rates of 85-87% with complete responses in 30-77% of patients. Compared with ibrutinib, zanubrutinib is more selective for BTK and has less off-target inhibition, which is thought to limit certain toxicities although direct comparative data are still lacking. This review article summarizes data from clinical trials of currently FDA-approved BTK inhibitors in MCL with a focus on zanubrutinib.

The improved understanding of lymphoma biology and recent advances in the field of cancer immunology have paved the way for the development of many effective small molecule inhibitors and immunotherapies in B cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. This article reviews novel treatments that have been approved recently by the US Food and Drug Administration and are now routinely used in clinical practice. It discusses their mechanisms of action, efficacy and safety, current therapeutic roles, and future directions in the treatment paradigm of different types of B cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. It also reviews other exciting novel treatments that are not yet approved but have unique mechanisms of action and have shown encouraging early results.

Introduction. The optimal treatment of patients with diffuse large B cell (DLBCL) and high-grade B cell (HGBCL) lymphomas with synchronous central nervous system (CNS) and systemic involvement at diagnosis is not well defined. High-dose methotrexate (MTX) administered concurrently with R-CHOP (RM-CHOP) is a commonly used regimen, but data on outcomes achieved with this regimen are limited. Methods. We included consecutive patients with DLBCL and HGBCL with synchronous CNS and systemic involvement at diagnosis treated with RM-CHOP from 1/2012 - 1/2021. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the time of diagnosis to either progression or death, and overall survival (OS) from the time of diagnosis to death due to all causes; patients without events were censored at the time of the last follow-up. PFS and OS were estimated through the Kaplan-Meier method. Results. Fifty patients were included. Median age was 62 years (range, 19 - 80), 58% were male, 82% had DLBCL (n=41) and 18% had HGBCL (n=9). Six patients (14%) had MYC with BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements by fluorescence in situ hybridization (available for n=43), and 11 patients (55%) had MYC and BCL2 double-expression by immunohistochemistry (available for n=20). ECOG performance status was ≥2 in 16 patients (36%). LDH was elevated in 41 patients (87%).The IPI score classified 40% and 56% of patients as having intermediate- or high-risk disease, respectively. The median number of extranodal sites was 2 (range, 1-7) with 48% having ≥3 extranodal sites. CNS involvement was parenchymal in 14 patients (28%), leptomeningeal in 28 (56%), or both in 8 (16%). The most common extranodal sites outside the CNS were renal/adrenal (n=6, 12%), paraspinal (n=5, 10%), and testicular (n=4, 8%). The majority of R-CHOP cycles (89%, n=222) included MTX with a median number of MTX-containing R-CHOP cycles administered per patient of 5 (range, 1-6). MTX starting dose was 3.5 g/m 2 in all but 3 patients (range, 1.5 - 2 g/m 2). Intrathecal MTX was administered in 21 patients (42%). Treatment with RM-CHOP was followed by consolidative stem cell transplantation in 15 patients (30%) including 14 autologous (28%) and 1 (2%) allogeneic. The objective response rate following RM-CHOP was 66% including complete response in 60%. With a median follow-up of 31 months (range, 4 - 100), the median PFS and OS were 17.7 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 6.9 - not reached [NR]) and NR (95% CI, 12.5 - NR), respectively, with 1-year PFS and OS of 57% (95% CI, 42-69%) and 68% (95% CI, 52-79%), respectively (Figure A). Twelve patients had CNS relapse/progression with a 1-year cumulative incidence of CNS progression/relapse of 21% (95% CI, 10-33%) (Figure B). Outcomes were particularly poor in patients with HGBCL, with median PFS and OS of 6.3 (95%CI, 1.2 - 9.8) months and 7.3 (95%CI, 1.2 - 21.2) months, and 1-year PFS and OS of 13% (95%CI, 1-44%) and 38% (95% CI, 9-68%), respectively (Figures C and D). Of the 7 patients with HGBCL who relapsed/progressed, 3 had CNS involvement only (1 parenchymal, 2 leptomeningeal), 3 had systemic involvement only, and 1 had both (parenchymal). Three patients received subsequent systemic treatment and only 1 responded (partial response). In patients with DLBCL, with a median follow-up of 33.5 months (range, 4 - 100), the median PFS and OS were both NR (95%CI, 9.5 months - NR and 21 months - NR, respectively) and the 1-year PFS and OS were 65% (95% CI, 49-78%) and 74% (95%CI, 57-85%), respectively. Of the 14 patients with DLBCL who relapsed/progressed, 8 had CNS involvement only (4 parenchymal, 2 leptomeningeal, 2 both) and 6 had systemic involvement only. Nine patients received subsequent systemic treatment of whom 5 patients responded (3 complete and 2 partial responses) Conclusions. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies of patients with DLBCL and HGBCL with synchronous CNS and systemic involvement at diagnosis treated with RM-CHOP. Patients with HGBCL had poor outcomes with median PFS and OS of 6 and 7 months, respectively. Patients with DLBCL had more favorable outcomes with median PFS and OS not reached after a median follow-up of 33.5 months. CNS involvement was more common than isolated systemic involvement at relapse/progression. CNS involvement in aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma at diagnosis remains a major therapeutic challenge, dictates clinical outcomes, and requires more effective treatment options. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dotson: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bond: Kite/Gilead: Honoraria. Epperla: Genzyme: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau. Christian: Millenium: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Triphase: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Acerta: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; VeraStem: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Immunomedics: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding; Merck: Other: Institution: Research Grant/Funding. Baiocchi: Prelude Therapeutics: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Codiak Biosciences: Research Funding; viracta: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Maddocks: Karyopharm: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Morphosys: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; ADC Therapeutics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Beigene: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; KITE: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Celgene: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Pharmacyclics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; BMS: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Merck: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Novatis: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Janssen: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Seattle Genetics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Sawalha: Epizyme: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Approximately 40% of patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) do not respond or develop relapsed disease after first-line chemoimmunotherapy. A minority of these patients can be cured with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT). Although chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have transformed the treatment paradigm of relapsed/refractory DLBCL, only 30–40% of patients achieve durable remissions. In addition, many patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL are ineligible to receive treatment with CAR T cells due to comorbidities or logistical limitations. Since 2019, the following four non-CAR T-cell treatments have been approved in relapsed/refractory DLBCL: polatuzumab in combination with bendamustine and rituximab, selinexor, tafasitamab plus lenalidomide, and loncastuximab. In this article, I review the data behind these four approvals and discuss important considerations on their use in clinical practice. I also review emerging therapies that have shown promising early results in relapsed/refractory DLBCL including the bispecific antibodies, antibody–drug conjugates, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors, BCL2 inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and epigenetic modifiers.

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

Background: Relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) remains a difficult treatment challenge. Although checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) have provided clinical benefit for these patients, responses are generally not durable, and progression eventually occurs. Discovering combination therapies which maximize the immune response of CPI therapy may overcome this limitation. We hypothesized that adding ibrutinib to nivolumab will lead to deeper and more durable responses in cHL by promoting a more favorable immune microenvironment leading to enhanced T-cell-mediated anti-lymphoma responses. Methods: We conducted a single arm, phase II clinical trial testing the efficacy of nivolumab in combination with ibrutinib in patients ≥18 years of age with histologically confirmed cHL who had received at least one prior line of therapy. Prior treatment with CPIs was allowed. Ibrutinib was administered at 560 mg daily until progression in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for up to 16 cycles. The primary objective was complete response rate (CRR) assessed per Lugano criteria. Secondary objectives included overall response rate (ORR), safety, progression free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DoR). Results: A total of 17 patients from two academic centers were enrolled. The median age of all patients was 40 (range 20–84). The median number of prior lines of treatment was five (range 1–8), including 10 patients (58.8%) who had progressed on prior nivolumab therapy. Most treatment related events were mild (

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 10,290 patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) treated with chemotherapy with or without upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Only 17% of patients underwent ASCT. Patients who underwent ASCT were younger and more likely to have lower comorbidity scores, private insurance, higher income and education, and treatment received at an academic facility. On multivariable analysis, age, comorbidity index, insurance type, the transition of care, facility type, distance to facility, and diagnosis year were predictive for ASCT use. ASCT use was associated with improved 5-year overall survival in younger (82% vs. 64%, p < .001) and older (70% vs. 40%, p < .001) patients, which was retained in the matched propensity score and 12-month analyses. Female gender, the diagnosis year ≥2009, private insurance, higher income, and education were associated with superior survival, whereas Black race and higher comorbidities predicted inferior survival.

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

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

PURPOSE Despite advances in immunotherapies, the prognosis for adults with Philadelphia chromosome-negative, newly diagnosed (ND) or relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia/acute biphenotypic leukemia (ALL/ABL) remains poor. The benzamide derivative entinostat inhibits histone deacetylase and induces histone hyperacetylation. The purine nucleoside analogue clofarabine is FDA-approved for R/R ALL in children 1−21 years of age. Low doses of clofarabine have been reported to induce DNA hypomethylation. We conducted a phase 1 study of low dose clofarabine with escalating doses of entinostat in adults with ND or R/R ALL/ABL. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Adults ≥60 years with ND ALL/ABL or ≥21 years with R/R ALL/ABL received repeated cycles every 3 weeks of entinostat (4 mg, 6 mg or 8 mg orally days 1 and 8) and clofarabine (10 mg/m2/day IV for 5 days, days 3–7) (Arm A). Adults aged 40–59 years with ND ALL/ABL or age ≥21 years in first relapse received entinostat and clofarabine prior to traditional chemotherapy on day 11 (Arm B). Changes in DNA damage, global protein lysine acetylation, myeloid-derived suppressor cells and monocytes were measured in PBMCs before and during therapy. RESULTS Twenty-eight patients were treated at three entinostat dose levels with the maximum administered dose being entinostat 8 mg. The regimen was well tolerated with infectious and metabolic derangements more common in the older population versus the younger cohort. There was no severe hyperglycemia and no peripheral neuropathy in this small study. There were 2 deaths (1 sepsis, 1 intracranial bleed). Overall response rate was 32 %; it was 50 % for ND ALL/ABL. Entinostat increased global protein acetylation and inhibited immunosuppressive monocyte subpopulations, while clofarabine induced DNA damage in all cell subsets examined. CONCLUSION Entinostat plus clofarabine appears to be tolerable and active in older adults with ND ALL/ABL, but less active in R/R patients. Further evaluation of this regimen in ND ALL/ABL appears warranted.

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

Polatuzumab vedotin is an anti-CD79b antibody conjugated to monomethyl auristatin E that has shown significant clinical activity in follicular and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and is currently FDA-approved in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL. This review article summarizes data from clinical trials of polatuzumab and discusses its current role and future directions in the treatment of patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods We conducted a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar from inception to January 2020, using the following terms: polatuzumab and CD79. We also reviewed the package insert and available abstracts and posters presented at national and international meetings.

Background Young fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are commonly treated with induction chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT). Induction regimens with modifications of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) and/or incorporation of high-dose cytarabine (HDAC) appear more effective than R-CHOP alone. Patients and Methods We adopted a modification of the Nordic protocol using standard, rather than higher dose R-CHOP, alternating with HDAC (rituximab plus HDAC), for 3 cycles each or, for patients already treated with R-CHOP alone before referral for AHCT, an additional 2 cycles of rituximab plus HDAC. We herein report our experience with 28 patients treated with this regimen who proceeded to AHCT, and compare their outcomes with patients treated with either standard-dose R-CHOP (n = 38) or R-HCVAD/MA (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone alternating with methotrexate, and cytarabine; n = 21), before AHCT. Results With a median follow-up duration of 26 months, our data show that this modification of the Nordic regimen is a highly effective pre-AHCT first-line therapy for MCL (3-year progression-free and overall survival rates of 69% and 75%, respectively). Conclusion By using a less intense induction, this regimen can serve as a platform for combined use of novel agents, with less risk of additive toxicity.

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

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

Introduction: Classical Hodgkin's Lymphoma (cHL) is characterized by an extensive inflammatory infiltrate with abundant Th2 and Treg cells which facilitate immune escape of Reed Sternberg (RS) cells and provides a growth promoting microenvironment by cytokine secretion and CD40/CD40L engagement. Our group previously show that ibrutinib irreversibly inhibits both Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) and interleukin-2 inducible kinase (ITK), a kinase important in Th2 signaling (Dubovsky et al Blood 2013). We hypothesized that the addition of ibrutinib to nivolumab would lead to deeper and more durable responses in cHL by normalizing the Th1/Th2 balance thus reversing immune escape of RS cells. We present results of a planned interim analysis of the first 10 patients enrolled with a data cutoff of June of 2020. Methods: This is a single arm, phase II, single institutional clinical trial testing the clinical activity of nivolumab in combination with ibrutinib in patients ≥18 years of age with histologically confirmed cHL who have received at least one prior line of therapy and who were either not candidates for or had a prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Prior treatment with nivolumab was allowed. Ibrutinib was administered at 560 mg daily until progression in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 16 cycles. The primary objective was complete response rate (CRR) prior to cycle 7 assessed per Lugano criteria. Adverse events (AEs) were reported using CTCAE Version 4.0. Results: Of the first 11 cHL patients enrolled, one patient withdrew consent prior to initiating therapy. Of the remaining 10 patients, the median age was 41 years (range 20-84) and 4 patients (40%) were male. The median number of prior lines of treatment was 4.5 (range 1-11), 5 patients (50%) had prior ASCT, 8 patients (80%) had prior brentuximab, and 5 patients (50%) had prior nivolumab. Four of the five patients with prior nivolumab had progressed while receiving therapy while the remaining patient had stable disease upon completing nivolumab with a median time from the last nivolumab treatment of 15.6 months (range 0.7-23.2). Of the 10 patients who received treatment, one patient came off study after two cycles due to persistent grade 2 transaminitis lasting for several weeks attributed to nivolumab requiring high dose oral steroids. One patient came off study after cycle 9 due to grade 3 hematuria attributed to ibrutinib and another came off study due to a pericardial effusion after 8 cycles of ibrutinib maintenance. In the remaining patients, treatment was generally well tolerated with most AEs being grade 1-2 (Table 1). The median number of total cycles received was 9 (range 2-22). Of the 9 patients evaluable for response, 6 patients responded (ORR = 66%), 4 of whom had a complete response (CRR = 44%) with a median time to response of 2 months (Table 2, Fig.1). In intention-to-treat analysis, the ORR was 60% and CRR was 40% meeting our prespecified interim efficacy endpoint of a 30% CRR for trial continuation. Notably, of the 5 patients with prior nivolumab, 3 responded to nivolumab + ibrutinib (ORR = 60%), with one having a CR (CRR = 20%). Overall, at a median follow up of 9.5 months, both the median PFS and duration of response have not yet been reached, with 3 patients remaining in CR at the time of data cutoff. Three of 4 patients discontinued trial treatment to undergo SCT [2 allogeneic; 1 autologous]. Of the 2 allogeneic SCT patients, the first one underwent SCT 3 weeks after the last nivolumab infusion and developed multi-organ acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) followed by severe chronic GVHD requiring extracorporeal photopheresis. The second patient underwent allogeneic SCT 2 months following the last nivolumab infusion and had no acute GVHD and experienced only mild chronic GVHD which was medically managed. Conclusions: Although the numbers are small and further recruitment is ongoing (target n=17), the combination of ibrutinib and nivolumab was generally well tolerated and with high response rate with more than half of responding patients achieving a CR. In addition, responses were seen in patients with prior nivolumab treatment. Our results suggest a possible novel role for BTK inhibition in reversing nivolumab resistance in cHL, at least in some cases. Correlative studies including peripheral blood and tumor immune subset analyses are ongoing and the latest results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Christian: Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; F Hoffman-La Roche: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZenica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maddocks:Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. William:Incyte: Research Funding; Dova: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy. Jaglowski:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; CRISPR: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy. Bond:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria. Brammer:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Baiocchi:viracta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: This trial uses ibrutnib in cHL to augment the responses of concurrent nivolumab administration.

Background Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is curable in ~60-70% of patients using standard chemoimmunotherapy, but the prognosis is poor for relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Therefore, understanding the underlying molecular mechanisms will facilitate early prediction and effective management of resistance to therapy. Recent studies of paired diagnostic-relapse biopsies from patients have relied on a single "omics" approach, examining either gene expression or epigenetic evolution. Here we present a combined analysis of gene expression and DNA methylation profiles of paired diagnostic-relapse DLBCL biopsies to identify changes responsible for relapse after R-CHOP. Methods Biopsies from 23 DLBCL patients were obtained at the time of diagnosis and relapse following frontline R-CHOP chemoimmunotherapy. The cohort had 18 (78.3%) male patients with median age of 62 (range, 35-86) years and median IPI of 2.5 (range, 1-5). The median time from diagnosis to relapse was 7 (range, 0-57) months. DNA and RNA were extracted simultaneously from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) biopsy samples. DNA methylation levels were measured through Illumina 850k Methylation Array for 22 pairs of diagnostic-relapse biopsies. RNA from diagnostic-relapse paired biopsies from 6 patients was sequenced using Illumina HiSeq4000. Differentially methylated probes were identified using the DMRcate package, and differentially expressed genes were identified using the DESeq2 package. Gene set enrichment analysis was performed using canonical pathway gene sets from MSigDB. Pearson's correlation with a Bonferroni correction to the p-value was used to calculate the correlation between regularized log transformed gene expression counts and methylation beta values. Results In a pairwise comparison of gene expression between diagnostic and R/R biopsy pairs, we found 14 differentially expressed genes (FDR|1|) consistent across all pairs. Compared to gene expression at diagnosis, five genes (CYP1B1, LGR4, ATXN1, CTSC, ZMAT3) were downregulated, and eight genes (ERBB3, CD19, CARD11, MT-RNR2, IGHG3, CCDC88C, ATP2A3, CENPE, and PCNT) were up-regulated in the R/R samples. Many of these genes have been previously implicated in oncogenesis, such as ERBB3, a member of the epidermal growth receptor family. Importantly, some of these genes have known roles in DLBCL biology, such as CD19, a member of the B-cell receptor complex, and CARD11, a gene in which several oncogenic mutations have been identified in DLBCL as a mediator of NF-KB activation. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed overexpression of immune signatures such as cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, chemokine receptor-chemokine binding, and the IL-12-STAT4 pathway at diagnosis. At relapse, cell cycle, B-cell receptor, and NOTCH signaling pathways were overexpressed. Interestingly, in a pairwise comparison of methylation between diagnostic and R/R biopsy pairs, there were no differentially methylated probes (FDR Conclusions By analyzing paired diagnostic and relapse DLBCL biopsies, we found that at the time of relapse, there are significant transcriptomic changes but no significant epigenetic changes when compared to diagnostic biopsies. Activation of B-cell receptor and NOTCH signaling, as well as the loss of immune signaling at relapse, cannot be attributed to coordinated epigenetic changes in methylation. As the epigenetic profile of the biopsies did not consistently evolve, these data emphasize the need for better understanding of the baseline methylation profiles at the time of diagnosis, as well as acquired somatic mutations that may contribute to the emergence of therapeutic resistance. Future studies are needed to focus on how activation of signaling pathways triggered by genomic alterations can be targeted in relapsed/refractory DLBCL. Disclosures Hsi: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; CytomX: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hill:Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is frequently used as a consolidative therapy option after induction treatment in fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) with the goal of prolonging the initial response duration. Despite recent advances there remains a subset of patients who experience early disease relapse after ASCT. We examined predictors of shortened progression-free survival (PFS) and post-relapse overall survival (OS) in a cohort of patients completing ASCT in first remission. Methods We evaluated MCL patients treated at 10 US academic medical centers. Eligible patients were treated from 2000 through 2017, and we collected information on demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables of interest. Patients were then categorized into three post-ASCT PFS groups: 0-2 years, 2-5 years, and > 5 years, with PFS determined from the date of ASCT until progression or death from any cause. Patients followed for at least 5 years post-ASCT who were relapse free were included in the > 5 sub group. Associations were examined between groups and collected characteristics using chi-squared tests for categorical patient characteristics and ANOVA for numeric patient characteristics. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) for each group, using time of relapse after ASCT as the starting point. Results Of 968 total MCL patients, 242 patients completed ASCT in first remission and either had a PFS event or were relapse-free for at least 5 years post-ASCT. Patients were 80% male, and the median age was 59 (Range: 29-83). The patients were divided into groups of post-ASCT PFS 0-2 years (n=74), 2-5 years (n=75), and more than 5 years (n=93). Post-ASCT PFS was shorter in patients with stage 4 disease (p=0.022), splenomegaly at baseline (p=0.005), and a lymph node size > 5 centimeters at baseline (p=0.043). Other variables were not significantly associated with PFS, including time to transplant and use of intensive therapy. Patients with 0-2 year PFS had a shorter median OS (22.1 months, 95% CI: 13.1- 38.1 months) in comparison to 2-5 year PFS (132 months, 95% CI: 36-132 months) and 5+ year PFS not reached (95% CI: 41.2 – N.A; Figure). Conclusion Patients with higher tumor burden at baseline have a shorter post-ASCT PFS and are more likely to relapse within 2 years. As has been seen in other lymphoma subtypes, early relapse is associated with shorter OS. This represents a patient group requiring improved therapies and perhaps are the best candidates for post-ASCT maintenance or consolidation approaches. Further studies integrating minimal residual disease and molecular risk-stratification may better identify patients at high risk for early progression.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with co-expression of MYC and BCL2 protein by immunohistochemistry (IHC) – that is, double-expresser lymphoma (DEL) – is associated with poor outcomes after standard frontline therapy. Less is known about the prognostic impact of DEL in patients with relapsed/refractory disease treated with salvage therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We analyzed the outcomes of 167 patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL treated with R-ICE (rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide), of whom 111 patients (66%) underwent ASCT. Using predefined cutoffs for positivity by IHC at relapse for MYC and BCL2 of ⩾40% and ⩾50% of positive tumor cells, respectively, 26 patients (16%) were categorized as DEL and the rest as non-DEL. Overall and complete response rates to R-ICE did not differ between DEL and non-DEL. With a median follow up of 20 months, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates for DEL were inferior compared to non-DEL (for PFS: 6% versus 33%, p = 0.044, for OS: 39% versus 56%, p = 0.03). The negative impact of DEL on PFS and OS remained significant on multivariable analysis. In conclusion, positive DEL status predicts poorer outcomes following salvage therapy.

INTRODUCTION The optimal frontline treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is not clearly defined. Bendamustine + rituximab (BR) is commonly used as initial therapy. The role of maintenance rituximab (MR) after BR is not agreed upon due to limited data supporting this practice, whereas MR improves overall survival (OS) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and after R-CHOP for elderly patients who do not receive ASCT. Preliminary results from a subgroup analysis of the randomized phase 3 MAINTAIN study revealed neither a progression-free survival (PFS) nor OS benefit for MR as compared to observation for MCL pts (Rummel, ASCO 2016). In follicular lymphoma patients, however, there does appear to be a PFS benefit to rituximab maintenance following BR. Given these disparate results, we sought additional data to evaluate the role of rituximab maintenance following BR in MCL METHODS MCL pts treated at 12 U.S. medical centers with frontline BR who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) and who did not receive consolidative ASCT from 2011 - 2017 were included. Use of MR was based on individual physician/patient preferences. Baseline pt characteristics were compared using chi-squared test, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA. Descriptive statistics, comparisons, and OS using the Kaplan-Meier method were stratified by response status as determined by the treating site (complete response (CR) only, partial response (PR) only, and CR/PR). RESULTS Among 135 pts responding to frontline BR who did not complete subsequent ASCT, 80% achieved complete remission (CR) and 20% had a partial remission (PR). Median age was 70 (range 45 - 93) years and 66% were male. Baseline MIPI score was low (13%), intermediate (38%), or high (49%) among patients with available data (n = 92) and did not differ between treatment cohorts. Among responding patients, 78 (58%) received MR and 57 (40%) were observed. With a median follow up of 3.1 years, median OS was not reached for pts responding to BR (with CR or PR) who received MR vs. 6 years for those who received no maintenance (Figure Panel A, P = 0.0013). Use of MR vs. observation was associated with a significant improvement in OS for pts in PR at the end of induction therapy (Figure Panel B, median not reached vs. 1.7 years, P = 0.006), but there was no statistically significant OS difference for pts in CR (Figure Panel C, median not reached vs. 9.6 years, P = 0.2575). In multivariable analysis, MIPI score CONCLUSIONS Whereas the MAINTAIN trial showed no PFS advantage to MR after BR for MCL pts, in this multi-center outcomes analysis across multiple US centers, the use of MR was associated with an improvement in OS in pts receiving frontline BR without consolidative ASCT. The survival benefit was only observed for pts in PR after induction therapy. Because of the potential for selection bias in the application of MR, further validation cohorts and prospective study are needed to clarify if there is benefit to maintenance therapy after BR-treated patients not undergoing ASCT as well as the potential for differential benefit of maintenance based on remission status Disclosures Hill: Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Danilov:Curis: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ghosh:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Park:G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Hamadani:Otsuka: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Flowers:Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy. Cohen:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Smoking is a potential risk factor for the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and prior studies have reported inferior survival in tobacco users with certain subtypes of the disease (Taborelli et al, BMC Cancer, 2017; Ollberding et al, Br J Haematol, 2013). For instance, tobacco smokers with NHL had an inferior overall survival (OS) compared to non-smokers in a series of 471 patients who were managed up front with either chemotherapy (68%), radiation (27%), or observation, and this appeared to be most pronounced in patients with follicular lymphoma and in those with a 20+ pack year smoking history (Geyer et al, Cancer, 2010). The impact of tobacco use on survival specifically in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has not been well studied. We conducted a multicenter study in MCL and evaluated the prognostic impact of tobacco use. Methods: We included patients with MCL from 12 sites who were ≥18 years old and for whom smoking status was known at the time of diagnosis. Cases were evaluated for reported smoking status at the time of diagnosis (active smoker, prior smoker, or never smoker) and standard baseline clinical prognostic data were obtained for each patient. Descriptive statistics were generated for these characteristics and were then compared across smoking status using chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA, where appropriate. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and were compared using log-rank tests. Results: Of 946 included patients, 456 (48.2%) reported never using tobacco, 360 (38.7%) reported prior tobacco use, and 130 (13.7%) reported active tobacco use at the time of diagnosis. Median age was 59 in the active smoker group, 65 in prior smokers, and 61 in never smokers (p < 0.001). Any major medical comorbidity (defined as the presence of CAD, CHF, diabetes, CKD, ESRD, COPD, DVT, prior malignancy, or cirrhosis) was present in 59 (45.4%) of the active smokers, 143 (39.7%) of the prior smokers, and 140 (30.7%) of the never smokers (p = 0.002). Intensive induction regimens were used in 58.2% of active smokers, 47.2% of prior smokers, and 58.4% of never smokers (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between groups in regards to sex, race, ECOG performance status, Ann Arbor stage, time to first treatment, and use of auto transplant in first remission. Patients with no prior history of tobacco use were less likely to have a high risk MIPI score at diagnosis (26% high risk) compared to prior smokers (39.5%) and active smokers (32.5%, p=0.019). With a median follow up of 3.5 years after diagnosis, there was no significant difference between the 3 groups with regards to PFS or OS (Figure 1). Five-year OS in the never smoker group was 79.8% (95% CI: 74.8%, 83.9%) vs 75.1% (64.5%, 82.9%) in the active smoker group, and 80.6% (74.6%, 85.3%) in the prior smoker group (log rank p = 0.4079). Five- year progression free survival was 50.4% (44.6%, 56.0%) in the never smoker group, 42.5% (32.2%, 52.5%) in the active smoker group, and 50.2% (43.5%, 56.6%) in the prior smoker group (log rank p= 0.3595). Conclusions: Our data suggest that active or prior smoking does not significantly impact OS or PFS in patients with MCL. This study is limited by the fact that amount of current or former tobacco use was not available and it is not known how many current tobacco users ultimately stopped smoking during the course of their treatment. Future studies should incorporate more specific information regarding smoking history including pack-years and time between discontinuation of tobacco use and date of diagnosis. While tobacco use and other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors should be addressed as appropriate for all patients with MCL, current and former tobacco users can still achieve prolonged PFS and OS and may be candidates for intensive treatments after consideration of their other comorbidities and disease-specific risk factors. Disclosures Calzada: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Gamida Cell: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerson:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Danilov:Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hill:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ghosh:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Flowers:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cohen:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding.

Background: Early progression of disease (POD) in patients (pts) with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) following intensive frontline treatment has been associated with inferior survival (Dietrich et al Ann Oncol 2014 and Visco et al Br J Haematol 2019), but the optimal time point to define early POD and the predictive significance of early POD following less intensive frontline treatment is not well established. We compare outcomes after all frontline treatments in a large MCL cohort categorized by time to progression and describe outcomes by class of second line treatment for pts with primary refractory disease. Methods: Clinical and outcome data for MCL pts treated between 2000 and 2017 were collected from 12 US centers. Overall survival (OS), defined from time of 1st progression, and secondary progression free survival (PFS2), defined from 1st progression to 2nd progression or death, were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and compared by log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models for OS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all estimates and displayed in square brackets. We defined intensive treatment as high dose cytarabine in frontline therapy and/or autologous stem cell transplant in 1st remission. Pts were categorized into three groups: (a) refractory disease to frontline therapy or POD within 6 months of frontline therapy was termed primary refractory (PRF); (b) POD between 6 to 24 months of therapy was termed POD24 and (c) POD beyond 24 months was termed POD>24. Salvage therapy was categorized as chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) for pts treated with CIT alone, BTK inhibitor (BTKi) for pts treated with BTKi single agent or in combination, and lenalidomide / bortezomib for pts treated with one or both agent +/- anti-CD20 therapy. Results: Of 1,168 pts with MCL, 457 pts had relapsed and were included in this analysis. The median age was 62, 77% were male, and ECOG PS was 0/1 in 94%. Median follow-up was 2.6 years (yr) after first progression. The most common induction regimens were R-HyperCVAD (26%), R-CHOP (24%), bendamustine and rituximab (19%), and R-M-CHOP (10%). Frontline treatment was intensive in 54%. Sixty five pts (14%) were PRF, 153 (34%) had POD24, and 239 (53%) had POD>24. Additional baseline characteristics and comparison between groups are summarized in Table 1. The median OS was 1.3 yr [0.9-2.4] for PRF pts, 3 yrs [2-6.8] for POD 24, and 8 yrs [6.2-not reached (NR)] for POD>24 (p24 pts (p Among pts with PRF MCL, median PFS2 and OS were 1.2 [0.5-2.3] and 2.4 [0.7-4.5] yrs for BTKi (n=21), 0.5 [0.2-2.3] and 1.1 [0.5-NR] yrs for CIT (n=22), and 0.3 [0.1-0.6] and 1.9 [0.1-2] yrs for lenalidomide / bortezomib (n=8) as 2nd line therapy. Two pts with PRF MCL received no further therapy and both died within one month of POD. Conclusions: Time to relapse is predictive of outcome in pts with MCL and outcomes with current salvage therapies are poor for pts with relapse within 6 months of frontline therapy. Of currently available second line therapies, BTKi were associated with improved PFS2 in refractory pts. Outcomes are particularly poor for pts who receive intensive induction therapies yet still relapse early, representing a population at high risk for early mortality related to MCL. Novel treatment approaches should be evaluated in this population, including CAR-T cell therapy, and attempts to improve risk stratification at diagnosis and develop improved therapies for high-risk pts should continue. Disclosures Maddocks: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Danilov:Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ghosh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Flowers:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Cohen:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding.

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare form of lymphoma with no current standard of care. As a result, clinical trials are critical to improving our understanding of the disease and its management. However, clinical trial participation is often limited due to lack of access to studies, restrictive eligibility criteria, and decisions by treating physicians or patients not to participate. We evaluated the rate of enrollment and outcomes associated with clinical trial participation of patients with MCL at 12 US Medical Centers. Methods: We included patients from 12 medical centers in the United States with MCL diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2018, who were ≥ 18 years old, received any induction therapy, and for whom it was known whether initial treatment was on a clinical trial (CT) or not. We compared differences between the two groups (CT vs not) using Fisher's Exact and Chi-square tests as appropriate. We defined overall survival (OS) as time from diagnosis to death. Patients not experiencing an event were censored at their last known follow-up. OS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate and multivariable models were developed to identify predictors of OS. Results: Eight hundred twelve patients were included in this analysis, including 164 (20%) patients who participated in a clinical trial during initial therapy. Rate of participation ranged from 4% to 36% across contributing sites. Median age for the entire cohort was 62 years, 572 (74%) of patients were male, and 95% of patients had ECOG 0-1. MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) risk score was high in 163 patients (31%), and 84% of patients had stage IV disease. Ki67 was >30% in 169/225 (43%) patients with available data, and 19% of patients (65/271) had a complex karyotype with > 3 chromosomal abnormalities. Four hundred sixteen (53%) of patients received an intensive induction regimen (defined as initial treatment with a high-dose cytarabine-containing regimen and/or receipt of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation as consolidation), including 333 patients (43%) who underwent transplant consolidation. Patients with an increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (p 3 cytogenetic abnormalities (p=0.015) were less likely to participate in clinical trials, but there was no significant difference in rates of participation based on MIPI (p=0.49) or ECOG performance status (p=0.22; Table). Patients treated on study were less likely to receive an intensive regimen compared to those treated off study (p=0.002). Median time to treatment from diagnosis was 35 days for patients enrolled on trial and 31 days for patients not enrolled on trial (p=0.83). With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the median OS was 13.6 years (95% CI: 11.5-21.1) for patients not treated on a trial and not reached (95% CI: 9.9 - Not Reached) for patients treated on trial (Figure; p=0.036). In a multivariable model including clinical trial participation, MIPI, time to initial treatment, and receipt of an intensive induction regimen, only clinical trial participation (HR 0.54, 95%CI: 0.31-0.93; p=0.028) and high risk MIPI score (HR 4.24, 95% CI: 2.37-7.56; p Conclusions: Participation in a clinical trial is associated with improved OS among patients with untreated MCL, even when accounting for time to initial treatment and MIPI score. This study is unable to account for other factors that may predict trial participation including baseline comorbidities, socioeconomic status, social support, and distance to the treating center that are frequently factors that limit trial participation. However, these findings do suggest that enrollment on a clinical trial frequently leads to a successful outcome for patients in addition to providing answers to key clinical questions and should be considered for all eligible patients. Disclosures Cohen: Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; UNUM: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Danilov:MEI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Hill:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Hamadani:Otsuka: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Martin:Karyopharm: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Flowers:Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kahl:BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

Introduction: Time to treatment (TTT) is an important prognostic factor in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Maurer et al JCO 2018) where patients who initiate therapy quickly after diagnosis have an inferior event free survival compared to those who do not require such immediate treatment initiation. More recently, TTT has shown to be associated with adverse clinical factors and inferior outcomes in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; Maurer, et al ASH, 2018). However, there is a paucity of data on the impact of TTT on overall survival (OS). We sought to validate these findings and to evaluate the impact of TTT on survival outcomes in newly diagnosed patients with MCL. Methods: We included patients from 12 medical centers in the United States with MCL diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2018, who had information on the TTT and initiated treatment within 60 days of diagnosis (to exclude patients whose treatment was purposefully deferred). TTT was defined as the time in days from first lymphoma diagnosis to initiation of therapy. Patients who received treatment within 14 days were categorized into short TTT group. We compared differences between the two groups (TTT 14 days and ≤ 60 days, longer TTT group) using chi-squared test, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA tests as appropriate. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Patients not experiencing an event were censored at their last known follow-up. OS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariable and multivariable models were developed to identify predictors of OS. Results: Of 1,168 patients with newly diagnosed MCL, seven hundred fifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis, including 205 (27%) with short TTT and 550 (73%) with longer TTT. Median time to treatment was 7 days (range, 0-14) for the short TTT group vs 31 days for the longer TTT group (range, 15-60 days). The median age for the entire cohort was 63 years, 75% of patients were male, and 93% of patients had ECOG 0-1. The proportion of patients with stage 4 disease (93 vs 86%, p=0.015), elevated LDH (58 vs 39%, p3 cytogenetic abnormalities (29 vs 14%, p=0.005), B symptoms (47 vs 29%, p On univariable analysis, factors associated with inferior OS included, TTT=2 (p10k (p=0.002), BM involvement (p=2 (HR=2.25, 95%CI=1.22-4.14; p=0.009), elevated LDH (HR=1.81, 95%CI=1.16-2.85; p=0.01), and receipt of non-intensive regimen (HR=1.61, 95%CI=1.04-2.50; p=0.03) were significant predictors of OS while B symptoms was not. Conclusions: Short TTT for patients with newly diagnosed MCL is associated with aggressive disease features and inferior OS despite an increased likelihood of receiving intensive induction regimens. Further studies are needed to identify molecular determinants of such aggressive disease behavior that can be assessed quickly and utilized to initiate appropriate therapy in a timely manner. Ongoing front-line clinical trials in MCL should be developed in a way to facilitate enrollment of patients requiring urgent therapy, including potentially permitting a cycle of off-study treatment to manage symptoms while a patient is screened and enrolled. Disclosures Epperla: Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerson:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau. Hill:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ghosh:Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Park:Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Martin:I-MAB: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Kahl:AbbVie Inc, Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BeiGene, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Roche Laboratories Inc.: Consultancy. Flowers:V Foundation: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy. Cohen:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

Introduction Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) are mostly Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) positive lymphoid proliferations resulting from immunosuppression following allogeneic stem cell or solid organ transplantation (SOT). Despite this strong association, there is a lack of data evaluating the risk of PTLD in SOT patients (pts) with (w/) EBV viremia. The significance of EBV detection remains unclear and can lead to unwarranted preemptive treatments in SOT pts. The aim of this study is to assess the association between peripheral blood EBV viral load and risk of PTLD post SOT. Methods We identified 6468 adult and pediatric pts from the Cleveland Clinic SOT database who underwent SOT from 2002-2016. We included pts who had ≥1 EBV viral load test by PCR, and excluded pts w/ first EBV test at or after PTLD diagnosis. EBV viral load was quantified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of whole blood samples and expressed as log copies/mL. Lower detection limits varied from 2.00 to 2.70 log copies/mL. EBV monitoring post SOT was done at the physician's discretion. Potential risk factors for PTLD were assessed using Fine and Gray competing risk regression. Stepwise analysis was used to identify multivariable risk factors. Landmark analyses at 2 and 6 months post SOT (LM-2 and LM-6) were performed based on pts' peak pre-landmark EBV levels. Pts were excluded if they died, lost follow-up (f/u) or developed PTLD prior to the landmark. Two multivariable models were assessed at each landmark using EBV level cutoffs of 3.00 and 4.00 log. Results Of 6324 pts w/ available f/u data, 3348 (52%) had ≥1 quantitative EBV PCR test and were included in this analysis w/ a total of 91,067 tests performed. Median age at SOT was 54 years (range 0.3-79) and 63% were male. The most common SOT was kidney (38%) followed by lung (37%), liver (18%), heart (7%), pancreas (6%) and intestine (2%), w/ 7% receiving >1 organ type (Table 1). Of 3348 pts included, 1503 (45%) developed EBV viremia and 68 (2%) developed PTLD; 45/1503 (3.0%) and 23/1845 (1.2%) of pts w/ and without (w/o) EBV viremia, respectively. EBV was detected in 44% of pts w/o PTLD and 66% of pts w/ PTLD. Median age at PTLD diagnosis was 58 years (range 1-75), with a median time from SOT to PTLD of 33 months (range 2-146). PTLD morphology was DLBCL (n=39), polymorphic (n=9) Burkitt (n=5), other (n=10) and unknown (n=5). EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) testing in tumor was positive in 47%, negative in 44% and unknown in 9% of cases. In pts w/ and w/o PTLD, tacrolimus was the most common immunosuppressant used at 1 month (99% and 89%), 1 year (94% and 88%) and 2 years (81% and 74%) post SOT, respectively. First EBV was checked at a median of 54 days (range 0-5090) in pts w/o PTLD and 28 days (range 0-4308) in pts w/ PTLD. The median number of EBV tests/pt before PTLD or last f/u was 4 (range 1-214) in pts w/o PTLD and 6 (range 1-123) in pts w/ PTLD. Peak EBV levels ≥3.00 and ≥4.00 log were detected in 36% and 13% of pts w/o PTLD, and 60% and 40% of pts w/ PTLD, respectively. Median f/u in both cohorts for pts who were alive was 6.1 years. In multivariable analysis (MVA) for non-EBV risk factors for PTLD, liver (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.31 - 3.66, p=.003) and intestine SOT (HR 4.62, 95% CI 1.84 - 11.6, p=.001) were the only factors associated w/ higher PTLD risk; age, years since SOT, gender, race, other types of SOT and >1 SOT were not significant. 1685 pts were eligible for LM-2 (43 w/ PTLD) and 2093 for LM-6 (36 w/ PTLD). In univariable analysis at LM-2 and LM-6, peak EBV levels ≥4.00 log (LM-2: HR 2.72, p=.016; LM-6: HR 7.08, p Conclusion In this large cohort of SOT pts, Figure. Figure. Disclosures Hill: Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

The management of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in older patients is challenging. Older patients often have multiple comorbidities and poor performance status, and disease factors associated with poor prognosis are more common in this age group. Patient and disease-related factors should be taken into account to determine whether intensive therapy is appropriate. The use of comorbidity indices and comprehensive geriatric assessment tools can be valuable in this setting. Fit patients should be considered for aggressive therapies including allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, whereas low intensity options may be more suitable for the frail. The Philadelphia (Ph) chromosome is present in up to half of the cases of ALL in older patients. The incorporation of TK inhibitors into the treatment plans of older patients with Ph-positive ALL has improved the outcomes significantly. For less fit patients with Ph-positive ALL, the use of TK inhibitors with reduced-intensity chemotherapy or steroids alone results in high rates of remission, but, without further consolidation, relapses are inevitable. Many novel targeted and immunotherapeutic agents are being developed, offering more effective and tolerable treatment options.

Rituximab pharmacokinetics are affected by gender, age and weight and can affect outcomes in aggressive B cell lymphoma. Less is known about the pharmacokinetics of rituximab in indolent B cell lymphoma (iNHL). We analysed the effects of gender, age, weight and body surface area on the outcomes of 303 patients treated with first line rituximab-based regimens for iNHL. The patients were divided into 3 treatment cohorts: rituximab only, rituximab + chemotherapy (R-CTX) and R-CTX followed by rituximab maintenance; furthermore, each cohort was subdivided as follicular (FL) or non-FL, based on histology. Older males and patients with higher weight had worse outcomes when treated with R-CTX, probably due to faster rituximab clearance. Our results concur with studies of R-CTX for DLBCL. As this effect was not observed in patients treated with rituximab alone or R-CTX followed by rituximab maintenance, we hypothesize that higher rituximab levels reached with weekly rituximab and/or prolonged exposure achieved with maintenance therapy exceed the therapeutic threshold, even with faster clearance, which nullifies the negative effect of higher weight and male gender. In conclusion, under current practices, a subset of patients with iNHL, i.e., FL treated with R-CTX, may be sub-optimally dosed with rituximab.

757 Background: Surgical resection of liver metastases provides a significant survival benefit, and potential for cure, in selected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. There are very limited data on resection of lung metastases in patients with colorectal lung metastases. We evaluated outcomes after resection of lung metastases in patients with colorectal cancer. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients who underwent resection of pulmonary metastases between 2/2006 and 6/2013 at Cleveland Clinic. Clinical, pathologic, and outcome data were collected by electronic medical records review. Overall survival (OS) as the primary endpoint was summarized by Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed by log-rank tests. Results: The study population comprised 32 patients. Overall, 20 patients were male and median age at diagnosis of lung metastasis was 60.0 years (range 30.4-81.9). All patients had resection of primary tumor. Eleven patients had preoperative chemotherapy and 12 had adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with unilateral metastases comprised the majority of patients (N = 22, 68.8%); 59% (N = 19) had a solitary metastasis. The median diameter of lung metastases was 20.5 mm (range 7.0 -50.0). Ten patients had concurrent liver metastases, eight of whom had liver resection as well. Overall, 31% (10/32) of patients recurred, with 50% (16/32) of recurrences in the lung, and 28% died. Estimated median OS was 55.0 months. Estimated 5-year OS was 32% ± 17%. Higher CEA level ( ≥ 4.5 ng/mL) at the time of diagnosis of lung metastasis was associated with worsened OS (p = 0.026). Other potential prognostic factors, such as laterality, number of lung metastases, and extrapulmonary lesions, were not associated with overall survival in this study population. Conclusions: Our study showed resection of lung metastases in select patients with colorectal cancer can be associated with prolonged survival in the range seen with resection of liver metastases. Higher CEA level at time of diagnosis of lung metastasis is associated with poorer prognosis. More data are necessary to identify approaches to patient selection in the metastatic colorectal setting.