McDonnell, Timothy J.

Abstract Recent introduction of 2 different lymphoma classifications has raised concerns about consistency in diagnosis, management, and clinical trial enrollment. Data from a large cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice suggest that differences between the classifications will affect <1% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Abstract Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials remains a persistent challenge. Restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria have been shown to exacerbate this problem. We previously identified that up to 24% of patients treated with standard immunochemotherapy would have been excluded from recent first-line trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) based on 5 laboratory-based criteria. These ineligible patients had worse clinical outcomes and increased deaths related to lymphoma progression, suggesting the potential exclusion of patients who could have benefited most from the novel therapies being evaluated. Using data from the prospectively enrolled Lymphoma Epidemiology Outcomes cohort study, with demographics broadly similar to the US patients diagnosed with lymphoma, we evaluated the impact of laboratory eligibility criteria from recent first-line DLBCL trials across various racial and ethnic backgrounds. There were significant differences in the baseline laboratory values by race/ethnicity with Black/African American (AA) patients having the lowest mean hemoglobin and highest creatinine clearance. Based on recent clinical trial eligibility criteria, AA and Hispanic patients had higher rates of laboratory-based ineligibility than non-Hispanic White patients. The largest gap in the clinical outcomes between eligible and noneligible patients was noted within AA patients with an overall survival hazard ratio based on POLARIX clinical trial criteria of 4.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.83-9.14). A thoughtful approach to the utility of each criterion and cutoffs for eligibility needs to be evaluated in the context of its differential impact across various racial/ethnic groups.

AbstractTo address the current and long‐term unmet health needs of the growing population of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/). A total of 7735 newly diagnosed patients aged 18 years and older with NHL were prospectively enrolled from 7/1/2015 to 5/31/2020 at 8 academic centers in the United States. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 18–99). Participants came from 49 US states and included 538 Black/African‐Americans (AA), 822 Hispanics (regardless of race), 3386 women, 716 age <40 years, and 1513 rural residents. At study baseline, we abstracted clinical, pathology, and treatment data; banked serum/plasma (N = 5883, 76.0%) and germline DNA (N = 5465, 70.7%); constructed tissue microarrays for four major NHL subtypes (N = 1189); and collected quality of life (N = 5281, 68.3%) and epidemiologic risk factor (N = 4489, 58.0%) data. Through August 2022, there were 1492 deaths. Compared to population‐based SEER data (2015–2019), LEO participants had a similar distribution of gender, AA race, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHL subtype, while LEO was underrepresented for patients who were Asian and aged 80 years and above. Observed overall survival rates for LEO at 1 and 2 years were similar to population‐based SEER rates for indolent B‐cell (follicular and marginal zone) and T‐cell lymphomas, but were 10%–15% higher than SEER rates for aggressive B‐cell subtypes (diffuse large B‐cell and mantle cell). The LEO cohort is a robust and comprehensive national resource to address the role of clinical, tumor, host genetic, epidemiologic, and other biologic factors in NHL prognosis and survivorship.

Introduction: The use of standardized, evidence-based classification systems is crucial for the accurate diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Moreover, standardized classification facilitates research and epidemiologic studies and promotes consistency in communication among healthcare professionals. Since 2016, the revised 4 th edition of the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM4R) has been the global standard for diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies. With the emergence of new data, 2 new classification systems were developed and published in 2022: the 5 th edition of the WHO Classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). Both WHO-HAEM5 and ICC maintain a shared fundamental concept of disease classification that integrates clinical, pathologic, and molecular data. However, they differ on nomenclature, establishment of new entities, and/or diagnostic criteria for some disease categories. To evaluate the impact of these differences on real-world diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), we examined the diagnostic classification of NHL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Methods: Initiated in 2015, LEO is an ongoing prospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed NHL. Patients are enrolled at 8 major U.S. medical centers. Clinical, epidemiologic, pathologic, and treatment data are abstracted at baseline and active follow-up is conducted for all patients. Lymphoma subtype is coded for each case based on expert hematopathology re-review of the diagnostic pathology slides, the pathology report, biomarker data, and clinical data. Of note, NHL subtype distribution is similar to SEER data. We studied all patients enrolled in LEO between 7/1/2016 (the date LEO pathology review started using WHO-HAEM4R diagnostic codes) and 5/31/2020. WHO-HAEM4R diagnoses and additional clinicopathologic data, when relevant, were used to map cases into the corresponding WHO-HAEM5 and ICC diagnoses. Differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC were annotated for each case as: None - same disease entity; Minor - difference in nomenclature with similar diagnostic criteria; Major - difference in disease category and/or diagnostic criteria; or Unevaluable - insufficient data to assign WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis. Results: LEO enrolled 6143 patients during the study period. Of these, comparison between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC was evaluable in 5730 (93.3%). Unevaluable cases included those without a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis at enrollment (N=384; e.g., patients with a low-grade B-cell lymphoma that could not be definitively sub-classified) and those with a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis, but with insufficient clinicopathologic data to assign a specific WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis (N=29). Of the 5730 evaluable cases, 5376 (93.8%) showed no difference between WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis, 311 (5.4%) showed minor differences (nomenclature only), and 43 (0.8%) showed major differences (Table 1). The 43 major differences all involved B-cell NHLs; 20 (46.5%) were attributable to different approaches to classifying double-hit lymphomas, 21 (48.9%) to classification of splenic/leukemic B-cell lymphomas, and 2 (4.6%) to classification of B-cell lymphomas occurring at specific anatomic sites (Table 2). Conclusion: In a large, prospective lymphoma cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice at 8 major U.S. medical centers, major diagnostic differences in the classification of NHL using WHO-HAEM5 or ICC classification criteria were seen in 0.8%, whereas the remaining 99.2% of diagnoses were either the same or showed differences in nomenclature only. The existence of 2 concurrent classification systems presents potential for discrepancies in pathologic diagnosis, clinical practice, clinical trials, and other lymphoma research. Furthermore, some of the differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC are clinically and potentially therapeutically significant, and their resolution requires further study. Nevertheless, our findings argue that the proportion of patients affected would be small in real-world practice settings. This appears largely related to incidence rates of specific lymphoma subtypes, with major differences between the 2 classifications predominantly affecting rare entities, while there is general concordance on the most common forms of NHL.

Background: Shorter diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) has been shown to be associated with more aggressive disease features and inferior outcomes in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; Maurer et al, JCO 2018). Additional confirmatory studies have also shown that DTI is related to tumor volume (Alig et al, JCO 2021) and molecular phenotype (Aluaij et al, Blood 2023). Here we evaluate DTI in a large multicenter cohort of patients prospectively enrolled and followed as part of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcome (LEO) cohort. Methods: Patients were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis at one the 8 LEO cohort academic medical centers in the United States between 2015 and 2020. Patients in this analysis had aggressive B-cell lymphoma (BCL) treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. DTI was defined as the initial lymphoma biopsy date until the start of initial chemotherapy; patients with DTI between 0-100 days were evaluated. Short DTI was defined as DTI ≤ 14 days (DTI≤14) as previously described in prior publications (e.g. Maurer et al, JCO 2018) and confirmed via examination of functional forms via splines. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from start of treatment until progression/relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from start of treatment until death due to any cause. Results: 2565 patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma were evaluated. Median age was 62 years (IQR 51-71) and 1469 (57%) were male. 297 patients (12%) were self-reported non-White race and 314 patients (12%) were self-reported Hispanic or Latino. The majority had DLBCL, NOS subtype (N=1927, 75%), while 227 (9%) had high-grade BCL with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (HG, DH) and 90 (4%) had high-grade BCL NOS (HG, NOS). Clinical characteristics are summarized in the table. At median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 36-68), 800 patients (31%) had an event and 578 patients (23%) died. EFS at 24 months (EFS24) was 76% (95% CI: 74-77). Median DTI across all subtypes was 21 days (IQR 12-33) and 845 patients (33%) had DTI≤14. Patients with DTI≤14 were significantly younger (median age 59 years) but there was no association between DTI and gender, race, or ethnicity. Patients with DTI≤14 were more likely to have HG, DH or HG NOS subtypes, ECOG PS 2-4, advanced stage, elevated LDH, CNS involvement, B symptoms, and bulky disease ( see table). Patients with DTI≤14 were more likely to receive R-EPOCH-based or intensive therapies (41%) and less likely to receive 1L therapy on a clinical trial (3.8%) compared to DTI&gt;14 (26% and 10.1%, respectively). Consistent with previously reported data, DTI≤14 was associated with inferior EFS (HR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.41-1.87, figure), OS (HR=1.73, 95% CI: 1.47-2.04), and EFS24 (OR=1.93, 95% CI: 1.60-2.38). The association between DTI and outcomes remained significant after stratifying for subtype (EFS HR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.46-1.94; OS HR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.50-2.10) and adjustment for IPI (EFS HR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.24-1.65; OS HR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.24-1.74). In subset analysis, DTI≤14 was significantly associated with inferior outcomes within the subtypes of HG, DH (EFS HR=2.70, 95% CI: 1.82-4.01; OS HR=2.97, 95% CI: 1.92-4.60); HG, NOS (EFS HR=2.07, 95% CI: 0.93-4.60; OS HR=2.36, 95% CI: 1.03-5.43); and DLBCL, NOS (EFS HR=1.51, 95% CI: 1.27-1.78; OS HR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.45-1.85). Analysis was limited in other subtypes due to number of events. Notably, within the subset of patients with DTI&gt;14, there was no significant difference in EFS between subtypes for DLBCL, NOS (EFS24=80%, EFS HR=ref), HG, DH (EFS24=73%, EFS HR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.92-1.73) and HG, NOS (EFS24=83%, EFS HR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.40-1.78), logrank p=0.29; similar results were observed for OS (p=0.22). Conclusions: Patients requiring early initiation of therapy for aggressive B-cell lymphoma represent a distinct population of patients with more aggressive clinical features and inferior outcomes. In patients with longer DTI, high grade subtypes had similar outcomes to DLBCL, NOS. Efforts should be made to include patients with anticipated short DTI in clinical trials and translational studies to fully capture the spectrum of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma.

Background: High Grade B cell Lymphoma (HGBL) with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements(R) was introduced as an entity in 2016 by the WHO revised 4 th edition. In 2022, both the WHO 5 th edition (beta version) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC) separated DHL- BCL2 (+/- BCL6-R)from DHL- BCL6 given differences in biology . However, while the ICC has maintainedDHL- BCL6 as a provisional entity, the WHO has removed the category, thus removing the requirement to FISH for BCL6-R in this setting. Clinical data on DHL- BCL6 is much more limited, as these cases represent only 10-20% of DHL and have been combined with BCL2-R cases in prior studies. Outcomes are variable in retrospective studies with no consistent data on prognosis or optimal therapeutic strategies. By retaining the category of DHL-BCL6 as a provisional entity, the ICC emphasized the need for further, multicenter, prospective studies evaluating the clinical and biological features of this disease. We herein report a comprehensive comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with DHL- BCL6 compared to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), not otherwise specified (NOS); DLBCL with MYC rearrangement only; DHL- BCL2; and HGBL, NOS in a large, multicenter, prospective cohort of patients from Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO). Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed large B-cell or HGBL were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis at one the 8 LEO cohort academic medical centers in the US between 2015 and 2020. Baseline characteristics were abstracted at the time of diagnosis per protocol. Based on FISH data patients were further sub mgrouped into DLBCL, NOS (without MYC rearrangement); MYC-R DLBCL, NOS; HGBL, NOS; DHL- BCL2 and DHL- BCL6. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until progression/relapse, retreatment, or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until death due to any cause. Results: A total of 1526 eligible patients were identified during this time period. All FISH data was available at the time of diagnosis and the choice of treatment was based on physician discretion. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years (IQR 53-72), with 148 (10%) patients in the AYA category, and 128 (8%) patients &gt; 80 years. 58% (891) were male, 11% self identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 7% as Black/African American. The median diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) was 20 days (IQR 12-32), and 33% had DTI &lt; 14 days. The FISH-based subgroups were MYC-negative DLBCL, NOS (N=1146, 75%), MYC-R DLBCL,NOS 227 (N = 96, 6%), DHL- BCL2 (N=154, 10%), DHL- BCL6 (N=38, 3%), and HGBL, NOS (N=92, 6%). When available, COO by Hans algorithm was 92% GCB in DHL- BCL2 and 50% GCB in DHL- BCL6. Clinical characteristics can be found in the table. At a median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 36-67), 490 patients (32%) had an event and 356 patients (23%) died. EFS at 24 months (EFS24) was 75% (95% CI: 73-77). Patients with DHL- BCL6 were younger at diagnosis (median 60 years), had more extranodal site involvement (40%), more often stage III/IV disease (70%), and more often treated with a higher intensity regimen than R-CHOP (69%) compared to DLBCL,NOS and MYC-R DLBCL. DHL- BCL6 also had fewer patients that were males (47%), with DTI &lt;=14 days (33%), NCCN IPI ≥ 4 (45%), elevated LDH (53%) than HGBL, NOS and DHL- BCL2. The 2-year EFS and OS rates were noted to be significantly better in the DHL- BCL6 (EFS 79%, 95% CI: 67-93; OS 92%, 95% CI: 84-100) as compared to DHL- BCL2 (EFS 58%, 95% CI: 50-66; OS 70%, 95% CI 63 - 78) and HGBL, NOS (EFS 74%, 95% CI: 65-84; OS 74%, 95% CI: 65-84 ), (Figure 1) but were comparable to that of DLBCL, NOS (EFS 78%, 95% CI: 76-81; OS 87%, 95% CI: 86-89). Conclusions: Our data support separating DHL- BCL6 from DHL -BCL2 as these patients form a unique subgroup with some clinical characteristics comparable to both DLBCL, NOS as well as HGBL, NOS and DHL- BCL2 subtypes. In this cohort, clinical outcomes are more comparable to DLBCL, NOS than DHL- BCL2 or HGBCL, NOS. More frequent use of intensive chemotherapy in DHL- BCL6 compared with DLBCL may account for this finding, although larger multicenter studies are needed. Our results support continued identification of DHL- BCL6 in the clinical setting to better understand optimal therapy and biology of this cohort.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with variable clinical outcomes. Commonly used risk stratification tools (Ki67 IHC, MIPI) in newly diagnosed MCL are not frequently used when selecting therapy, resulting in treatment choice being dictated by age and co-morbidities rather than disease biology. The MCL35 risk score was developed as a more reliable measure of proliferation and has been shown to be prognostic and can risk stratify younger transplant eligible MCL patients into three groups with significantly different overall survival (OS; Scott et al. 2017; Holte et al. 2018) but has not been evaluated in older transplant ineligible patients. We report results evaluating the prognostic value of the MCL35 assay in older MCL patients (≥65) treated with frontline bendamustine/rituximab (BR). METHODS: Archived tissue samples from 119 patients age ≥65 years treated with BR from collaborating Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP) sites and the LEO/MER cohort were collected and analyzed using the MCL35 assay and stratified into three distinct risk groups (low, standard, and high risk). Association between MCL35 proliferation scores and OS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and hazard ratios were calculated. Associations between Ki67, s-MIPI, p53 IHC status, morphology and OS were also evaluated. RESULTS: The MCL35 assay was run on tissue samples from 119 patients. Median patient age was 74 (range 65-93) and 69.5% were male. Ki67 was &lt;30% in 29 patients (24%) and ≥30% in 90 patients (76%). Simplified MIPI (s-MIPI) score was 0-3 in 21 patients (24%), 4-5 in 42 patients (48%) and ≥6 in 25 patients (28%). Thirty-one did not have sufficient data to calculate a s-MIPI score. MCL35 was low risk in 51 patients (43%), standard risk in 39 patients (33%) and high risk in 29 patients (24%). Eleven patients had blastic morphology, 7 had pleomorphic morphology and the remainder were classic morphology (n=56). Of 57 samples with p53 IHC staining 7 (12.3%) were positive. At a median follow up of 33.4 months, 82 patients were alive and 35 had died. Patients with high risk MCL35 score had inferior OS compared to low risk (HR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.03-5.00; p=0.042) while standard risk was not statistically significant compared to low risk (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.37-2.0; p=0.740)(Figure 1). Ki67 IHC using a cutoff of ≥ 30% and 10%-29% was not significantly associated with OS compared to Ki67 &lt;10% ( Ki67 ≥ 30% vs. Ki67 &lt; 10%, HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.12-6.41; p=0.892, Ki67 ≥ 10%-29% vs. Ki67 &lt; 10%, HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.04-2.83; p=0.303), however high s-MIPI score (≥6) (s-MIPI ≥6 vs. s-MIPI 0-3, HR 3.86, 95% CI 1.20-12.5; p=0.024) and positive p53 IHC (HR: 9.51, 3.26-27.7; p &lt;0.001) were both associated with poor OS. Eighteen cases were blastic/pleomorphic by morphology, 12 of which were in the high-risk group by MCL35, and this subset also had worse survival than classic MCL (p=0.0052). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest high risk MCL35 score is a prognostic biomarker of poor OS in patients &gt;65 with MCL treated with BR. Conversely, Ki67 was not significantly associated with OS in these patients. Additional clinical validation using a larger sample size from the E1411 study is planned. If similar results are found, the MCL35 assay in combination with s-MIPI and p53 status may have utility in stratifying patients into risk adapted treatment arms in future prospective clinical trial designs. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Hill: Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Raess: Scopio Labs: Research Funding. Scott: Celgene: Consultancy; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling.; BC Cancer: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing assigning DLBCL COO by gene expression profiling--licensed to NanoString Technologies. Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling. ; Rich/Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract.

INTRODUCTION Complete staging via bone marrow assessment is standard of practice for most newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, though the methods and patterns of bone marrow assessment vary in clinical practice. The 2014 Lugano Classification recommends that in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) alone can designated advanced-stage disease in many, but not all cases. For most other NHL subtypes, obtaining bone marrow biopsy (BMB) remains recommended. We aimed to assess clinical practice patterns of marrow assessment and the performance of PET/CT in the clinical setting. METHODS The Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort is a prospective cohort from 8 academic medical centers. All patients were enrolled in the cohort within 6 months of diagnosis, and prospectively followed. Patients with lymphoma enrolled in the cohort between July 2015 and June 2017 were included for study. Baseline clinical characteristics at diagnosis, whether BMB and/or PET/CT were performed, and the result of these assessments were extracted from the database. Bone marrow involvement on PET/CT was abstracted via review of radiology reports. No central review of images was utilized. RESULTS In total, 3,251 patients were included, consisting of the following subtypes: DLBCL (n=1,098), follicular lymphoma (FL n=730), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL n=302), T-cell lymphoma (TCL n=278), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL n=269), other NHL (n=505) and composite lymphoma (n=69). Other clinical characteristics are shown in table 1. Staging BMB was obtained in 78% of patients, PET/CT was obtained in 56%, both BMB and PET/CT were obtained in 46% while neither were obtained in 9% (table 1). There were significant differences in lymphoma subtype between patients having any bone marrow assessment vs no bone marrow assessment (p<0.0001). MCL (96%) and DLBCL (94%) most frequently had any bone marrow assessment, while MZL was least frequently assessed (84%). Patients undergoing any bone marrow assessment had higher median lactate dehydrogenase (247 U/L vs 206 U/L, p=0.0002). Among the 8 enrolling medical centers, the frequency of bone marrow biopsy at diagnosis ranged from 53% to 86%, and the frequency of PET/CT at diagnosis ranged from 34% to 94% (p<0.0001, table 1). Among patients with DLBCL who had positive bone marrow by either PET/CT or BMB (N=107), 41% (44/107) were positive by BMB only, 19% (20/107) were positive by PET/CT only, and 40% (43/107) were positive by both. Figure 1 shows results of similar analyses for FL, MCL, MZL, and TCL. Using BMB as a gold standard for marrow involvement, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PET/CT for marrow assessment in DLBCL is 49%, 90%, 68% and 91%, respectively. Data for other subtypes are shown in table 2. Patients undergoing both PET/CT and BMB had lower median LDH (231 U/L vs 254 U/L, p=0.0032) than those undergoing one or neither assessments. CONCLUSION Overall, 91% of all patients with newly diagnosed NHL had bone marrow assessments via either PET/CT, BMB or both. The significant variation in the frequency of BMB and PET/CT use among the 8 centers reflects a lack of clear consensus on staging practices regarding bone marrow assessment. The sensitivity of PET/CT for detection of marrow involvement was less than 50% across all subtypes. It is possible the sensitivity of PET/CT could be improved via a centralized review process of the images, as is performed in some clinical trials, however practical approaches for implementing such reviews in clinical practice have not been developed. Between 92-100% of all positive bone marrows were detected by BMB, except in cases with DLBCL in which 19% of positive bone marrows were missed by BMB but detected by PET/CT. Thus, in our analysis, BMB more reliably captured marrow involvement that PET/CT in all subtypes in which both assessments were performed. However, neither PET/CT nor BMB alone were able to identify all cases of bone marrow involvement and use of both modalities may be necessary in cases where marrow involvement would have clinically important implications. Disclosures Rutherford: Juno Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Heron: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Friedberg:Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Casulo:Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses. Cohen:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Flowers:Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: To address the current and long-term unmet health needs of the growing population of patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and NHL survivors, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/) with recruitment at eight centers (Cornell University, Emory University, Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, University of Iowa, University of Miami, University of Rochester, and Washington University). Here we report on the first two years of enrollment. Methods: All patients ≥18 years with NHL (exclusive of chronic lymphocytic leukemia) newly diagnosed within 183 days of enrollment are eligible. LEO reviews all pathology diagnoses; annotates and harmonizes all cases with clinical, epidemiologic, pathology and treatment data; builds a NHL tumor bank that includes an H&E slide, a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sample and extracted tumor DNA and RNA; collects peripheral blood and banks DNA, serum, plasma and buffy coat in a central biorepository; and prospectively follows patients regularly to ascertain disease progression/relapse, retreatment, transformation, second cancers, survival, updated exposures, and patient-reported outcomes. We examined the demographics, clinical characteristics, and NHL subtypes for patients enrolled in the first two years (2015-2017) in LEO Cohort and compared these characteristics to population-based registry data from the United States Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program for 2011-2015. We also examined baseline body mass index (BMI), comorbidities and quality of life (QOL) measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) scores (0-100 scale) overall and by NHL subtype that were collected in LEO but not available in SEER or any other large, prospective US NHL cohort. Results: From 2015-2017, LEO enrolled 3244 NHL patients across 47 states (Figure) with a median age at diagnosis of 62 years (range, 18-94 years) and 55.9% male. Based on self-identified race/ethnicity, 85% of the participants were White, 7.4% were Black/African American, 2.6% were Asian, and 3.5% other or more than one race; 9.9% were Hispanic (regardless of race). The most common subtypes were diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL, 33.9%), follicular (FL, 22.2%), mantle cell (MCL, 9.3%), marginal zone (MZL, 8.3%), T-cell (TCL, 10.9%), and all other NHL subtypes (other NHL, 15.3%). These distributions were all within 5% of SEER data, except that 6.8% of participant in LEO were in the age 80+ years group compared to 18.5% in SEER (Table). The overall prevalence of self-reported comorbidities at enrollment was 13.5% for heart disease (range, 12.1% for FL to 16.6% for MCL), 8.8% for diabetes (range, 7.1% for FL to 9.8% for DLBCL), 4.6% for osteoporosis (range, 3.0% for MCL to 6.3% for MZL), and 5.9% for autoimmune disease (range, 2.0% for MCL to 12.6% for MZL). The median BMI was 27.9 kg/m2 (range, 26.7 kg/m2 for TCL to 28.3 kg/m2 for MZL). A total of 2151 participants completed the FACT-G with a median score of 78.7 (range, 75.9 for TCL to 83.3 for MZL). Complete IPI data were available on 2296 participants: 40.4% IPI 0-1, 32.7% IPI 2, 18.3% IPI 3, 8.7% IPI 4-5. Overall, 73.7% of participants were initially treated with systemic therapy (range, 40.0% for MZL and 91.8% for DLBCL); 14.5% were initially managed with observation (range, 1.4% DLBCL and 31.8% for FL); and 2.0% were initially manage with radiotherapy (range, 0.2% for MCL and 3.8% for DLBCL). Outcomes are being prospectively collected. Conclusions: LEO is a large and diverse cohort of newly diagnosed NHL patients and the first two years of enrollment reflects the broader United States NHL population. Enrollment is ongoing. This unique resource will enable examination of the interactions among a broad array of clinical and molecular factors and their impact on multiple outcomes, to improve prognostication, identify new approaches to improve outcomes and survivorship, and facilitate clinical trials using this infrastructure. Disclosures Flowers: Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/ Janssen: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria. Kahl:Acerta: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Casulo:Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Martin:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Leonard:Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Bernal-Mizrachi:Kodikaz Therapeutic Solutions: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company: Research Funding. Maurer:Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding.