Tun, Aung M.

Abstract Low-grade B-cell lymphomas other than follicular and small lymphocytic lymphoma (LGBCL) account for 10% of all B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Despite improvements in survival outcomes for these patients, little is known about cause of death (COD) in the rituximab era. For a better understanding, we studied 822 newly diagnosed patients with marginal zone, lymphoplasmacytic, and unclassifiable low-grade B-cell lymphoma prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource from 2002 to 2015. COD was assigned based on medical record review using a standard protocol. At a median follow-up of 107 months, 219 (27%) patients had died. The incidence of lymphoma-related deaths when pooling across subtypes was lower than non–lymphoma-related deaths (10-year incidence, 8.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2-10.4 vs 13.6%; 95% CI: 11.2-16.6). The incidence of lymphoma-related deaths varied by subtype, ranging from 3.7% at 10 years in extranodal marginal zone lymphoma to 19.3% in lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Patients with early progression or retreatment events, defined using event-free survival at 24 months from diagnosis, had significantly higher likelihood of lymphoma-related death compared with patients without early events (10-year estimate: 19.1% vs 5.1%, respectively; P < .001), whereas the rates for non–lymphoma-related death were comparable in patients with or without early events (10-year estimates: 11.0% vs 15.3%, respectively). In conclusion, the most common COD in LGBCLs in the first decade after diagnosis was for causes other than lymphoma. Progression or retreatment within the first 2 years of diagnosis was a strong predictor for risk of lymphoma-related death.

Abstract Introduction: Novel therapeutic agents such as immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and brentuximab vedotin (BV) are active in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), including in patients that relapse after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). However, optimal management strategy is unclear for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) cHL post-ASCT. The aim of the study is to determine the impact of novel agents relative to conventional therapy and allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) on survival outcomes of patients with cHL who relapsed after ASCT. Methods: Patients with RR cHL who underwent ASCT between 06/1993 and 10/2017 at 3 Mayo Clinic sites were included. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. For patients who relapsed after ASCT, the post-relapse progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Statistical analyses were done in JMP v15.2.1 and EZR v1.54. Results: A total of 332 patients with RR cHL who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT were identified. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 8.6 years (range 6.8-9.7), 136 (41%) patients had a relapse or disease progression after ASCT. Patient characteristics of the 136 cases are summarized in the Table. The median age at post-ASCT relapse was 34 years (range 20-73), and 77 (57%) were male. 59 (43%) relapsed within 6 months and 77 (57%) relapsed after 6 months following ASCT. 59 (45%) had an extranodal site involvement at relapse. 14 (10%) had therapy with ICI or BV as salvage therapy prior to ASCT or maintenance therapy post-ASCT. The median post-relapse PFS and OS was 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.1) and 3.2 years (95% CI 2.2-5.5) years, respectively. Compared to patients who relapse after 6 months, patients who relapsed within 6 months of ASCT had worse post-relapse PFS (median 0.5 [0.3-0.7] vs 1.3 [0.9-1.9] years, p=0.0003) and OS (median 1.3 [0.5-2.2] vs 6.4 [3.7-10.4] years, p=0.0003). Extranodal site involvement at relapse was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.7 [0.5-1.2] vs 0.9 [0.6-1.3] years, p=0.28) but was associated with worse post-relapse OS (median 2.7 [1.5-4.2] vs 6.4 [2.6-NA] years, p=0.006). Prior therapy with ICI or BV was not associated with post-relapse PFS (median 0.6 [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] year, p=0.8) and OS (median NR [1.0-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.5] years, p=0.5). After post-ASCT relapse, the median lines of subsequent therapy were 2 (range 1-12). For first post-ASCT salvage therapy, novel agents (ICI or BV), compared to other therapies, were associated with superior post-relapse PFS (median 1.7 [0.7-3.6] vs 0.7 [0.5-1.0] years, p=0.004) and OS (median 7.6 [4.7-NA] vs 3.2 [2.2-5.6], p=0.02). Allo-SCT following first post-ASCT relapse (n=9) was not associated with improvement in post-relapse PFS (median 2.2 years [0.3-NA] vs 0.8 [0.6-1.1] years, p=0.1) or OS (median NR [0.5-NA] vs 5.1 [3.2-7.3] years, p=0.7). Patients who received ICI or BV at any point post-ASCT relapse had significantly better post-relapse OS (median 7.6 [4.3-16.7] vs 2.2 [1.4-3.7] years, p=0.004) compared to those who never received any novel agent (Figure 1A). In contrast, allo-SCT at any point post-ASCT relapse (n=27) did not improve post-relapse OS (median 5.6 [2.7-NA] vs 4.7 [2.7-7.3] years, p=0.3) (Figure 1B). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, exposure to ICI and/or BV was associated with superior post-relapse OS (HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p=0.007); however, allo-SCT was not associated with improvement in post-relapse OS (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.5, p=0.5). Conclusions: Patients relapsing within 6 months of ASCT and those with extranodal involvement at relapse had inferior OS after post-ASCT relapse. Prior therapy with novel agents did not impact post-relapse survival outcomes. In the setting of post-ASCT relapse, novel therapeutic agents significantly improved survival outcomes while allo-SCT did not. Future multicenter studies are needed to explore the role of novel agents and allo-SCT in patients with RR cHL post-ASCT relapse. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InnoCare: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Tun: Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy; Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.

e19501 Background: The current standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) following frontline immunochemotherapy (IC) is salvage therapy, followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) rescue in patients responding to salvage therapy. Time to first relapse (or refractory status) and response to salvage therapy in patients with RR DLBCL may reflect the chemosensitivity of the underlying disease. The aim of this study is to determine whether these factors impact post-ASCT outcomes. Methods: Patients with DLBCL that relapsed after R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like frontline therapy who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT at Mayo Clinic or University of Iowa between 07/2000 and 4/2020 were identified from institutional lymphoma and transplant databases. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of ASCT were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: A total of 437 patients with RR DLBCL who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT were identified. 280 (64%) were male. Median time from initial diagnosis to 1st relapse/salvage was 1.0 years (range 0.1-16.4). A median of 1 line (range 1-3) of salvage therapy was required. Response prior to ASCT was complete response (CR) in 211 (48%), partial response in 199 (46%), stable disease in 24 (5%), and unknown in 3 (1%) patients. Median age at ASCT was 61 years (range 19-78), and median follow up after ASCT was 8.0 years (95% CI 7.2-8.7). Median PFS and OS was 2.7 (95% CI 1.5-4.3) and 5.4 (4.2-7.4) years, respectively. Time to 1st relapse/salvage (≤1 vs 1-2 vs > 2 years) was not associated with PFS (median 0.8 vs 2.4 vs 4.9 years, p = 0.170) but was associated with OS (2.4 vs 7.4 vs 6.8 years, p = 0.013). Patients who required > 1 line of salvage therapy had significantly inferior PFS (median 0.3 vs 4.5 years, p < 0.001) and OS (0.9 vs 7.4 years, p < 0.001). In addition, patients who failed to achieve a CR prior to ASCT had significantly worse PFS (median 0.8 vs 5.3 years, p < 0.001) and OS (2.7 vs 9.2 years, p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, time to 1st relapse/salvage was not associated with PFS (p = 0.313) or OS (p = 0.081); however, lines of salvage and response prior to ASCT remain significantly prognostic for PFS ( > 1 line of salvage: HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.59-2.87, p < 0.001; non-CR: HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.26-2.05, p < 0.001) and OS ( > 1 line of salvage: HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.66-3.05, p < 0.001; non-CR: HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.26-2.12, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In patients with RR DLBCL following frontline IC, requiring more than 1 line of salvage therapy and failure to achieve CR are strong independent risk factors for poor PFS and OS after ASCT. Novel therapies such as CAR-T cell therapy should be studied in this population.

7522 Background: Patients with newly diagnoseddiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who achieve event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) following immunochemotherapy (IC) have excellent overall survival (OS) similar to that of age- and sex-matched general population. The standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) DLBCL following frontline IC is salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The goal of this study is to evaluate the role of progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 months (PFS24) as a landmark after ASCT in patients with RR DLBCL. Methods: Patients with RR DLBCL after frontline R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like IC who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT at Mayo Clinic or University of Iowa between 07/2000 and 4/2020 were identified from institutional lymphoma transplant databases. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. Post-ASCT PFS, OS, and post-relapse survival (PRS) were plotted by Kaplan-Meier method, and cumulative incidences of relapse vs non-relapse mortality (NRM) and different causes of death were compared accounting for competing events. Statistical analyses were performed in EZR v1.54. Results: A total of 437 patients were identified. Median age at ASCT was 61 years (range 19-78), and 280 (64%) were male. After a median post-ASCT follow up of 8.0 years (95% CI 7.2-8.7), 215 patients had a relapse (or disease progression), 180 within 2 years and 35 after 2 years. For the entire cohort, post-ASCT relapse rate was much higher than NRM rate (48.1 vs 9.1% at 5-year). Median PFS and OS after ASCT was 2.7 and 5.4 years, respectively. Lymphoma was the primary cause of death after ASCT. In contrast, for patients who had achieved PFS24 (n = 220), rates of post-PFS24 relapse and NRM were similar (14.8% and 12.3% at 5-year). Median PFS and OS after achieving PFS24 was 10.0 and 11.5 years, respectively. Lymphoma related and unrelated death rates were similar after achieving PFS24 (Table). For all patients who had a post-ASCT relapse, median PRS was 0.7 years (95% CI 0.5-0.9), and late relapse ( > 2 vs ≤2 years after ASCT) was associated with better PRS (median 2.3 [1.7-4.8] vs 0.5 [0.3-0.7] years, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Post-ASCT PFS24 is an important prognostic predictor of post-ASCT outcomes in patients with RR DLBCL following frontline IC.[Table: see text]

Background: Indolent B-cell lymphomas are a group of neoplastic disorders that account for approximately one-third of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the Western world. They are clinically indolent but pathologically diverse and generally composed of follicular lymphoma (FL), extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL), lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL), nodal marginal zone lymphoma (NMZL), splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL), and small lymphocytic lymphoma. The overall prognosis is favorable in most patients, but others can have a more aggressive disease with associated progression, relapse, or histologic transformation. We have previously reported that the most common cause of death in FL was lymphoma. Here we report on the cause of death (COD), in other non-follicular indolent B-cell lymphomas (NFIBL) during the first decade of the rituximab era. Methods: Participants were from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). From 2002 -2015, MER offered enrollment to all patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma who were US residents and age &gt;18 years. Patients were treated per physician choice and followed prospectively. An event was defined as progression or relapse, initiation of 2nd line therapy, or death from any cause. EFS24 was defined using event-free survival at 24 months from diagnosis. Overall survival was defined as the time from diagnosis until death due to any cause. Overall survival from EFS24 was defined as time from event defining date (achieving EFS24 or early event). For decendents, copies of the death certificate or medical records associated with death were reviewed. Cumulative incidence estimates of the cause of death in NFIBL were calculated as competing risks utilizing the cuminc function from the cmprsk package in R version 3.6.2. COD was categorized as a result of lymphoma (progression or therapy-related) vs. other causes vs. unknown/missing. Results: 820 patients with newly diagnosed NFIBL were enrolled in this study. The subtypes included extranodal marginal zone (EMZL, N = 362), unclassifiable low-grade B-cell lymphoma (LGBCL-U, N = 202), lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL, N = 92), nodal marginal zone lymphoma (NMZL, N = 80), and splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL, N = 84). The median age at diagnosis was 63 years (range 18-92), and 50.5% were male. Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics showed that the LDH was abnormal in 19.3%, hemoglobin was abnormal in 33.8%, and 62.8% had stage III-IV disease. The IPI score was 0-1 in 51%, 2 in 36.6%, 3 in 10.6%, and 4-5 in 1.8%. At a median follow-up of 83 months (range 0-193), 172 (21%) patients had died, and the primary cause of death was non-lymphoma related in 87 (50.6%), lymphoma related 48 (27.9%), and unknown in 37 (21.5%). When examining all subtypes combined, the 10-year estimate for lymphoma related death was 7% (95% CI: 5.2-9.5) which was lower than the rate of non-lymphoma related death (10 years estimate 14%, 95% CI: 11.3-17.4), Figure 1A, Table 1. The 10-year estimate of lymphoma related death varied by subtype, ranging from 2.7% in EMZL to 16.3% in LPL (table 1), while non-lymphoma related death at 10 years ranged from 10.2% in EMZL to 22.5% in SMZL; only in LPL was the lymphoma related rate higher than the non-lymphoma. Patients who failed to achieve EFS24 from diagnosis had significantly higher rates of lymphoma related death (18% at 10 years from failure, 95% CI: 11.7-29.1, Figure 1B) compared to patients who achieved EFS24 (3.9% at 10 years from achieving EFS24, 95% CI: 2.3-6.8, Figure 1C). Rates were similar by EFS24 for non-lymphoma related death (14.5%, 95% CI: 11.0-19.0 vs. 11.2, 95% CI: 6.3-19.7). Figure 1B-C. Conclusion: The most common cause of death in NFIBL at 10 years was unrelated to lymphoma, in contrast to our previous data in follicular lymphoma which showed lymphoma as the most common cause of death at 10 years. However, similar to follicular lymphoma, patients with NFIBL who failed to achieve EFS24 to frontline therapy had significantly increased risk of lymphoma related death. Further research into the cause of death in NFIBL is warranted. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: 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. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Farooq:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Introduction: Management of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), which accounts for 1% of all cancers, is an area in dire need of therapeutic innovation. In recent years, the introduction of novel agents is one of the major advances in the management of patients with NDMM, in both transplant- eligible and transplant- ineligible candidates. Studies have combined daratumumab, a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that targets CD38 which is highly expressed on myeloma cells, with proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents-based regimens in the first-line treatment of NDMM. The purpose of our study is to explore and consolidate the efficacy of upfront daratumumab combination regimen in patients with NDMM. Methods: We systematically conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE databases and meeting abstracts from inception through June 2019. Phase III RCTs utilizing daratumumab in patients with newly diagnosed/ untreated multiple myeloma were incorporated in the analysis. A generic inverse variance method was used to calculate the estimated pooled hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method was used to calculate the estimated pooled risk ratio (RR) for overall response rate (ORR), including stringent complete response (sCR), CR and very good partial response (VGPR). Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q -statistic. Random effects model was applied. Results: Three phase III RCTs with a total of 2,528 patients with NDMMwere included.Studies compared daratumumab (D) + bortezomib (V) + melphan (M) + prednisone (P) vs VMP, D + lenalidomide (R) + dexamethasone (d) vs Rd, and DVd + thalidomide (T) vs VTd. The randomization ratio was 1:1 in all studies. The I2statistic for heterogeneity was 0, suggesting homogeneity among RCT. The pooled HR for PFS was statistically significant at 0.52 (95% CI: 0.44-0.61; P < 0.0001). The PFS benefit was observed in all ISS categories, types of immunoglobulin (Ig) and standard risk cytogenetic; ISS I cohort (HR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.37- 0.82; P = 0.003), ISS II cohort (HR, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.33- 0.55; P < 0.0001), ISS III cohort (HR, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48- 0.82; P = 0.0006), IgG cohort (HR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40- 0.77; P = 0.0003), non-IgG cohort (HR, 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28- 0.97; P = 0.04), and standard risk cytogenetic cohort (HR, 0.43; 95% CI: 0.35- 0.53; P < 0.0001). The pooled HR for PFS in high risk cytogenetic cohort was not statistically significant at 0.76 (95% CI: 0.53- 1.10; P = 0.15). The pooled RR for ORR was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01-1.26; P = 0.03), sCR was 2.02 (95% CI: 1.33-3.08; P = 0.001), CR was 1.46 (95% CI: 1.20-1.79; P = 0.0002),and VGPR was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.82-1.25; P = 0.93). The pooled RR for negative minimal residual disease (MRD) was 2.54 (95% CI: 1.24-5.20; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Upfront combination regimen with daratumumab significantly improved PFS, ORR, sCR and CR along with negative MRD, compared to control arm in patients with NDMM. The improvement in PFS was noted across all subgroups except in high-risk cytogenetic group. More randomized studies are required to explore further novel agents and to formulate optimal combination regimen to improve survival in this high-risk cytogenetic subset. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.