Inwards, David J.

AbstractThe development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in long‐term survivors of lymphoma is of increasing importance. Here, we characterize the cumulative incidence and risk factors for CVD in lymphoma patients diagnosed in the current treatment era. From 2002–2015, newly diagnosed lymphoma patients (>18 years) were enrollment into a prospective cohort study that captured incident CVD, consisting of congestive heart failure (CHF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), valvular heart disease (VHD), and arrhythmia. The cumulative incidence of CVD was calculated with death modeled as a competing risk. We estimated the association of treatment with anthracyclines or radiotherapy and traditional CVD risk factors with incidence of CVD using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) estimated from Cox regression. After excluding prevalent CVD at lymphoma diagnosis, the study consisted of 3063 patients with a median age of 59 years (range 18–95). The cumulative incidence of CVD at 10‐years was 10.7% (95% CI, 9.5%–12.1%). In multivariable analysis, increasing age (HR = 1.05 per year, p < 0.001), male sex (HR = 1.36, p = 0.02), current smoker (HR = 2.10, p < 0.001), BMI > 30 kg/m2 (HR = 1.45, p = 0.01), and any anthracycline treatment (HR = 1.57, p < 0.001) were all significantly associated with risk of CVD. Anthracyclines were associated with increased risk of CHF (HR = 2.71, p < 0.001) and arrhythmia (HR = 1.61, p < 0.01), but not VHD (HR = 0.84, p = 0.58) or ACS (HR = 1.32, p = 0.24) after adjustment for CVD risk factors. Even in the modern treatment era, CVD remains common in lymphoma survivors and preventive efforts are required that address both treatment and CVD risk factors.

Abstract Comparative data guiding initial therapy for Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an infrequently encountered non‐Hodgkin lymphoma, are sparse. We evaluated three commonly used rituximab‐based frontline regimens: rituximab‐bendamustine (R‐Benda); dexamethasone, rituximab, cyclophosphamide (DRC); and bortezomib, dexamethasone, rituximab (BDR) in 220 treatment‐naïve patients with WM, seen at Mayo Clinic between November 1, 2000 and October 31, 2019. The median follow‐up was 4.5 (95%CI: 4–5) years. The R‐Benda cohort (n = 83) demonstrated superior overall response rate (ORR: 98%), in comparison to DRC (n = 92, ORR: 78%) or BDR (n = 45, ORR: 84%) cohorts, p = 0.003. Similarly, longer progression‐free survival (PFS) was evident with R‐Benda use [median 5.2 vs. 4.3 (DRC) and 1.8 years (BDR), p < 0.001]. The time‐to‐next therapy (TTNT) favored R‐Benda [median, not‐reached, 4.4 (DRC) and 2.6 years (BDR), p < 0.001). These endpoints were comparable between the DRC and BDR cohorts. Overall survival (OS) was similar across the three cohorts, p = 0.77. In a subset analysis of 142 patients genotyped for MYD88 L265P mutation, the ORR, PFS and TTNT were unaffected by the patients' MYD88 signature within each cohort. In conclusion, ORR, PFS and TTNT with R‐Benda are superior compared to DRC or BDR in treatment‐naïve patients with active WM. The patient outcomes with any one of these three regimens are unaffected by the MYD88 L265P mutation status.

Background: Anti CD-19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is approved to treat relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive NHL after 2 or more lines of therapy. Randomized clinical trials are ongoing comparing CAR-T and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in second line. In standard of care practice, patients refractory to second line chemotherapy are sometimes treated with third line chemotherapy and taken to ASCT if disease is chemo-sensitive. Current study aims to evaluate the impact of prior lines of therapy on the efficacy of CAR-T and ASCT. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who received ASCT and/or axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for R/R aggressive NHL from June 2016 - January 2020 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester was performed. The lymphoma types included in the study were DLBCL, transformed lymphoma (TFL), high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL), and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). Response to all lymphoma-directed therapy was evaluated using 2014 Lugano criteria. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from CAR-T or ASCT infusion to death, and progression free survival (PFS) was defined as time from CAR-T or ASCT infusion to disease progression, or next treatment. Categorical data was analyzed as Chi-square or fishers exact test as appropriate. Continuous variables were analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Analysis was performed in R3.6.3. Results: A total of 105 patients underwent ASCT and 53 patients underwent CAR-T therapy in the study period with at least 6 months follow-up. Of the 105 ASCT patients, 87 received ASCT after 2 lines of chemotherapy, ASCT(2), and 18 received ASCT after 3 lines of chemotherapy, ASCT(3). Twenty six of the ASCT [n=19, ASCT(2) and n=7, ASCT(3)] patients received CART in subsequent therapy. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups except ASCT(3) had higher percent of refractory disease after first line (table 1). With a median follow up of 17.4 months, the PFS was significantly longer for the ASCT(2) group with a trend toward longer OS (Figure 1; PFS @ 1 year: ASCT(2) 67%, 95%CI 58-79%; ASCT(3) 27%, 95%CI 27-74%; p = 0.036). Among the CAR-T recipients, only 18 (33%) patients received CAR-T in the earliest possible indication, CAR-T(2): after 2 lines of chemotherapy (n=12) and/or after ASCT(2) (n=6), table 1. Compared to patients who received CAR-T in later lines (CAR-T 3+), OS was significantly longer for patients who received CAR-T(2), with a trend toward longer PFS (Figure 1; OS @ 1 year: CAR-T (2) 82%, 95%CI 65-100%; CAR-T later lines 62%, 95%CI 47-82%; p = 0.05). Additionally, 12 (23%) of patients received CAR-T immediately after ASCT (9 after ASCT(2), 3 after ASCT(3)). Baseline demographics in these 12 patients, CAR-T(ASCT), were comparable to the others who had chemoimmunotherapy as the last salvage therapy prior to CAR-T [CAR-T(chemo)], except a smaller proportion received bridging therapy (33% vs. 73%, p = 0.01). The CAR-T (ASCT) group had significantly prolonged PFS (median PFS - not reached [95%CI 3-not reached (NR)] vs. 3 months [95% CI 3-4 months]), and OS (median OS - NR, [95%CI 10.34-NR] vs. 15.1 months, [95%CI 11.9 - NR], p = 0.03). Updated analysis will be presented at the meeting with longer follow up (Figure 1). Conclusion: CAR-T use at the earliest current approved indication may confer survival advantage. Referral for earlier use of CAR-T remains low at only one third of our CAR-T practice volume. CAR-T use for relapse immediately after ASCT appear to have longer PFS and OS than after other systemic salvage therapy, although contributing parameters such as the need for bridging therapy requires further study. While patients who are chemo-refractory to second line chemotherapy may demonstrate chemo sensitivity with third line chemotherapy, PFS is shorter for ASCT(3). Comparison between ASCT(3) and CAR-T (2, chemorefractory) require larger cohorts with longer follow-up. Disclosures Bennani: Affimed: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding. Lin:Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction Day 15 absolute lymphocyte count (ALC-15) recovery after autologous peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (APBHSCT) is recognized as a prognostic factor for survival. ALC-15 recovery is directly dependent on the amount of collected and infused autograft-absolute lymphocyte count (A-ALC). Our group published a double-blind phase III study which showed that patients infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg experienced superior survival post-APBHSCT. Based on the results from our phase III study, on April 1, 2017, our Bone Marrow Transplant Program changed our standard clinical practice to collect an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg in addition to stem cells for lymphoma patients undergoing APBHSCT. To continue to assess the prognostic ability of A-ALC, we evaluated the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients that underwent APBHSCT after April 1, 2017 compared with a matched-control group in a 1:1:1 ratio with DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC &lt; 0.5 x 109 cells/kg or an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg prior to April 1, 2017. Methods Eight-five consecutive DLBCL patients after our practice changed on April 1, 2017 received an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg. For each DLBCL patient infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg after April 1, 2017, the set of potential controls was restricted to those DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC &lt; 0.5 x 109 cells/kg and an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg prior to April 1 2017 . Within this group of potential controls, the subjects were chosen who best matched for the cases in terms of clinical risk variables, including gender, age, stage, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), performance status, extra-nodal disease, International prognostic index (IPI), and disease status prior to APBHSCT (complete or partial response), using the GREEDY algorithm. Cases were defined as DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg starting from April 1 2017. Control 1 was defined as DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC &lt; 0.5 x 109 cells/kg prior to April 1 2017. Control 2 was defined as DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg prior to April 1 2017. We truncated the survival follow-up to 3 years starting from the date of transplant to match follow-up time between cases and controls. Both matched cases and control groups patients received BEAM conditioning. This retrospective study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board according to the regulation of the Declaration of Helsinki. Results Cases, control 1 and control 2 were balanced to the clinical risk variables; age (p = 0.8); gender (p = 0.9); LDH (p = 0.6); stage (p = 0.3); performance status (p = 0.5); extra-nodal disease (p = 0.2); IPI (p = 0.6); and clinical status prior to transplant (p = 0.2). Figure 1A showed the OS and figure 1B the PFS. Both the cases and control 2 showed superior OS and PFS in comparison to control 1. Cases and control 2 showed overall similar OS and PFS. Multivariate analysis including all patients continue to depict the A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg as an independent predictor for OS (HR = 0.382, 95%CI=0.241-0.605, p &lt; 0.0001) and PFS (HR = 0.437, 95%CI = 0.279-0.629, p &lt;0.0001). Subgroup analysis, including all patients, shows superior OS and PFS for patients infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg for each of the following clinical variables: age [&gt; 60 years: OS (p &lt;0.0001); PFS (p &lt;0.0001) or ≤ 60 years: OS (p &lt;0.01); PFS (p , 0.02)]; extra-nodal disease [&gt; 1: OS (p &lt;0.008); PFS (p &lt;0.01) or ≤1: OS (p &lt; 0.001): PFS (p &lt;0.0005)]; IPI [&gt; 2: OS (p &lt;0.01); PFS (p &lt;0.02) or ≤ 2: OS (p &lt;0.0008); PFS (p &lt;0.0006)]; LDH [abnormal: OS (p &lt;0.006); PFS (p &lt;0.005) or normal: OS (p &lt;0.002); PFS (p &lt;0.002)]; performance status [&gt; 1: OS (p &lt;0.04); PFS (p &lt;0.03) or ≤ 1: OS (p &lt;0.0001); PFS (p &lt;0.0001)]; stage [I/II: OS (p &lt;0.006); PFS (p &lt;0.006) or III/IV: OS (p &lt;0.002); PFS (p &lt;0.001)]; response prior to transplant [complete response: OS (p &lt;0.0007); PFS (p &lt;0.0001) or partial response: OS (p &lt;0.01); PFS (p &lt;0.02)]. Conclusion Our match-control study continues to support the results of our Phase III study showing that the infusion of A-ALC is a prognostic factor for survival of DLBCL patients undergoing APBHSCT. Our studies support the practice of not only collecting enough stem cells (i.e., CD34) for hematologic engraftment, but also enough immune effector cells (i.e., A-ALC) to improve clinical outcomes in DLBCL patients post-APBHSCT. Figure 1 Disclosures Ansell: Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

Background: Aggressive lymphomas are potentially curable; however, long-term effects of treatment and the disease may adversely affect patients' quality of life (QoL). We investigated QoL at baseline, and up to nine years after diagnosis in survivors of aggressive lymphomas. Methods: Patients newly diagnosed with lymphoma were prospectively enrolled within nine months of diagnosis in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) and systematically followed. Patients were enrolled from September 1, 2002 until June 30, 2015. Eligibility criteria included being a United States resident, English-speaking, no history of HIV, and aged 18 years and older. All pathology was reviewed by a lymphoma hematopathologist. Aggressive lymphoma subtypes included in this analysis were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Follicular lymphoma grade III, Hodgkin lymphoma, T-cell lymphoma, other non-Hodgkin lymphoma not otherwise specified (NOS), other B-cell lymphoma NOS, and composite lymphomas. We assessed QoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale at baseline enrollment, and 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 years post-diagnosis. FACT-G measures well-being (WB) in four domains-physical (PWB), social/family (SFWB), emotional (EWB), and functional (FWB), which are added to create a total (TOT) score. Those who completed &lt;80% of FACT-G questions at any given time point were excluded. "Survivor" was defined as alive at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 year follow-up with no active disease or treatment within six months of a given time point. Because patients could be enrolled at any time within the first 9 months from diagnosis, the timing of initial QoL assessment was variable with respect to the start of lymphoma treatment. We estimated longitudinal change in QoL using mixed models incorporating scores from all available time points. The minimally important difference (MID) of 5 points for TOT and 2 points for each of the domains was used to determine clinical significance. Scores were compared to United States (US) general population normative data. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS (v 9.4). Results: From September 1, 2002 to June 30, 2015, 3,028 patients with aggressive lymphomas were prospectively enrolled in the MER, of which 2,018 completed the FACT-G baseline assessment (47% prior to therapy initiation). Of these patients, 1,144 at 1 year, 1,002 at 2 years, 943 at 3 years, 562 at 6 years, and 289 at 9 years post-diagnosis completed the FACT-G at both baseline and each of the respective time points after diagnosis, and met the definition of survivor. The median age at diagnosis of patients analyzed was 59 years (range 18-93). The cohort included 844 female patients (42%). DLBCL comprised 44% of cases, Hodgkin lymphoma 19%, T-cell lymphoma 11%, composite lymphomas 8%, other B-cell NOS 6%, other non-Hodgkin lymphoma NOS 7%, and Follicular lymphoma grade III 5%. QoL increased from baseline enrollment; the largest increase was seen from baseline to 1 year after diagnosis with a statistically and clinically significant mean TOT score difference of 6.7 points. This mean increase in TOT scores sustained over time with an increase of 7.8 points above baseline at 9 years after diagnosis. At baseline, PWB, EWB, and FWB scores were significantly lower in patients with aggressive lymphomas compared to the US general population, and SFWB scores were significantly higher (all p &lt;0.01); however, only SFWB and EWB score differences were clinically significant as defined by MID. SFWB showed only a mild decline from baseline over the course of 9 years. Despite this, all SFWB scores were statistically and clinically significantly higher than the US general population at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 years after diagnosis (all p &lt;0.01 and MID &gt;2). Patients with aggressive lymphomas TOT scores at baseline did not differ from the US general population, while TOT scores at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 years post-diagnosis were statistically and clinically significantly higher. Overall, the results in the pre-treatment QoL subset were consistent with the cohort as a whole. Conclusions: In survivors of aggressive lymphomas, QoL improved primarily in the first year after diagnosis, and sustained over the course of nine years. QoL in survivors of aggressive lymphomas is higher than the United States general population at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 years after diagnosis. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Farooq:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Introduction: Transformation of low grade follicular lymphoma (FL) to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) carries a poor prognosis. In retrospective studies, 5-year survival of transformed DLBCL treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) without autologous stem cell transplant is 40-60%, underscoring need to improve frontline treatment of transformed DLBCL beyond R-CHOP. The overall response rate (ORR) to lenalidomide used as a single agent for relapsed transformed non Hodgkin lymphoma was 45% with 21% complete response (CR) rate and a median duration of response of 12 months (Witzig et al, Ann Onc 2011). These data provided the rationale to include patients with transformed DLBCL (with historical and concurrent FL) in MC078E, a phase II clinical trial testing lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (R2CHOP) for patients with new and untreated de novo and transformed DLBCL (NCT00670358). Here we present analysis of the subset of transformed DLBCL patients. Methods: Adult patients with transformed DLBCL and either historical or concurrent FL, stage &gt;=2, measurable disease by Positron Emission Tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and adequate organ function were included. Patients with Central Nervous System (CNS) involvement, significant comorbidities, active non-lymphomatous malignancy, life-threatening thromboembolism (TE) and contraindication to aspirin prophylaxis were excluded. Study participants received up to 6 cycles of rituximab (375 mg/m2), cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m2), doxorubicin (50 mg/m2), and vincristine (1.4 mg /m2) on day 1, prednisone (100 mg) on day 1-5, pegfilgrastim on day 2, and Lenalidomide 25 mg day 1-10 of 21 day cycle. Tumor lysis prophylaxis was per local practice; patients also received TE prophylaxis with aspirin. Primary outcome was event free survival (EFS) at 12 months, where an event was defined as death, progression or subsequent anti-lymphoma therapy. Secondary outcomes included ORR, CR, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Response was evaluated by PET/CT after cycle 2 and cycle 6 with revised response criteria (Cheson et al, 2007). Adverse events were recorded according to CTCAE version 3.0. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time to event endpoints. Results: Thirty-nine patients were accrued from August 5, 2013 to July 28, 2020 and 33 were eligible by central pathology review. Median age was 64 (range 24-80) years and 18 (54%) were &gt;60 years old. Eighteen (54%) were male, and 32 (97%) had ECOG performance status &lt;2. Twenty-three (70%) had historical FL and 10 (30%) had concurrent FL. Twenty-six (79%) had advanced stage (III-IV). Median number of extra nodal sites were 1 (0-4). Thirteen (39%) had high international prognostic index (IPI) (4-5). Thirty-two (97%) completed at least 2 cycles (30 completed all 6 cycles) and were evaluable for response. ORR was 97% (32/33), 29 (88%) had CR and 3 had PR. EFS at 12 months was 87.9% (95% CI: 71.8, 96.6). Two-year PFS and OS were 84.5% (95% CI: 72.8%-98%) and 96.9% (95% CI: 91-100%) (Figure 1). Twenty nine completed study protocol, 4 discontinued protocol early for disease progression (1), adverse event (AE) (1), refusal (1) and noncompliance (1). Thirty (91%) had hematologic AE of grade 3 or above, 27 (82%) had neutropenia, 16 (48%) had thrombocytopenia, and 7 (21%) had anemia. Sixteen (48%) had grade 3 or above non-hematologic AE. Eight (24%) had febrile neutropenia. There were 3 deaths on this study, 1 due to progressive DLBCL, 1 due to AML and 1 due to malignant melanoma. Conclusion: R2CHOP appears effective in transformed DLBCL with high response rates, event free, progression free and overall survival seen in current study. This study supports the inclusion of anthracycline naive patients with transformed DLBCL in future randomized studies of lenalidomide or other novel immunomodulatory (IMiD) analogues. Disclosures Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Witzig:Spectrum: Consultancy; Immune Design: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; NanoString: Research Funding.

Background: Patients with Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) tend to present at an older age. Frailty, resulting from comorbidities and reduced organ function, poses unique challenges to the management of WM in the elderly. Age above 65 years, is an established unfavorable prognostic factor in WM. However, data specifically pertaining to the very elderly patient population are scant. The impact of advanced age (≥75 years at diagnosis) on the clinical features and outcomes of patients with symptomatic/active WM were studied. Methods: Patients with active WM, evaluated at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between January 1996 and December 2018 were included in the study. The characteristics and laboratory parameters at presentation of the cohort of patients with the age ≥75 years were compared to those of the younger (age &lt;75 years) cohort. The median follow-up and overall survival (OS) were assessed from active disease to last follow-up or death using the Kaplan Meier method. Because older age is a confounding factor for deaths from unrelated causes, the cause-specific survival (CSS) was calculated. Deaths were deemed WM-related if patients died from progressive disease, transformation with antecedent WM, concomitant light chain (AL) amyloidosis, infection associated with WM or anti-WM therapy related toxicity, while patients who died from other causes were considered to have a WM-unrelated death. The patients who died from causes unrelated to WM were censored at death for CSS analysis. The OS of the cohort of the very elderly patients was compared to that of a cohort of the general US population, matched for age, sex as well as follow-up from the calendar-year of diagnosis, to assess the degree to which WM impacts survival. Results: Among 949 consecutive patients, with a median follow-up of 8.4 years [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 7.7-9.3 years] from active disease, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range: 31-93 years). Of 177 patients (19%) who were ≥75 years of age at the onset of active WM, 173 (98%) received anti-WM therapy. The baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts (patients ≥75 years of age versus &lt;75 years) are outlined in Table 1. The patients in the age ≥75 years cohort were noted to have lower IgM levels and serum albumin, and higher serum LDH and serum β-2 microglobulin compared to the age &lt;75 years cohort. A higher proportion of patients in the age &lt;75 years cohort had coexisting AL amyloidosis at diagnosis. The frequency of MYD88L265P mutation was similar between the 2 cohorts (p=0.2). During the 23-year period, there was an increase in the proportion of patients ≥75 years who were diagnosed with active WM (12% during the 1996-2003 period, 18% during 2004-2010, 25% during 2011-2018; P&lt;0.0001). In the elderly WM cohort, the most frequently used frontline treatment was rituximab monotherapy (36%), followed by rituximab-alkylating agent-based regimen (31%). Of 177 patients with age ≥75 years, 89 (50%) patients were deceased at the time of last follow-up and 58% (52/89) of all deaths in age ≥75 years were attributable to WM. By contrast, 303 (39%) out of the 772 patients in the age &lt;75 years cohort were deceased at last follow-up, with 73% (224/303) deaths attributable to WM. The CSS for patients with age ≥75 years was 10.9 years (95% CI: 7.3-11.7 years) versus 14.7 years (95% CI: 13.2-15.7 years) for age &lt;75 years [Risk ratio 2.1(95% CI: 1.5-2.8); p&lt;0.0001]. At the 1 and 2 year follow-up, WM-related mortality was 6.8% and 11.9%, respectively, for patients with age ≥75 years versus 2.6% and 4.9%, respectively, for the younger cohort. The median OS of patients with age ≥75 years from the diagnosis of active WM was 5.9 years (95% CI: 4.2-7.3 years) compared to the OS of 8.3 years for an age, sex and calendar-year-matched cohort, derived from the general US population (p&lt;0.001), Figure 1. Conclusion: Patients who are ≥75 years of age at the time of diagnosis of active WM present with certain poor prognostic features, including higher serum LDH and β-2 microglobulin and lower serum albumin compared to their younger counterparts. The impact of advanced age is underscored by a poorer WM-specific survival for the subset of patients with the age ≥75 years compared to the younger cohort. Furthermore, although active/symptomatic WM is typically an indolent malignancy, it adversely affects OS of the very elderly patients as suggested by the comparison with an age, sex and calendar-year matched cohort of the general US population. Disclosures Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz:Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Aurora Bio: Other; Janssen: Other: personal fee. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Witzig:Spectrum: Consultancy; Immune Design: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Kumar:Sanofi: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Introduction The molecular basis for the clinical heterogeneity observed in DLBCL was initially elucidated with gene expression profiling, identifying three distinct subgroups with prognostic relevance based on COO namely activated B-cell like (ABC), germinal center B-cell like (GCB) and a type 3 subtype. Shortly afterwards the Han's algorithm was developed allowing for widespread applicability and correlation of gene expression with protein expression. GCB profile at diagnosis is generally associated with superior long term outcomes compared to non-GCB in patients treated with conventional chemo-immunotherapy. Patients with relapsed/refractory disease (R/R) after front-line therapy undergo salvage treatment and, upon demonstration of objective response, proceed with high dose therapy and autologous transplantation (auto-HCT). Whether COO by Han's algorithm retains its prognostic significance post auto-HCT in patients with R/R DLBCL is not well established. Methods A retrospective analysis was carried out using the Mayo database across all three sites. It included all patients between 18-75 years of age who were diagnosed with de-novo DLBCL and underwent first auto-HCT for R/R disease. Patients must have received salvage treatment and shown chemotherapy sensitive disease. Patients with transformed DLBCL or other variants and those who underwent auto-HCT in first complete remission for high risk disease were excluded. Patients who had less than a partial response at time of transplantation and still underwent auto-HCT were also excluded. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS); relapse and relapse-free survival (RFS). Continuous variables were summarized as mean (standard deviation) and median (range). Categorical variables were reported as frequency (percentage). Continuous baseline variables were compared between GCB and non-GCB using Wilcoxon rank sum test and categorical baseline variables were compared with Chi-squared test. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 5 and 10-year rates of freedom from long-term events and draw corresponding survival curves. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate the impact of cell of origin on long-term survival after adjusting for baseline factors. All tests were two-sided with alpha level set at 0.05 for statistical significance. Results A total of 357 patients underwent auto-HCT between 2005 and 2018. Cell of origin was determined for 284 patients and these were included in the analysis. Median age was 61 (range: 19-78) years, and 64% patients were male. GCB and non-GCB patients did not differ significantly with regards to baseline factors (Table 1). During a median follow up of 1.7 years, 139 patients died, 151 had relapse and 175 either died or had relapse. Five year OS for GCB patients versus (vs) non-GCB was at 44% vs 64% (p=0.004) (Figure 1); relapse was at 67% vs 49% (p=0.012) and RFS was at 28% vs 50% (p=0.003). The difference between GCB and non-GCB groups remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis, with GCB patients 60% more likely to die and 50% more likely to experience relapse compared to non-GCB patients. The only other factor that retained significance in multivariate analysis for both endpoints was response at the time of transplant (Table 2A-C). Conclusions In this analysis, GCB DLBCL results in worse OS and higher relapse vs. non-GCB DLBCL following an auto-HCT. It is unclear if relapse/progression of GCB subtype after front-line therapy alters its natural history into a more aggressive disease. Disclosures Ansell: Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Foran:Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tun:Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.