Flowers, Christopher R.

Abstract Introduction: Rituximab (R) improves survival in CLL when added to intensive chemotherapy (such as fludarabine and cyclophosphamide [FCR]), and has been shown to improve progression-free survival when given as maintenance therapy following first- or second-line chemoimmunotherapy. However, early phase 2 studies demonstrated only modest activity of R monotherapy (R mono), particularly at standard dose, and its use as a single agent for pts with CLL has remained controversial. Here we describe the characteristics and outcomes of pts with CLL receiving R mono in a real-world setting. Methods: The Connect CLL registry (NCT01081015), a multicenter, prospective observational cohort study, enrolled 1,494 pts with CLL between 2010-2014 from 179 community, 17 academic, and 3 government sites throughout the USA. Pts were ≥ 18 years and were enrolled ≤ 2 months after initiating any line of therapy (LOT). Pts were treated according to individual physician/patient decision making, and adherence to IWCLL standards cannot be determined. Bone marrow biopsy and CT scans were at the physician's discretion; responses were physician assessed and not centrally reviewed. For this analysis, pts were stratified by first (LOT1) or subsequent LOT (LOT≥2), and by treatment with R mono or other treatments (Tx). Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate event-free survival (EFS; event defined as death, progression/relapse, or transformation). A log-rank test was used to evaluate differences in EFS. A multivariate analysis of EFS in LOT1 pts was performed using the Cox regression model. Results: Of the pts enrolled, 105 (11.8%) pts in LOT1 and 81 (13.4%) pts in LOT≥2 received R mono. Of the pts receiving other Tx, 620/784 pts (79%) in LOT1 and 333/524 pts (64%) in LOT≥2 received R in combination. In LOT1, pts receiving R mono were older than pts receiving other Tx (74 vs 67 years; P < 0.0001); in LOT≥2 median ages were comparable (71 vs 70 years). Pts receiving R mono were more likely to have Rai stage 0-1 CLL than pts receiving other Tx, both in LOT1 (63.9% vs 51.8%; P = 0.05) and LOT≥2 (70.4% vs 49.9%; P = 0.005). The proportion of pts receiving R mono vs other Tx with a CCI score of ≥ 4 was similar in LOT1 (25.7% vs 22.8%) and LOT≥2 (32.1% vs 28.4%). Median absolute lymphocyte count at enrollment was lower in pts on R mono vs other Tx in LOT1 (27.7 vs 46.1 x 109/L) but similar in LOT≥2 (35.6 vs 30.2 x 109/L). A lower proportion of pts receiving R mono had FISH/cytogenetics performed at enrollment than pts receiving other Tx in LOT1 (48.6% vs 67.0%; P = 0.0002) and LOT≥2 (30.9% vs 49.6%; P = 0.002). The most common Tx regimens in LOT1 were FCR (25.9%), bendamustine plus R ([BR] 21.0%), R mono (11.8%), fludarabine plus R ([FR] 6.3%), and chlorambucil (4.6%); and in LOT≥2, BR (27.6%), R mono (13.4%), FCR (8.6%), bendamustine (7.4%), FR (4.1%), and ofatumumab (4.0%). The most common reason to initiate treatment in any LOT was bone marrow failure (LOT1, 44.8% vs 39.3%; LOT≥2, 37.0% vs 31.5%; R mono vs other Tx). Duration of therapy was shorter for pts receiving R mono vs other Tx in LOT1 (1.4 vs 4.1 months) and LOT≥2 (1.6 vs 3.3 months). In LOT1, responses were lower in pts on R mono vs other Tx: overall response rate (ORR) was 38.1% vs 64.2% (complete response [CR], 16.2% vs 41.2%; P < 0.0001). In LOT≥2, ORR was 25.9% vs 24.6% for pts on R mono vs other Tx (CR, 9.9% vs 11.5%; P = 0.68). Partial response did not differ significantly between pts receiving R mono vs other Tx in LOT1 and LOT≥2. Pts receiving R mono in LOT1 had inferior median EFS vs other Tx (34 vs 50 months; log-rank P = 0.04); however, after adjusting for factors such as ECOG status and del(17p) status, there was no difference in EFS (HR 0.932; P = 0.79). In pts in LOT≥2, median EFS was similar for R mono and other Tx (15 months for both groups; P = 0.93). Conclusions: Pts receiving R mono as frontline CLL therapy were older than pts receiving other Tx. They also had lower stage disease and lower lymphocyte counts, a shorter duration of treatment, and inferior response rates. Pts receiving R mono in relapsed CLL, more closely approximated pts receiving other Tx in terms of age. Despite the shorter duration of therapy for pts receiving R mono in LOT1 and LOT≥2, both groups had similar ORR and EFS in LOT≥2. These data reinforce the idea that R mono is inadequate as frontline therapy in progressive CLL, and demonstrate the opportunity for improvement in relapsed/refractory disease with novel agents relative to traditional chemoimmunotherapy approaches. Disclosures Sharman: Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Davids:Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, 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, Research Funding; AbbVie, Janssen, Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Farber:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Grinblatt:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Lamanna:Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Pronai: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Mato:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; ProNAi: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Theradex: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Nabhan:Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sullivan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flick:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kiselev:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bhushan:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Swern:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Optum Rx, Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum, Janssen, Infinity, AbbVie, Acerta, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Most patients with newly diagnosed FL treated with rituximab (R) alone or R + chemotherapy will experience prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival (OS), but it remains unclear what factors have the greatest influence on FL-associated and other causes of death in this patient population. We utilized individual patient data from 13 first-line randomized clinical trials from the FLASH database to perform a comprehensive multistate survival analysis to examine and quantify the relationships between clinical characteristics, treatment response, and early, intermediate, and late FL outcomes. Methods: The multistate survival analysis model defined states for "Alive after beginning Induction Treatment (TX)", "Alive after beginning Maintenance TX", "Death due to FL", and "Death from Other Causes" (Figure 1). We used the Aalen-Johansen estimator, a generalization of the Kaplan-Meier estimator, to calculate the likelihood of being in each model state and estimate the course of FL over time. Making no assumptions on the probability distributions and capable of coping with censored observations, the Aalen-Johansen estimator is a convenient and reliable nonparametric estimator for clinical data. Results: Among 7,465 FL patients with median age 56 (range 18-90) years, 49.2% were female; 28.7% Stage I-III, 71.3% Stage IV, and FLIPI was 0-1 (20.0%), 2 (36.8%), ≥ 3 (43.2%). Following initiation of induction treatment, 2-, 5- and 10-year death rates were 1.7%, 3.8%, and 5.8% due to FL, and 0.7%, 2.1%, and 4.8% from other causes (Figure 2). Death rates at 2, 5, and 10 years due to FL and other causes for subgroups based on clinical characteristics and treatment response are shown in Table 1. Notably, patients > 70 years and patients with FLIPI ≥ 3 had worse outcomes and patients achieving CR at 18, 24, and 30 months experienced improved outcomes. Conclusion: This is the largest study using data from randomized trials to quantify the impact of clinical factors on early, intermediate and late mortality by cause of death. We demonstrated that age > 70 years and FLIPI ≥ 3 were linked to increased FL-associated death and response to TX distinguished patients with favorable and poor outcomes. Future analyses should quantify the impact of predictors on the rate/time of FL outcomes in multivariable models. Disclosures Salles: Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. Hoster:Janssen: Research Funding; Roche Pharma AG: Other: Travel Support. Hiddemann:Bayer: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vector Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Herold:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Morschhauser:Servier: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Rummel:Roche Pharma AG: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Kimby:AbbVie,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jansen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Other: educational lectures. Vitolo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gyan:Pfizer: Honoraria. Ladetto:Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; V Foundation: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy;

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 Disease characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of follicular lymphoma (FL) patients (pts) aged >80 years (yrs) are infrequently reported. Further, the original Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) has not been formally studied in pts aged >80 yrs. Also, whether FLIPI is associated with overall survival (OS) in pts aged >80 yrs is unknown. Patients/Methods We used the National LymphoCare Study—a Genentech-sponsored, prospective, multicenter registry of FL pts across the United States without study-specific treatment—to comprehensively analyze FL pts aged >80 yrs. Using Pearson chi-squared tests, associations of age groups with disease characteristics and overall response rate (ORR) were examined. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and OS by treatment regimen were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression that were adjusted for baseline disease factors were used to assess treatment differences in PFS, lymphoma-related mortality (LRM, which includes both disease and treatment-related deaths), and OS, as well as the significance of age by treatment interactions. FLIPI and a prognostic model that was constructed based on the findings were used to predict outcomes. Results Of 2649 evaluable pts, 209 (8%) were aged >80 yrs. Compared with pts aged ≤60, pts aged >80 yrs were more likely to be Caucasian, to have worse performance status, to have lower hemoglobin (Hgb) value (<12 g/dL), to have less advanced stage, and were less likely to be treated at academic institutions. When treated, pts aged >80 yrs had lower ORR compared with younger pts and were less likely to receive rituximab + chemotherapy (P <.001) or anthracyclines (P <.001). Use of maintenance rituximab was not significantly different between pt groups when rituximab induction was given (61% for pts aged ≤60, 38% for pts aged >80, P=.11), but it was more frequent in pts aged >80 yrs when rituximab + chemotherapy induction was administered (44% for pts aged ≤60, 59% for pts aged >80, P=.04). After adjusting for maintenance use, sex, and baseline factors, age significantly differentiated PFS impact of observation, rituximab monotherapy, and rituximab + chemotherapy (P=.01). No treatment regimen provided superior PFS or OS in pts aged >80 yrs. With a median follow-up of 6.5 yrs for all pts (4.3 yrs for pts aged >80 yrs), 5-year OS was 59% and 92%for patients aged >80 and ≤60 yrs, respectively. OS in pts aged >80 yrs varied based on FLIPI score (log-rank test, P=.01; Figure 1). Interestingly, the percentage of deaths that were disease-related was 40% in pts aged >80 yrs, which was comparable to the percentage in pts aged ≤60 yrs of 48%. Cox modeling showed that lower Hgb, B symptoms, and male sex predicted worse OS (P<.01) but not PFS in pts aged >80 yrs. Recognizing that males have inferior OS compared with females in the general population, we constructed a prognostic model composed only of B symptoms and Hgb level <12 (low risk=no factors; high risk=1 or more factors; P<.0001; Figure 2). FLIPI and the proposed prognostic model significantly differentiated both OS and LRM (Table 1). Conclusions In the largest, prospectively published study of FL pts aged >80 yrs, OS, PFS, ORR, and treatment selection varied compared with younger pts. Surprisingly, the proportion of deaths attributed to lymphoma in these older FL pts was 40%. FLIPI was associated with outcome in pts aged >80 yrs and so was a proposed prognostic model comprising lower Hgb and B symptoms. Independent validation of this model is required, and additional prospective studies that are designed for the oldest old are warranted. Disclosures: Nabhan: Genentech Inc.: Advisory Board Other, Honoraria. Byrtek:Genentech, a member of the Roche group: Employment, Equity Ownership; Roche: Equity Ownership, stock options, stock options Other. Dawson:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Link:Genentech: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pharacyclics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:GSK: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Cephalon: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Cancer Genetics: Scientific Advisor Other. Cerhan:Genentech: Scientific Advisory Board of the National LymphoCare Study Other. Flowers:Abbott, Celgene, Millennium/Takeda, Sanofi, Spectrum, Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene, Genentech Bio-oncology: 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.

Abstract Abstract 775 Introduction: WW has been an initial strategy for advanced stage FL because randomized trials showed no clear benefit for immediate initiation of therapy with single agent alkylators when compared to deferring therapy (Brice, JCO 1997; Ardeshna, Lancet 2003), although a recent trial raises questions about WW in the era of rituximab (R) based frontline therapies (Ardeshna, ASH Meeting 2010). Methods: The NLCS is a prospective, multicenter, observational study collecting data on 2,738 newly diagnosed pts with FL diagnosed from 2004–2007 at 265 US sites (80% non-academic). Initial management decisions were made by the treating physician and were categorized as WW (for pts who did not receive therapy in the 90 period following diagnoses and were coded by physicians as WW) or active therapy (AT) including: R alone, R-chemotherapy (RChemo), or other. Baseline clinical factors and treatment setting were compared for WW and AT pts using multivariable logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimation and Cox models were used to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), time to 2nd and 3rd line management strategy (TT2, TT3), transformation-free survival (TFS), PFS following 1st AT, and overall survival (OS). Due to differences between WW and AT groups, adjusted Cox regression models are presented for the primary analysis of study endpoints controlling for sex, community vs. academic practice site, FL grade, and FLIPI. All time to event analyses were calculated from the 90 day period following diagnosis to allow enrollment in WW, and PFS was calculated from the starting point to the clinician's recording of progressive disease (PD) or death. Results: Among 1,737 pts presenting with stage III/IV FL in the analysis population, 237 underwent WW and 1,500 received AT immediately following diagnosis including: 241 pts treated with R, 1046 with RChemo, 26 with radiation, and 187 other therapies. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that the following pt characteristics were predictive of selection of WW rather than initial AT: age > 60 years, no B-symptoms, FL grade 1 or 2, ECOG PS = 0, ≤1 extranodal sites involved, and LDH ≤ULN (all p < 0.05). Median PFS and TT2 were 27 and 35 months for WW, and 64 months and not reached for AT. With a median follow-up of 55 months, 17% of WW pts and 19% of AT pts have died, with no significant difference in OS between WW and AT (p = 0.31). Compared with WW, RChemo improved PFS: adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.36, TFS: HR=0.65, TT2: HR=0.48, and TT3: HR=0.53, all p<0.01. For most of the 145 WW pts that later initiated an AT, PD was recorded as the reason for treatment (83%). ATs following WW were: R (51, 35%), RCVP (21, 14%), RCHOP (16, 11%), R + other chemo (23, 16%), investigational (15, 10%), chemo alone (9, 6%), radiation (8, 6%), BMT (1, 1%), or other therapy (1, 1%). The median PFS for R was 42 months when given at diagnosis and 55 months when given following WW. The median PFS for RChemo was 71 months when given at diagnosis and 37 months when given following WW. After adjustment for FLIPI, FL grade, sex, practice setting, and type of treatment, WW adversely affected PFS following 1st AT, H=2.02, p <0.0001. Conclusions: FL pts in the US who undergo initial WW are treated at a median of nearly 3 years. Median PFS following RChemo, but not R is shorter when utilized after period of WW than at diagnosis – albeit in different clinical circumstances. Additional follow-up is needed to assess the tradeoff of this time without therapy with as yet no observable differences in OS. Disclosures: Sinha: CELGENE: Research Funding. Friedberg:Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Link:Genentech: Consultancy. Flowers:Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 97 Background: There is no consensus or standard of care for front-line therapy for FL as demonstrated by our initial publication of the National LymphoCare Study (NLCS) showing that strategies used in newly diagnosed FL patients (pts) in the US included: watchful waiting (17.7%), rituximab (R) with chemotherapy (51.9%), R alone (13.9%), radiation therapy (5.6%), chemotherapy (3.2%), or a clinical trial (6.1%). Given the lack of observational data comparing the effectiveness of front-line R-chemotherapy regimens, we examined the outcomes for patients with stage III/IV FL receiving R with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (RCVP), R with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP), or R with a fludarabine-based regimen (RFlu) as first-line therapy. Methods: The NLCS is a prospective, multicenter, observational study collecting data on 2,738 previously untreated patients (pts) with FL diagnosed from 2004 to 2007 at 265 sites in the US. Initial management decisions were made by the treating physician without protocol-specified treatment assignments. Descriptive statistics for the baseline characteristics of pts who received RCVP, RCHOP, and RFlu were compared using Pearson Chi-square tests. A generalized logistic model was used to identify baseline factors of clinical interest (FLIPI, sex, practice setting [academic vs. community]) that were correlated with treatment. Kaplan–Meier estimation was used to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the treatment regimens; comparisons for the 2-year landmark estimates were obtained using a Wald statistic. PFS was defined as the number of days from diagnosis up to and including the date of progressive disease (PD) as assessed by the treating physician or death from any cause. Pts who had not yet experienced PD at the time of analysis were censored at the date of the most recent response assessment. To evaluate the effects of treatment on PFS and OS, Cox proportional hazards models were used controlling for FLIPI, sex, community or academic practice setting, and maintenance R or observation following treatment. Results: Of the 2,738 pts enrolled in NLCS, 926 pts were identified as having stage III/IV FL and having received the regimens of interest. Within this cohort 60% received RCHOP (n=558), 27% received RCVP (n=247) and the remaining 13% received RFlu (n=121). Baseline characteristics were correlated with induction treatment and whether a patient received subsequent R maintenance. Women (odds ratio [OR]=1.50, 95%CI 1.05–2.13) and pts aged >60 years (OR=2.36, 95%CI 1.64–3.38) more commonly received RCVP than RCHOP, and pts with LDH > upper limit of normal (OR=1.75, 95%CI 1.02–3.03) more commonly received RCHOP than RFlu. A greater % of pts receiving RCVP (61%) had poor-risk FLIPI (3–5) vs. RCHOP (49%) or RFlu (44%). In this cohort, 60% of RCVP, 43% of RCHOP, and 46% of RFlu pts received maintenance R. The overall response rates for RCVP, RCHOP, and RFlu were 88%, 94%, and 96%, respectively, and 2-year PFS was 72% (95% CI 66–78%) for RCVP, 78% (95%CI 74–81%) for RCHOP, and 76% (95%CI 67–-83%) for RFlu. There were no significant differences in PFS between treatments after adjustment (p= 0.07). However, with a median follow-up of 58 months there were significant differences in unadjusted OS (p=0.03), with 2-year OS probabilities of 88% (95%CI 84–92%) for RCVP, and 91% (84–95%) for RFlu, and 94% (92–96%) for RCHOP (Figure A). After adjustment for sex, FLIPI, practice setting, and maintenance use, the OS benefits of RCHOP persisted over RCVP HR=1.67 (95%CI 1.15–2.42) but not RFlu HR=0.94 (0.53–1.68). The benefits of RCHOP were even more pronounced in poor risk FLIPI pts (Figure B). Conclusions: First-line R-chemotherapy regimens in clinical practice have high overall response rates and high 2-year PFS and OS. With 4.75 years of follow-up in this large pt cohort, these regimens appear similar in response rates and early PFS and OS with suggestions that RCHOP may provide benefits over RCVP particularly for poor risk patients. Disclosures: Sinha: Celgene: Research Funding. Friedberg:Genentech: Consultancy; astellas: ; Lilly:; Abbott/Trubion:; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Cephalon: Consultancy. Hirata:Roche: Equity Ownership; Genentech Inc/Roche: Employment. Flowers:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 2864 Introduction: Clinical trials have illuminated a number of unique treatment strategies for patients with CLL. The impact of these strategies on routine practice remains unknown as trial participants may not reflect the same population encountered outside of a clinical trial setting. Many questions remain regarding the sequencing of therapies based on age and performance status. By characterizing current patterns of care; patients, treating physicians, and regulatory agencies will be able to understand the current landscape of CLL treatment. The Connect® CLL registry was designed to report the natural history and real world management of patients receiving therapy for CLL. In this first report, we characterize the therapeutic approaches used for the treatment of patients with CLL of different age groups (i.e. < 65 years, 65–75 years, and ≥ 75 years) and with an ECOG PS status score of 0 compared to 1 or greater. Methods: Connect® CLL is a prospective, longitudinal, observational, multi-center registry conducted in community and academic research centers in the United States. At present, 237 sites are actively participating with a projected study enrollment of 1500 patients. Eligible patients are to be enrolled within 2 months of being initiated on any line of therapy; whether initial therapy or salvage therapy. Each patient will be followed for up to 60 months. Clinical data, physician choices, patient-reported health-related quality of life, response and survival are to be collected approximately every 3 months during participation. Results: A total of 607 patients have been enrolled (4% from academic sites) with a median age of 70 years. 198 were < 65 years old (age group 1), 187 were between 65–75 years old (age group 2), and 222 were ≥ 75 years old (age group 3). ECOG status varied across the three age groups, with an ECOG status score of ≥ 1 for 39%, 52%, and 70% of patients respectively. Treatment patterns varied across the age groups and by ECOG status in the 496 patients reporting therapies. The most commonly recorded first-line regimens independent of age included fludarabine (F) cyclophosphamide (C) and rituximab (R) (33%), bendamustine (B) +/− R (19%), F +/− R (15%), or investigational therapy (15%). For second-line regimens and beyond, the most frequently recorded regimen was B +/− R (30%), FCR (23%), other F-based regimens (13%), or investigational therapy (8%). The use of FCR for first-line treatment decreased significantly with increasing age group, (45%, 32%, 20%, for age group 1, 2, 3 respectively, p=0.04, spearman correlation) while use of F +/− R remained level across the age groups (14%, 15%, 15%, respectively). Compared to age group 1, first-line therapy with B +/− R in age groups 2 and 3 (15%, 22%, 21%, respectively) was higher but did not achieve statistical significance. B +/− R represented the most common treatment for all age groups (37%, 26%, 29%, respectively) as second line therapy but did not vary by age (P=0.35). The use of chlorambucil was infrequent in all age groups, but was more common in age group 3 patients compared to the others (P=0.01), in both first-line (2%, 4%, 12%, respectively) and subsequent lines of therapy (0%, 1%, 8%, respectively). Treatment assignments did not vary by ECOG PS score for patients in age group 1. First-line therapy for patients with an ECOG PS score of 0 in age groups 2 and 3 consisted of FCR (32% and 15%, respectively), F +/− R (19% and 15%, respectively), B +/− R (16% and 15%, respectively), and alkylating agents (3% and 23%, respectively). Patients in age groups 2 and 3 with ECOG PS score ≥ 1 received B +/− R regimen (33% and 22%, respectively), FCR (23% and 21%, respectively), F +/− R (14% and 10%, respectively) and alkylating agents (7% and 9%, respectively) as first-line therapy. Further description and clarification on the various treatment regimens based on the three age groups and by ECOG PS score will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: The Connect® CLL Registry is the largest prospective, multicenter registry in the United States evaluating management for patients with CLL. With the currently available data, we characterize the extent to which age and performance status are associated with treatment selection in both first-line and subsequent lines of therapy in routine practice. As enrollment increases and additional follow-up is completed, the data will provide more extensive and real world overview of the current treatment strategies used in CLL patients. Disclosures: Sharman: Celgene - consulting: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Calistoga: Honoraria; Portola pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Flowers:Consultancy: Celgene, Prescription Solutions, Spectrum (future), Seattle Genetics, Millennium (future), Genentech (unpaid): Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Weiss:Celgene: Consultancy. Grinblatt:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kay:Genenetech, Celgene, Hospira,: Research Funding. Kipps:Igenica: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbot Industries: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Lamanna:Celgene Corporation: Advisory board. Pashos:United BioSource Corporation: Research Funding. Flinn:Celgene: Research Funding. Kozloff:Celgene: Consultancy. Lerner:Celgene Connect: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Swern:Celgene: Employment. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment. Street:Celgene: Employment. Keating:Celgene Connect: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 2085 Introduction. Although advanced patient age is commonly used as a factor in selecting therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), based on presumed associations with functional status, limited data exist regarding the relationships between age and physical, emotional, social, and functional well being. We examined the relationships between age and these domains of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for CLL patients treated in US community practices. Methods. Baseline data were collected as part of Connect CLL®, a prospective observational registry initiated in March 2010 involving centers in the US. Data on patient demographics and clinical characteristics were provided by clinicians. HRQOL was self-reported by patients in the clinic at enrollment. Patients completed 3 psychometrically validated instruments: the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), EQ-5D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu). Standard analyses were conducted of each instrument given clinical characteristics at that time. Reported mean BFI, EQ-5D and FACT-Leu scores were analyzed by age group (<65, 65–74, >74). Statistical significance of score differences among sub-cohorts was ascertained by ANOVA using SAS 9.1. Results. Baseline HRQOL data were reported by 604 patients, enrolled from 161 centers. Patients were predominantly male (62%) and white (90%) with mean age at 69.9 (standard deviation [SD] 11.2) yrs. HRQOL scores by age group are presented: There were no significant differences between the age groups in fatigue as measured by the BFI, or differences in overall HRQOL as measured by the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) or the FACT-G. Anxiety/depression and self care are EQ-5D domains that also did not vary by age. Although mobility was most impaired in the oldest age group compared to the two younger groups, usual activities and pain/discomfort were worse in both the younger and older cohorts compared to those 65–74 years of age. FACT-Leu results indicated that the social/family domain scores did not vary by age, but that physical, emotional, and functional domains did vary statistically with the oldest typically doing better than the 65–74 year olds, but not necessarily better than those <65. Conclusions. Initial results from the Connect CLL® Registry indicate that HRQOL does not worsen monotonically with older age. In this cohort, both the youngest and oldest age groups had worse HRQOL in certain domains, presenting an inverted v-shaped relationship. Future analyses should be conducted on: (1) how HRQOL may be affected over time with changes in disease; and, (2) how HRQOL may be influenced by alternative therapies. Results reported here should serve as a useful baseline reference. Disclosures: Pashos: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flowers:Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Wyeth: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Weiss:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lamanna:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Farber:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kipps:Igenica: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbot Industries: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Lerner:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Grinblatt:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flinn:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kozloff:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Swern:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kahn:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Street:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sullivan:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Keating:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 3708 Background: Rituximab maintenance (RM) following induction therapy has been demonstrated to increase PFS in randomized trials in both first-line and relapsed settings (ECOG 1496, EORTC 20981, and most recently, PRIMA), and RM has been frequently used in clinical practice in the U.S. and other countries. We examined the various RM approaches used by practicing physicians in the U.S., factors that predicted whether RM was used, and compared the “real-world” effectiveness of RM to the outcomes of observation (Obs) following front-line R-based induction in FL patients (pts). Methods: The National LymphoCare Study is a prospective, multi-center, longitudinal, observational study that collects data on treatment and outcomes for pts diagnosed with FL in the U.S. from 2004–2007. Pts who achieved complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) following initial treatment with R-based therapy and who did not initiate second line therapy during the 215-day period following the date of last dose of initial therapy were categorized as Obs. Pts meeting the same criteria who started maintenance R treatment in the 215-day period comprise the RM group. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify characteristics related to receiving RM. We compared RM and Obs groups in progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) using Cox proportional hazards models controlling for confounding factors of clinical interest (sex, FLIPI risk group, treatment setting [academic vs. community], and induction therapy). PFS was defined as the number of days from the 215 day period following induction that defined the Obs and RM groups up to and including the date of disease progression as assessed by the treating physician or death from any cause. Pts who had not yet experienced a PFS event at the time of analysis were censored at the date of the most recent response assessment. Results: Of the 2,732 pts enrolled in NLCS, 1,536 pts completed R-based induction therapy. Among these,1,236 pts achieved CR/PR/SD and met other criteria described above to be included in analysis. 557 pts started RM treatment in the 215-day post-induction work up period (128 following R and 429 following R-chemo), and 679 pts were observed (125 following R and 554 following R-chemo). The mean duration of RM was 528 days, and the mean number of RM doses received was 13. 23% received Rx4 every 6 months, 20% Rx1 every 2 or 3 months, and 57% received another schedule. 14% of pts discontinued RM early (n=79). The most common reasons for early discontinuations were disease progression (29%), toxicity (11%), or death (7%). Pts who received R induction were more likely to receive RM than those who received R-chemo as induction (51% vs. 44%). Pts treated in community practices were slightly more likely to receive RM compared with those who were treated in academic centers (46% vs. 40%). In multivariable models, the most significant predictors of receiving RM were grade (I/II), stage (III/IV), geographic region (other than West), community practice setting, and R induction treatment (all p<0.05). After adjusting for FLIPI risk group, induction treatment, and clinical factors, RM significantly improved PFS (HR= 0.72; p= 0.010) and TTNT (HR= 0.74; p= 0.03). At 4 years of follow-up, 11% of pts in the combined population have died and there was no significant difference in OS between RM and Obs groups. 22% (n=124) of RM pts had received 2nd line treatment at the time of analysis, of whom 36% received R alone and 31% received R-chemo. The response rate for 2nd treatment was similar between RM and Obs groups (60% CR/PR for both groups). Conclusions: RM following front-line R-based induction was common in this period. However, a large percentage of pts received a RM schedule that was not consistent with standard published schedules reflecting variation among community practices. Nevertheless, RM use in clinical practice produced significant differences in PFS and TTNT compared to Obs. Importantly, response to second-line treatment was similar between RM and Obs groups. Additional followup is needed to determine whether RM produces OS benefits in this context. Disclosures: Sinha: Celgene: Research Funding. Zhou:RTI-HS: Employment; Novartis: Research Funding. Friedberg:Genentech: Consultancy; astellas: ; Lilly: ; Abbott/Trubion: ; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Cephalon: Consultancy. Hirata:Genentech Inc/Roche: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Flowers:Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.