Martin, Peter W.

Abstract Background: Despite advances in LBCL treatment, 35–45% of patients relapse or have refractory disease highlighting an unmet clinical need. Clinical trials are essential to advancing lymphoma treatment, yet participation remains low – especially among certain populations. We hypothesized that participation in clinical trials as part of first-line therapy is associated with improved survival outcomes and conducted this retrospective study in a multi-center cohort. Methods: The LEO cohort prospectively enrolled newly diagnosed patients with LBCL between 2015 and 2020 at 8 academic medical centers in the United States. LBCL histology's included T-cell/histiocyte rich LBCL, Primary mediastinal LBCL, high grade B-cell lymphoma and DLBCL NOS. Pathology was reviewed and classified by a LEO pathologist. Clinical and treatment data (including trial participation) were abstracted from medical records. The primary outcome endpoint is overall survival (OS) defines as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause or last follow up. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between OS and therapeutic trial participation. Univariable models assessed each baseline covariate, with and without interaction with trial participation. The multivariable model adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, diagnosis to treatment interval [DTI], and IPI, including an interaction between IPI and trial participation which was justified per minimal Akaike information criteria. All models clustered on institution. Results: Among the 2636 patients with LBCL, the median age was 63 (range 18 – 99), 57% were male, 75% non-Hispanic white (NHW), 12% Hispanic (H) and 7.3% African American (AA), 62% had Stage III/IV disease, and 214 (8.0%) participated in a clinical trial as part of first line therapy. Overall, between ages 18 – 80, clinical trial participation increased with age (55 % in ages 18-30 vs 11% in ages 71-80) but dropped significantly for patients > 80 (3.4%). There were no significant differences in the rate of trial participation by sex (male 8.6 % vs female 7.5%; p=0.35), race/ethnicity (NHW 8.9% vs H 5.5% vs AA 6.3%; p=0.061), body mass index (underweight [<18.5] 4.5% vs normal [18.5-24.9] 7.7% vs overweight [25-29] 8.3% vs obese (>30) 8.5; p = 0.75) or Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (Metro[1-3] 8.5% vs non-metro Urban [4-6] 7.6% vs non-metro Rural [7-9] 5.4 %; p=0.49). Patients with advanced disease more commonly participated in a trial. Most patients received systemic treatment (98%), with 94% of patients receiving an anti-CD20 antibody and 91% of patients receiving anthracycline-based therapy. Importantly, there was no difference in anthracycline use in trial participants vs nonparticipants (92 vs 91%; p=0.53). Patients with high IPI scores [3-5] were more likely to participate on trials compared to those with low scores [1-2] (8% vs 5.9% respectively, p= 0.012). Patients who participated in clinical trials had significantly longer median DTI (26 days vs 21 days; p <0.0001) and had a significantly lower number of comorbidities compared to non-participants (mean 0.55 vs. 0.69; p=0.032). Among patients with low IPI (0–2), 5-year OS was 89% trial participants (CTP) compared to 82% for non-participants (CTNP). Among patients with high IPI (3–5), 5-year OS was 78% for CTP vs 60%for CTNP. The multivariable Cox model demonstrated a significant interaction between trial participation and IPI, with trial participation with low IPI having a non-significant hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 with 95% CI (0.57,1.32), while trial participation with high IPI had a significant HR of 0.57 (0.44, 0.74). Additionally, increased age, male sex, black race, and lower DTI were associated with increased hazard. Conclusion: Patients at high risk of poor outcomes such as those with advanced age (80+), higher comorbidities burden, and those needing more urgent therapy (shorter DTI) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In this multi-institutional cohort of patients with LBCL treated at academic centers, frontline trial participants had outcomes that were equivalent or better than those receiving standard care. These finding underscore the value of clinical trial participation even in the frontline setting and support trial designs that expand inclusion- allowing participation of patients who are older, medically complex or in need urgent therapy.

Abstract Background: Rural/nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) counties face known barriers to comprehensive cancer care compared with metropolitan (metro) counties, which may impact the outcomes for lymphoma patients. We evaluated the impact metro vs nonmetro status on outcomes after a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the context of clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors. Methods: Of 7724 participants enrolled in the prospective LEO cohort study from 2015-2020, 7610 (98.5%) had their county of residence at diagnosis assigned a RUCC (2013) code. We compared outcomes of participants from metro (defined as RUCC 1-3, which are central counties with ≥1 urban areas of ≥50,000) vs nonmetro counties (RUCC 4-9, which are counties with smaller urban areas as well as completely rural). We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from univariable and multivariable Cox models for associations of metro status with overall survival (OS). Cause of death (lymphoma [including treatment related], non-lymphoma, unknown) was assessed using a competing risk approach. Results: Compared with metro counties (N=6096), LEO participants from nonmetro counties (N=1514) were older (median age 64 vs 62 years; p<0.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic white (94% vs 75%; p<0.001) and married (84% vs 75%; p<0.001), and less likely to have completed graduate or professional school education (16% vs 27%; p<0.001). There were no notable differences (>5%) by metro status for sex, employment status, NHL subtype, stage, performance status, abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), international prognostic index (IPI), number of comorbidities, time from diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) or participation in a clinical trial. Compared with LEO participants from metro counties, those from nonmetro counties had inferior OS at 5 years (74.5% vs 78.4%; HR=1.23, CI 1.10-1.37; p<0.001). The OS association only slightly attenuated after adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity and NHL subtype (HR=1.20, CI 1.07-1.34; p=0.002), and held in models that adjusted for clinical prognostic factors (stage, NHL subtype, IPI, DTI), socioeconomic status (SES; education, marital status), health status (comorbidity, frailty), or lifestyle factors (smoking, body mass index). Using a competing risk model, the cumulative incidence of death at 5 years due to lymphoma (16.9% vs 14.1%; p=0.002) and non-lymphoma (5.9% vs 3.9%; p=0.002) was higher for participants from nonmetro vs metro counties, respectively. For participants <65 years, nonmetro vs metro status had inferior OS (HR=1.40, CI 1.17-1.67; p<0.001). This association remained after adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity and NHL subtype (HR=1.36, CI 1.14-1.63; p<0.001), as well as after adjustment for clinical prognostic, SES, health status, or lifestyle factors. The cumulative incidence of death at 5 years due to lymphoma was higher in participants from nonmetro vs metro counties (15.1% vs 11.5%; p=0.002), while there was no difference by metro status for non-lymphoma related deaths (2.1% vs 1.7%; p=0.47). In contrast, for participants age 65+ years, there was no differences by metro status for OS (HR=1.04, CI 0.91-1.20; p=0.56). After adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity and NHL subtype, participants from nonmetro areas had inferior OS (HR=1.12, 0.97-1.29) although this was not statistically significant (p=0.13), and was attenuated in models adjusting for clinical, health status, or lifestyle factors. The cumulative incidence of death at 5 years due to lymphoma was no different in participants from nonmetro vs metro counties (18.9% vs 18.0%; p=0.37), while non-lymphoma related deaths were higher in nonmetro counties (9.9% vs 6.8%; p=0.017). Conclusion: LEO participants from nonmetro vs metro counties had inferior OS overall, although this was predominately observed for younger (<65 years) participants. These associations did not appear to be explained by demographic, NHL subtype, clinical, SES, health status, or lifestyle factors. Of particular note, the risk of death due to lymphoma was higher in nonmetro areas for participants <65 years but not those 65+ years, while the risk of death due to other causes was higher in nonmetro areas for participants 65+ years but not those <65 years. These findings require further study, particularly related to barriers to care, and suggest the potential need for age-specific strategies to optimize outcomes for NHL patients from nonmetro/rural areas.

Abstract Background: Given a potential risk of extravasation with vesicants and irritants, central venous catheters (CVCs), such as port-a-cath or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), are commonly used for the administration of anthracycline-based chemotherapy. However, CVC placement can result in treatment delay, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), catheter malfunction, and added burdens (eg, financial, travel, etc), partly due to the need for regular flushing. Peripheral intravenous (PIV) access is often utilized in the academic setting with select frontline chemotherapy regimens. However, there is limited data reporting on the safety of PIV in this setting. This large, multicenter RWA evaluated the use and associated complications of PIV and CVC for administering CHOP- or ABVD-based chemotherapy in patients (pts) with lymphoma. Methods: We conducted a retrospective RWA across 8 U.S. centers among pts aged ≥18 years with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma who were consecutively treated with ABVD or CHOP-based anthracycline chemotherapy via PIV or CVC access between 2010-2024. Choice of catheter placement was at the discretion of the pt's treating physician. Detailed baseline and safety data were collected. The primary outcome was extravasation; secondary outcomes included infiltration, DVT, cellulitis, erythema, and pain. Standard definitions of extravasation and other complications were used (Jackson-Rose J. CJON 2017). Rates of complications were compared via Fischer exact testing. Results: A total of 1,414 pts were included in the analysis: 790 in each arm (ie, PIV vs CVC). Of these, 624 were unique to each group, while 166 pts received chemotherapy via both modalities (PIV and CVC during the treatment course). Overall, 78.9% of pts completed all treatment as planned via PIV. Median age was 63 years (IQR 45–75) in the PIV group and 61 years (IQR 40–73) in the CVC group. Male sex comprised 57% vs 51%, ECOG 0–1 performance status was 83% vs 76%, and advanced-stage disease (stage III/IV) was present in 51% vs 62%, respectively. Lymphoma subtypes were comparable: DLBCL/high-grade/B-cell NOS (54.5% vs 56.1%), Hodgkin lymphoma (27.2% vs 27.5%), T-cell lymphoma (12.4% vs 6.6%), and indolent/mantle cell lymphoma (5.6% vs 6.7%). Among those receiving chemotherapy via CVC, 78.5% were treated through a port-a-cath and 21.5% via PICC. CHOP-based and ABVD-based regimens were administered to 68% and 32% of PIV pts, and 69.6% and 30.4% of CVC pts, respectively. A total of 4,084 (PIV) vs 3,859 (CVC) treatment cycles were delivered, corresponding to 4,347 (PIV) vs 4,884 (CVC) anthracycline infusion days. There was 1 documented case of extravasation in the CVC group and 2 suspected cases in the PIV group (p=0.9); for PIV, this translates to a per pt risk of 0.3% (or 0.05% of infusion days). The two PIV cases involved elderly women with DLBCL receiving CHOP. Both developed localized symptoms post-infusion and were treated conservatively (DMSO/warm compresses or dexrazoxane/ice), with full symptom resolution within 1 week and 1 day, respectively. No tissue or vascular injury occurred. Additionally, there were no significant differences between the PIV and CVC groups in the rates of induration/swelling (1.8% vs 2.0%, p=0.85), phlebitis/cellulitis (2.4% vs 2.4%, p=0.9), venous thromboembolism (VTE; 1.4% vs 2.0%, p=0.32), or erythema (3.8% vs 5.1%, p=0.27). Pain or tenderness at the infusion site (8.5% vs 2.9%, p=0.001) and infiltration (1.4 vs 0.13%, p=0.006) were more frequent in the PIV group. Chronic vascular complications related to prior VTE was slightly lower in the PIV group (0.13% vs 0.9%, p=0.06), but not significant. Additional details from a propensity score-matched analysis will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: This is the largest known analysis to date evaluating the safety of PIV access for anthracycline-based chemotherapy in >1,500 lymphoma pts over a recent 15-year period, representing >9,000 total treatments with CHOP or ABVD. PIV access was found to be safe and associated with a low rate of serious complications. Moreover, extravasation was rare and there was not a significant difference observed between PIV and CVC use. While PIV use was associated with higher rates of local pain/tenderness and infiltration, the events were uncommon and self-limited. Despite the widespread default to CVC placement in many centers, these findings support the selective use of PIV in appropriate pts as elucidated here.

Introduction: Patients with non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), especially adolescents and young adults, can face late effects from treatment, including decreased fertility. Due to time constraints prior to treatment initiation and sometimes financial limitations, implementing fertility counseling and referral-based guideline care remains challenging. We aim to understand the occurrence and predictors of fertility counseling and preservation in patients with NHL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study. Methods: The LEO cohort prospectively enrolled newly diagnosed patients with NHL from 2015-2020 at 8 academic medical centers in the US. Clinical. Treatment data were abstracted from medical records, pathology was reviewed and classified by a LEO pathologist, and participants completed a self-administered questionnaire. Participants were then prospectively followed to identify outcomes and collect additional patient reported data, including a survivorship questionnaire at follow-up 3 years (FU3) after diagnosis that included items on fertility counseling and preservation. The questionnaire contained two fertility questions analyzed: whether healthcare providers discussed the impact of lymphoma treatment on fertility, and whether providers discussed the process of fertility preservation. This analysis was based on participants aged 18-50 years at enrollment and who completed the fertility questions at FU3. Women who had undergone natural or procedural menopause and men who had undergone vasectomy pre-treatment were excluded. We estimated the association of demographic and clinical factors with fertility preservation using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from univariate and multivariable logistic regression models. Results: Seventy-seven patients were included in the analysis: 36 females (46%) and 41 males (53%). The median age of diagnosis was 40 years (IQR 30-45), and 36 (47%) participants were in the age 18-39-year category. Participant self-identified race/ethnicity was 69% non-Hispanic White, 22% Hispanic, 4% Black and 3% Asian. Sixty (78%) patients were treated with alkylators, 12 (15.6%) with non-alkylators, and 5 (6.5%) with radiation. Fifty-five (71%) of the patients were classified as having aggressive lymphoma, with follicular, extranodal marginal zone, primary cutaneous follicle center, and nodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma defined as indolent and remaining subtypes aggressive. Around 6% of female patients underwent fertility preservation after lymphoma diagnosis, compared to 12.2% of male patients. All the patients who had undergone fertility preservation after lymphoma diagnosis were in the 18-39-year age group. On univariate analysis, females were more likely to have undergone fertility toxicity and preservation discussions compared to males, with 72% of females and 59% of males recalling a discussion regarding fertility (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.7-4.9, p=0.21). Those age 18-39 were significantly more likely to have undergone fertility discussion compared to those aged 40-50 (OR 10.2, 95% CI 3.3-39.2, p<0.001). Patients treated with alkylating therapy were significantly more likely to undergo fertility discussion when compared to those on non-alkylating therapy (OR 9.0, 95% CI 2.3-45.5, p<0.01). In addition, 75% of those with aggressive lymphoma compared to 41% of patients with indolent lymphoma had fertility discussion (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.5-12.4, p=0.01). White patients were significantly less likely than Hispanic, Black and Asian patients to have fertility discussion (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.04-0.6, p<0.01). In the multivariable analysis, alkylating therapy (OR 8.9, 95% CI 1.6-66.7) and age 18-39 years (OR 10.9, 95% CI 2.9-55.3) remained significant predictors of fertility discussion; White race was also trending towards significance (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.04-1.0, p=0.08). Aggressive lymphoma subtype was not a significant predictor of fertility discussion. Conclusions: In this cohort of lymphoma survivors 3 years post-diagnosis, we found that Hispanic patients, those diagnosed at a younger age and exposed to alkylating chemotherapy agents were significantly more likely to undergo discussions regarding the effects of lymphoma treatment on fertility. Our study highlights the importance of all cancer patients of childbearing age having the opportunity to address fertility concerns during clinic visits.

Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL) are incurable and disproportionately affect adults age >65 in whom frailty and functional impairment can impact disease management. The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) is a 13-item screening tool that incorporates age, self-rated health, physical function limitations, and functional disabilities to identify vulnerable older community-dwelling adults. Adults with a VES-13 score of >3 have a fourfold increased risk of death or functional decline over 2 years as compared to adults with a score <3 (Saliba et al, JAGS 2001). Our team previously showed that VES-13 >3 was associated with a higher risk of 1-year mortality in NHL (OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.15-4.96, Fama et al, ASH 2019), including in adults age <65. In this study, we determined whether VES-13 scores >3 were associated with quality of life (QOL) changes in adults with iNHL across the age spectrum. Methods: We used the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study to identify adults enrolled from 2015-2020 with grade 1-3A follicular and marginal zone lymphoma (FL, MZL) who completed the VES-13 at enrollment and QOL surveys at enrollment and follow-up. The LEO Cohort Study enrolls participants within 6 months of diagnosis and collects information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and patient-reported functional assessment. For this analysis we included QOL measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1 and 2 post-enrollment. The FACT-G total score was the sum of 4 subscales (range): physical (PWB, 0-28), social/family (SFWB, 0-28), emotional (EWB, 0-24), and functional (FWB, 0-28) well-being. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better overall QOL. VES-13 scores ranged from 0 (lowest risk for death or decline) to 10+ (highest risk). Generalized linear mixed models evaluated changes in QOL from baseline based on VES-13 score >3 (vulnerable) vs <3 (non-vulnerable), within groups by age at enrollment >65 and <65. Results: Our study included 1,186 participants: 42% age >65, 54% female, 84% non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic, 3.3% Black, and 1.4% Asian/Pacific Islander. Most (68%) were diagnosed with FL. FLIPI was high risk for 20%, and MALT-IPI was high risk for 23%. In the VES-13 <3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 86.5 (12.0), PWB 21.0 (3.5), SFWB 24.3 (4.3), EWB 18.8 (3.7), and FWB 22.3 (4.9). In the VES-13 >3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 70.4 (16.5), PWB 15.4 (5.6), SFWB 22.3 (5.5), EWB 17.5 (4.5), and FWB 15.3 (6.4); all significantly lower than the VES-13 >3 group (all p<0.01). In adults <65, 63 (9%) had a VES-13 >3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline in PWB at years 1 and 2 when compared to VES-13 <3 (changes in baseline PWB were 2.1, 2.9 for VES-13 >3 vs 0.2, 0.1 for VES-13 <3, all p<0.05). Similarly, we observed improvement in FWB from baseline at years 1 and 2 in the VES-13 >3 vs <3 group (2.4, 2.9 vs 0.4, -0.1, respectively all p<0.05). The VES-13 >3 group had a decline in their EWB at 1 year vs the VES <3 group (-0.5 vs 1.2, respectively, p=0.003). At year 2, total FACT-G improved from baseline in the VES-13 >3 group (5.6 for VES-13 >3 vs -0.5 for VES-13 <3, p=0.002). SFWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. In adults >65, 83 (17%) had a VES-13 >3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline PWB (1.3, 1.5 for VES-13 >3 vs. 0.1, -0.1 for VES-13 <3), FWB (3.3, 2.2 for VES-13 >3 vs. 0.5, 0.1 for VES-13 <3), and total FACT-G score (5.2, 3.4 for VES-13 >3 vs. 1.0, -0.4 for VES-13 <3) when compared to VES-13 <3 at years 1 and 2 (all p<0.05). SFWB and EWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. While there was improvement from baseline PWB and FWB in the VES-13 >3 group, QOL scores across all subscales remained below the VES-13 <3 group in the study period for both age groups. Statistical significance was maintained in models adjusted for baseline characteristics, including initial treatment strategy (observation, systemic, vs local) for both age groups. Conclusion: Although the vulnerable group reported worse QOL throughout the study period compared to the non-vulnerable group, survivors in the vulnerable group saw greater improvement in their physical and functional well-being at 1- and 2-years post-diagnosis. Additional analyses are underway to identify drivers of improvement in physical and functional well-being in vulnerable adults diagnosed with iNHL.

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

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

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

Abstract The prognostic relevance of diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is unknown. Hence, we sought to evaluate the impact of DTI on outcomes in MCL using 3 large datasets (1) the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource, (2) patients enrolled in the ALL Age Asthma Cohort/CALGB 50403, and (3) a multisitecohort of patients with MCL. Patients were a priori divided into 2 groups, 0 to 14 days (short DTI) and 15 to 60 days (long DTI). The patients in whom observation was deemed appropriate were excluded. One thousand ninety-seven patients newly diagnosed with MCL and available DTI were included in the study. The majority (73%) had long DTI (n=797). Patients with short DTI had worse eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS ≥2), higher lactate dehydrogenase, bone marrow involvement, more frequent B symptoms, higher MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI ≥6.2), and were less likely to receive intensive induction therapy than long DTI group. The median progression-free survival (2.5 years vs 4.8 years, p&lt;0.0001) and overall survival (7.8 years vs. 11.8 years, p&lt;0.0001) were significantly inferior in the short DTI group than the long DTI cohort and remained significant for progression-free survival and overall survival in multivariable analysis. We show that the DTI is an important prognostic factor in patients newly diagnosed with MCL and is strongly associated with adverse clinical factors and poor outcomes. DTI should be reported in all the patients newly diagnosed with MCL who are enrolling in clinical trials and steps must be taken to ensure selection bias is avoided.