Syrbu, Sergei

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

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

Background: The goal of clinical trial eligibility criteria is to identify a population of patients that have high risk disease or have unmet needs with standard of care therapy. Frontline trials of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) include patients with International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 as a way to identify a high risk population. Trials typically include patients with IPI score=2, and sometimes IPI score=1, to expand the eligible patient population. However, broader patient populations must be balanced by the potential inclusion of low-risk patients with excellent outcomes to standard of care therapy, leading to potentially underpowered trials. IPI is a sum of dichotomous variables which makes implementation easy but can result in heterogeneity in outcomes within IPI scores. This heterogeneity may be caused by unequal prognostic information across IPI variables, loss of information within IPI variables due to the use of cutoffs, as well as information captured by variables that are not included in the IPI. In prior modeling of outcomes in DLBCL (Maurer et al, AJH 2016), we identified that: i) LDH has a strong prognostic ability beyond the upper limit of normal (ULN) and ii) bulky disease is an independent variable for prognosis. Here we evaluate if the presence of either of these two variables, easily captured at diagnosis within the current standard clinical work-up, can identify a high-risk subset of patients within the population of those with IPI scores of 1-2. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis in the LEO Cohort at 8 academic medical centers from 2015-2020 and prospectively followed. Inclusion criteria for this analysis was aggressive B-cell lymphoma typically included in frontline trials (e.g. DLBCL, high grade B-cell lymphoma, FL3B), IPI 1-5, frontline therapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, stage II-IV disease and ages 18-80 years. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until progression, initiation of 2 nd line therapy, or death due to any cause; EFS was evaluated at 24 months (EFS24). Very high LDH was defined as LDH&gt;1.3xULN based on prior modeling (Maurer et al, AJH 2016) and bulky disease was defined as maximum tumor diameter (MTD) of 7cm or greater. IPI 1 and 2 were first evaluated separately and then combined due to similar outcomes in patients with very high LDH and/or bulky disease. High risk IPI1-2 was defined as the presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH within an IPI score of 1-2. Confirmation was performed in a similar cohort of patients enrolled in the Iowa/Mayo SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) from 2002-2015; bulky disease was defined using a 10cm cutoff per availability in MER data collection forms. Results: 1560 patients from LEO were analyzed; median age was 64 years (IQR: 54-71), 42% were female and 83% had stage III/IV disease; subtype was DLBCL, NOS in 1335 (86%). IPI was 1-2 in 766 patients, 3 in 496 patients and 4-5 in 298 patients ( table). 391 (51%) with IPI1-2 had either bulky disease and/or very high LDH (high risk IPI1-2) and 375 had low-risk IPI1-2. EFS24 in high risk IPI1-2 (71.6%, 95% CI: 67.2-76.3) was significantly inferior to IPI1-2 without bulky disease or very high LDH (85.2, 95% CI: 81.7-88.9 logrank p=0.0035, figure) and similar to patients with IPI3 (70.7%, 95% CI: 66.8-74.9). Consistent results were observed in 1014 patients analyzed in the MER using a higher cutoff for bulky disease (10cm) due to data availability ( table). Patients with high risk IPI1-2 had significantly shorter diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in both the LEO (per-week OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.77-0.88) and MER (per-week OR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.68-0.87) cohorts compared to low risk IPI1-2, both p&lt;0.0001). In sensitivity analysis, LEO results were similar when performed in the subset of patients with DLBCL, NOS. Conclusion: The presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH at presentation identifies a high-risk subset of patients with IPI 1-2 that have similar outcomes to patients with IPI 3 disease. These simple criteria can be easily implemented within existing clinical trial diagnostic work-ups. Future trial designs in frontline aggressive B-cell lymphoma should include patients with IPI 3-5 and patients with IPI 1-2 with either bulky disease and/or very high LDH to better define a high-risk population of patients for clinical trial eligibility.

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

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

Abstract Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) is an important clinical endpoint in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 with frontline immunochemotherapy have minimal loss of lifetime compared to age- and sex-matched general population. However, the prognostic role of EFS24 in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has not been well studied, possibly due to the perception of continued relapse pattern and poor survival outcome of MCL historically. A recent study from our group demonstrated evolving frontline therapy pattern from 2002-2009 ("Era 1") to 2010-2015 ("Era 2") which was associated with improved EFS and overall survival (OS) in Era 2. In the current study, we sought to explore the prognostic role of EFS24 in the two eras. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from 9/2002 through 6/2015 were identified from Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), a prospective cohort study of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. OS was defined as time from diagnosis (or the EFS24 defining event where applicable) to death from any cause and was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Expected OS accounting for age and sex was generated in R by using the general US population as the reference group. Observed versus expected OS was summarized by using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of observed to expected deaths. Cumulative incidence of lymphoma-specific death was analyzed using Gray's test, with deaths from all other causes treated as competing events. Results: A total of 343 patients were included, 175 from Era 1 (median follow-up 13.0 years) and 168 from Era 2 (median follow-up 6.9 years). Age, sex and simplified MIPI score were similar between the 2 groups. Patients diagnosed in Era 2 had better OS, with a 5-year OS of 68.4% vs 59.2% (simplified MIPI-adjusted hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93). Patients diagnosed in both eras had inferior OS compared to the general population, with an SMR of 3.26 (95% CI 2.70-3.89, P&lt;0.001) in Era 1 and 2.63 (95% CI 2.03-3.36, P&lt;0.001) in Era 2. Patients diagnosed in Era 1 who achieved EFS24 (n=98) still had inferior OS compared to the general population, with an SMR of 2.23 (95% CI 1.67-2.92, P&lt;0.001) (Figure 1A). In contrast, for patients diagnosed in Era 2 who achieved EFS24 (n=99), no evidence of OS difference was found compared to the general population, with an SMR of 1.31 (95% CI 0.78-2.07, P=0.31) (Figure 1B). The primary cause of death after diagnosis was lymphoma-related for patients diagnosed in both eras. The 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 28.8% in Era 1 and 20.5% in Era 2. In patients who were diagnosed in Era 1 and achieved EFS24, the primary cause of death after achieving EFS24 remained to be lymphoma-related, with a 5-year rate of 19.8% compared to 6.2% for lymphoma-unrelated causes (Figure 1C). In contrast, in patients who were diagnosed in Era 2 and achieved EFS24, the rate of lymphoma-related death was no longer higher than that of lymphoma-unrelated death, with a 5-year rate of 2.1% vs 5.5%, respectively (Figure 1D). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to only patients who received standard frontline immunochemotherapy, similar results were obtained. For example, in patients who achieved EFS24, the SMR compared to the general population was 2.89 (95% CI 2.00-4.04, P&lt;0.001) in Era 1 and 0.89 (95% CI 0.43-1.64, P=0.82) in Era 2. The 5-year rates of deaths due to lymphoma-related vs lymphoma-unrelated causes were 20.7% vs 6.2% in Era 1 and 1.3% vs 4.9% in Era 2. Conclusions: MCL survival outcome has improved for patients first diagnosed in the more recent era (2010-2015, compared to 2002-2009), likely due to improved frontline therapy as well as better salvage treatments (such as lenalidomide and BTK inhibitors). In the more recent treatment era, patients who achieved EFS24 had survival approaching the age- and sex-matched general population. In addition, these patients had a low risk of dying from lymphoma and were more likely to die from other causes. Longer follow-up (e.g., in Era 2) and external validation in other series are necessary to confirm the prognostic role of EFS24. With more efficacious salvage treatment options and likely continued improvement of OS in MCL, EFS24 may become an important clinical endpoint in frontline therapy of MCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Link: Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy. Farooq: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

AbstractBecause there have been a dvances in frontline treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) over the last 2 decades, we sought to characterize the changes in frontline treatment patterns and their association with outcomes. Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from September 2002 through June 2015 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study, and clinical characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes were compared between patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2009 (Era 1) compared with 2010 to 2015 (Era 2). Patient age, sex, and simplified MCL International Prognostic Index (sMIPI) score were similar between the 2 groups. In patients age 65 years or younger, there was less use of rituximab plus hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (R-Hyper-CVAD) (16.1% vs 8.8%) but more use of rituximab plus maximum-strength cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-maxi-CHOP) alternating with rituximab plus high-dose cytarabine (R-HiDAC), also known as the Nordic regimen, and R-CHOP alternating with rituximab plus dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin (R-DHAP) (1.1% vs 26.4%) and less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens (64.5% vs 35.2%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 12.1%) in Era 2 (P &lt; .001). These changes were associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; 5-year EFS, 34.3% vs 50.0%; P = .010) and overall survival (OS; 5-year OS, 68.8% vs 81.6%; P = .017) in Era 2. In patients older than age 65 years, there was less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like therapy (39.0% vs 14.3%) and nonstandard systemic therapy (36.6% vs 13.0%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 49.4%). These changes were associated with a trend for improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.4% vs 37.5%; P = .051) in Era 2. The shift from R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens to R-bendamustine was associated with improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.0% vs 44.6%; P = .008) in Era 2. Results from this prospective cohort study provide critical real-world evidence for improved outcomes with evolving frontline patterns of care in patients with MCL.

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

Introduction Primary mediastinal large B cell lymphoma (PMBCL) is a rare non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with a female predominance; often presenting with a large anterior mediastinal mass. Though PMBCL has clinical and molecular features overlapping with Hodgkin lymphoma, it is a distinct entity defined by the World Health Organization classification. PMBCL is heterogeneously treated, and most patients receive front line therapy with either rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (R-CHOP) with radiotherapy (RT), or the more intensive etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin with rituximab (EPOCH-R) regimen. Diagnosis of PMBCL is made using clinicopathologic criteria and radiographic imaging, however gene expression profiling (GEP) studies reveal a characteristic genotypic signature distinct from diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Molecular classification of PMBCL using the Lymph3Cx assay from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE) is feasible, reproducible, and highly concordant in a training and validation cohort (Mottok et al. Blood 2018). Using a multicenter cohort of patients, we sought to estimate the rate of mis-match among patients with a clinical diagnosis of PMBCL using Lymph3Cx, and describe treatment selections and outcomes for each group. Methods Patients were identified from a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed NHL from the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource, and the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort. Patients were enrolled between 2002-2019, and included if they had clinically defined PMBCL. FFPE was retrieved from hematopathology archives of participating academic centers. All diagnoses of PMBCL were based on expert hematopathology review at the time of therapy, and all cases underwent classification by GEP using the Lymph3Cx assay. Lymph3Cx was performed in the clinical lab at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Contiguous unstained sections were deparaffinized and macrodissected to enrich for tumor content before RNA isolation;100-200 ng of total RNA was used in an nCounter Elements XT, hybridized, and processed the following day using the nCounter FLEX system. Raw counts were processed through the Lymph3Cx algorithm and results reported as probability of PMBCL (≥0.90 as PMBCL, ≤0.10 as DLBCL all other results "Unclear PMBCL/DLBCL") (A. Mottok et al, Blood, 2018). For cases classified as DLBCL, the Lymph2Cx cell-of-origin classifier results was reported (Scott et al, JCO, 2016). Time to event endpoints were described with Kaplan-Meier plots by groups defined by mismatch status and compared with a logrank test. Binary outcomes will be presented with 90% exact confidence intervals. Results Fifty patients were identified. Median age was 35 years (range 19-70). Sixty four percent were women. Median follow up was 47 months. Treatments included R-CHOP (44%), EPOCH-R (44%), and MACOP-B [methotrexate with leucovorin rescue, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and bleomycin] (6%), other (4%). Ten patients (20%) had events (defined as progression or death). Three patients in the entire cohort (6%) died. The Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 47 months (median follow-up) is 92%. The Lymph3Cx assay yielded gene expression data of sufficient quality in 47/50 cases (94%, 90% CI=85.2, 98.3%). Of 47 cases clinically identified as PMBCL, 5 unclear were DLBCL/PMBCL and 1 was Germinal Center B cell subtype of DLBCL. Among these 6 patients, 4 received R-EPOCH (66%), 1 received R-CHOP (16.6%). One patient had missing treatment data. One patient had an event requiring subsequent therapy; all patients remain alive. Conclusions Using 47 patients with PMBCL defined by histology, clinical and radiographic findings, and molecular features, we demonstrate high concordance between clinical phenotype and molecular genotype of PMBCL by Lymph3Cx. Among the 6 patients not classified as PMBCL, most received R-EPOCH. Differences in outcome by mis-match status await longer follow-up and further accrual of subjects to our data base. Our data suggest molecular genotyping may have a role in mediastinal presentations of large cell lymphoma to optimize treatment decision making. Disclosures Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Flowers:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy. Friedberg:Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.: Other; Astellas: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.