Smith, Sonali M.

Abstract Background: Novel therapies for multiply relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) are often evaluated in single arm trials with no comparative data on patients receiving usual care. This study (ReCORD-FL) therefore sought to construct a historical control cohort to augment current and future single arm trials in relapsed/refractory (r/r) FL. The analytic aims were to document patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in a r/r FL population treated with standard therapies in routine practice. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study via medical record review in 10 oncology centers across North America and Europe. Adult patients were required to meet several criteria defining multiply r/r FL (i.e., r/r after ≥2 lines of therapy, or relapsed during or within 6 months after completion of anti-CD20 antibody maintenance, or relapsed after autologous HSCT). Patients were also required to have ≥1 line of systemic therapy (i.e., first qualifying salvage therapy) after first meeting the r/r FL criteria; the date of first qualifying salvage therapy defined the study index date. At index, patients were required to have grade 1-3A FL, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and no evidence of prior histological transformation. Outcomes were observed from the index date and from the start of each therapy line until the earliest of death, last follow-up, or December 31, 2020 (data cutoff). Endpoints were complete response (CR) rate, overall response rate (ORR), time to next treatment (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In a subgroup analysis, endpoints were examined by double refractoriness (r/r to both an anti-CD20 mAb and an alkylator) and POD24 status at index (best response of stable/progressive disease or relapsed within 24 months of front-line anti-CD20 mAb-containing therapy). Time to event outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 187 patients were identified for inclusion (Table 1). Most patients' (80.2%) first qualifying salvage (index) therapy occurred in third line (3L) (range: 3L - 6L). Anti-CD20 mAb plus chemotherapy (including alkylating and/or non-alkylating agents) was the most common index regimen (64.2% of patients); 8% received anti-CD20 mAb monotherapy, 11.2% received alkylator-based chemotherapy alone (i.e., an alkylator-containing regimen without anti-CD20 mAb), and 16.6% received other therapies (i.e., other regimens containing neither anti-CD20 mAb nor alkylator). Median follow-up from FL diagnosis was 9 years (range: 1 - 21 years), over which a median of 5 (range: 3 - 11) lines of therapy were observed per patient. CR rate and ORR to the index treatment were 39.0% and 70.6%, respectively (Table 2). Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TTNT and PFS from index were 14.4 (11.8 - 18.6) and 14.6 (11.0 - 18.0) months, respectively; median OS from index was 128 months (10.6 years). Compared with non-double refractory, those with double refractory disease at index had numerically lower CR (34.3% vs. 45.1%) and ORR (67.6% vs. 74.4%) and substantially shorter median (95% CI) TTNT (11.8 [9.0 - 15.2] vs. 20.9 [14.4 - 26.2] months), PFS (10.7 [7.7 - 14.5] vs. 20.1 [14.4 - 25.4] months), and OS (78.1 [45.8 - 146.7] vs. [Not Reached] months). Outcomes were similarly less favorable for patients who were POD24 at index. All outcomes steadily worsened across successive treatment lines (Table 2, Figures 1a-c). ORR, for example, decreased from 69.5% in 3L (n = 187) to 45.8% in 5L (n = 96) and 41.2% in ≥8L (n = 51), while median (95% CI) PFS decreased from 11.8 (10.1 - 16.6) months in 3L to 9.4 (6.8 - 13.1) months in 5L and 4.4 (1.7 - 5.9) months in ≥8L; median (95% CI) OS had a similar trend: 133.7 (78.1 - 232.4), 46.3 (31.7 - 76.5), and 11.4 (5.9 - 21.2) months in 3L, 5L, and ≥8L, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings further demonstrate the poor outcomes and limited survival in FL patients with multiply r/r, double refractory, or POD24 disease. In assessing response rates and PFS, it is important to consider that response assessment criteria and schedules were more heterogenous in the routine practice settings of ReCORD-FL than in clinical trials. Based on comparability of results with another similar study (SCHOLAR-5), the robustness of data collected, and continued low likelihood of randomized trials in this area, ReCORD-FL provides valuable historical control data for new r/r FL therapies in development. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Salles: Beigene, BMS/Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Ipsen, anssen, Novartis. Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Miltneiy, Rapt, TAKEDA, Velosbio, Allogene: Consultancy; Abbvie, Epizyme, Morphosys, Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Schuster: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kuruvilla: Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Antengene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Medison Ventures: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria. Patten: GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Research Funding; ROCHE: Research Funding; ASTRA ZENECA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria; ABBVIE: Honoraria. von Tresckow: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: congress and travel support; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding. Smith: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Other: Study investigator; Celgene, Genetech, AbbVie: Consultancy. Davis: Novartis, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Eisai, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Nagar: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai: Research Funding. Zhang: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bollu: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jousseaume: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ramos: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Link: Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding.

SummaryIn young and fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), intensive induction therapy followed by a consolidative autologous haematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT) is the standard of care in the front‐line setting. Recently, time‐to‐event analysis has emerged as an important risk assessment tool in lymphoma, though its impact in MCL is not well defined. We utilized the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database to evaluate the effect of post‐autoHCT time to relapse on overall survival (OS) over time in 461 patients who underwent autoHCT within 12 months of MCL diagnosis. On multivariate analysis, the impact of relapse on OS was greatest at the six‐month [hazard ratio (HR) = 7·68], 12‐month (HR = 6·68), and 18‐month (HR = 5·81) landmark timepoints. Using a dynamic landmark model we demonstrate that adjusted OS at five years following each landmark timepoint improved with time for relapsing and non‐relapsing patients. Furthermore, early relapse (<18 months) following autoHCT defines a high‐risk group with inferior post‐relapse OS. This retrospective analysis highlights the impact of time to relapse on OS in MCL patients undergoing up‐front autoHCT and emphasizes the need to consider novel therapeutic approaches for patients suffering early relapse.

SummaryFimepinostat (CUDC‐907), a first‐in‐class oral small‐molecule inhibitor of histone deacetylase and phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase, demonstrated efficacy in a phase 1 study of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large and high‐grade B‐cell lymphomas (DLBCL/HGBL), particularly those with increased MYC protein expression and/orMYCgene rearrangement/copy number gain (MYC‐altered disease). Therefore, a phase 2 study of fimepinostat was conducted in this patient population with 66 eligible patients treated. The primary end‐point of overall response (OR) rate for patients with MYC‐IHC ≥40% (n = 46) was 15%. Subsequently, exploratory pooled analyses were performed including patients treated on both the phase 1 and 2 studies based upon the presence of MYC‐altered disease as well as a biomarker identified by Virtual Inference of Protein activity by Enriched Regulon analysis (VIPER). For these patients with MYC‐altered disease (n = 63), the overall response (OR) rate was 22% with seven responding patients remaining on treatment for approximately two years or longer, and VIPER yielded a three‐protein biomarker classification with positive and negative predictive values of ≥85%. Prolonged durations of response were achieved by patients with MYC‐altered R/R DLBCL/HGBL treated with single‐agent fimepinostat. Combination therapies and/or biomarker‐based patient selection strategies may lead to higher response rates in future clinical trials.

7521 Background: In MCL, outcomes are heterogeneous and the clinical significance of the timing of relapse following autoHCT and its impact on OS is not well defined. Using the CIBMTR database, we evaluate the effect of post-autoHCT time to relapse on OS over time. Methods: Adult MCL pts treated with up to two lines of rituximab-based induction therapy followed by first autoHCT within 1-year of diagnosis were identified between 2000-2018. Primary outcomes included OS and post-relapse OS. A dynamic landmark analysis was performed at 6-month intervals following autoHCT to evaluate the impact of relapse on OS while adjusting for significant patient- and disease-related variables. Post-relapse OS was evaluated in pts who experienced relapse. Results: Of the 461 pts included in the analysis, the median age was 60 years (range 29-78), 57% had a KPS of ≥ 90, 83% had stage III-IV disease at diagnosis, and 76% had extranodal involvement. BEAM was the most common conditioning regimen (58%) and 23% of pts received post-autoHCT maintenance rituximab. With a median follow-up of 67 months, the 5-year progression-free survival was 45.8% with a 5-year OS of 69.6%. On multivariate analysis, age ≥60 years was associated with worse OS (HR= 1.55, 95% CI 1.08-2.24, p=0.0191) at all landmark timepoints. Additionally, the impact of relapse on OS varied with time (p=0.006) and was greatest at the 6-month (HR=7.68), 12-month (HR=6.68), and 18-month (HR=5.81) landmark timepoints. The risk of death for relapsing pts decreased with time and was mirrored by an improvement in adjusted OS for both relapsing and non-relapsing pts. In total, 9.3% of patients relapsed prior to the 18-month landmark timepoint. Relapse at the 6-month, 12-month, and 18-month landmark timepoints correlated with a poor median post-relapse OS of 9 months, 24 months, and 34 months, respectively (Table). Conversely, patients relapsing after the 18-month landmark timepoint experienced a median post-relapse OS ranging from 44-67 months. Conclusions: In MCL, early relapse (< 18-months) following autoHCT defines a high-risk group with inferior post-relapse OS. This population should be considered for clinical trials or novel therapeutic approaches including early utilization of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.[Table: see text]

Background: With the incorporation of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging as part of the standard staging evaluation of follicular lymphoma (FL), it is generally recommended to obtain the diagnostic biopsy from a lesion with the highest standardized uptake value (SUV) to rule out de novo histologic transformation (HT). In some cases such an approach might be impractical, while in other cases a biopsy from a diseased area with a high SUV may still demonstrate an indolent histology. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with FL with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of HT. Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, provide a better outcome than R-Bendamustine (BR). Furthermore, it is unknown whether rituximab (R) maintenance is beneficial in this setting. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of R-CHOP vs BR in newly diagnosed FL pts with high SUVmax at baseline PET and to clarify the role of maintenance. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified 261 consecutive pts with newly diagnosed biopsy-proven FL1-3A and a SUVmax≥13 on baseline PET, who were treated with frontline R-CHOP (n=183) or BR (n=78) at 7 US cancer centers based on the physician's choice. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from starting treatment until progression, relapse or death. Cut-offs of SUVmax ≥13≤18 and SUVmax&gt;18 were used for sub-analysis (Haematologica;2020;105:1907-1913). Results: Median age was 59 years. The baseline characteristics of the two groups differed significantly for a younger age (58 vs 62 years, p=0.009), a higher rate of B-symptoms (26% vs 10%, p=0.005) and baseline SUVmax&gt;18 (49% vs 36%, p=0.04) in the R-CHOP group. A diagnostic biopsy was obtained from the site at the highest SUV in 129 (71%) and 43 (55%) pts, respectively (p=0.01). These suggest a potential selection of R-CHOP in pts with adverse features. At the end of therapy (EoT), R-CHOP treated pts achieved higher PET-CT complete response rates (CR 82% vs 69%, p=0.02). This superiority held in pts with diagnostic biopsy at the highest SUV site (CR 83% vs 67%, p=0.03), but not in the others (CR 80% vs 71%, p=0.37). Progression occurred at EoT in 11 and 14 pts receiving R-CHOP and BR (6% vs 18%, p=0.02), with a higher rate of HT in the BR group (13% vs 4%, p=0.006). After a median follow-up of 76 months (range, 4-208 months), there was no significant difference in PFS between R-CHOP and BR treated pts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, p=0.34). PFS was strongly associated with FLIPI 2 (HR 2.32, p=0.01) and 3-5 (HR 2.69, p=0.003) in the univariate as well as in the multivariate analysis (FLIPI 2 HR 2.19, p=0.02; FLIPI 3-5 HR 2.51, p=0.01). There was a trend toward overall survival (OS) benefit in the R-CHOP group (Fig.1A). In the univariate analysis for OS, BR regimen (HR 2.12, p=0.03), age &gt;60 (HR 2.54, p=0.006), FLIPI 3-5 (HR 5.13, p=0.03) and biopsy at the highest SUV site (HR 0.44, p=0.01) were prognostic, however none of those remained significant in the multivariate analysis (BR regimen HR 1.84, p=0.09; age &gt;60 HR 1.92, p=0.08; FLIPI 3-5 HR 3.11, p=0.14; biopsy at the highest SUV site HR 0.60, p=0.13; SUVmax&gt;18 HR 1.87, p=0.055). Among pts with EoT response after R-CHOP or BR (n=170 and n=64, respectively), one third in each group (36% vs 41%, respectively) received R-maintenance for a median of 8 administrations (range, 2-12). A significant PFS advantage (landmark analysis) was observed with R-maintenance (Fig.1B; HR 0.53, p=0.02); however, this did not translate in survival benefit (HR 0.67, p=0.49). In a multivariable model, R-maintenance (HR 0.53, p=0.02), FLIPI 2 (HR 2.47, p=0.03) and 3-5 (HR 2.79, p=0.01) remained independent prognosticators of PFS, while no parameters significantly affected OS. The 2-year HT rate (10% vs 17%) and cumulative incidence did not statistically differ between R-CHOP and BR groups (Fig.1C, p=0.159). Early progression (POD24) occurred in 43 and 22 pts who received R-CHOP and BR, respectively (24% vs 28%) and resulted in a significantly higher risk of death (HR 4.12, p=0.006). Conclusion: In newly diagnosed FL pts with SUVmax≥13 at baseline PET, R-CHOP was more effective in achieving CR and reducing the risk of early HT compared with BR, and it was associated with a trend toward survival advantage. Rituximab maintenance significantly prolonged PFS. A prospective evaluation with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Joffe: Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ruella:Abclon, BMS, NanoString: Consultancy; Abclon: Consultancy, Research Funding; UPenn/Novartis: Patents & Royalties. Svoboda:Adaptive: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy. Witzig:Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding. Armand:Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria; Gamida Cell: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Younes:BioPath, Xynomic, Epizyme, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Janssen, Curis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Curis (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Novartis (Inst): Research Funding; Janssen, AbbVie, Merck, Curis, Epizyme, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda Millennium: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; MSKCC: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

PURPOSEDiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) presents as a limited-stage disease in 25% to 30% of patients, with better overall survival (OS) than that for advanced-stage disease but with continuous relapse regardless of treatment approach. The preferred treatment is abbreviated rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) and radiation therapy. On the basis of promising results of positron emission tomography (PET)–directed treatment approaches, we designed a National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) study to improve outcomes and decrease toxicity.METHODSPatients with nonbulky (< 10 cm) stage I/II untreated DLBCL received 3 cycles of standard R-CHOP therapy and underwent a centrally reviewed interim PET/computed tomography scan (iPET). Those with a negative iPET proceeded with 1 additional cycle of R-CHOP, whereas those with a positive iPET received involved field radiation therapy followed by ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy.RESULTSOf 158 patients enrolled, 132 were eligible and 128 underwent iPET, which was positive in 14 (11%) of the patients. With a median follow-up of 4.92 years (range, 1.1-7.7 years), only 6 patients progressed and 3 died as a result of lymphoma. Eleven patients died as a result of nonlymphoma causes at a median age of 80 years. The 5-year progression-free survival estimate was 87% (95% CI, 79% to 92%) and the OS estimate was 89% (95% CI, 82% to 94%), with iPET-positive and iPET-negative patients having similar outcomes.CONCLUSIONTo our knowledge, S1001 is the largest prospective study in the United States of limited-stage DLBCL in the rituximab era, with the best NCTN results in this disease subset. With PET-directed therapy, 89% of the patients with a negative iPET received R-CHOP × 4, and only 11% had a positive iPET and required radiation, with both groups having excellent outcomes. The trial establishes R-CHOP × 4 alone as the new standard approach to limited-stage disease for the absolute majority of patients.

8060 Background: ENKL is a rare and aggressive subtype of peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Due to its geographic predilection there is a paucity of data on clinical experiences from non-Asian countries. The purpose of this study was to analyze characteristics and outcomes of patients (pts) with ENKL identified from major academic centers in NA. Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed CD56+ ENKL were retrospectively identified. Analyses included disease characteristics, ethnicity, therapy, and outcomes. Results: 115 pts (63.5% Caucasian, 20% Asian, 16.5% other) were identified across 10 centers diagnosed between 5/1990-5/2011 (Era 1: pre-2000, n=16; Era 2: 2000-2005, n=45; Era 3: post-2005, n=54). Median age was 52 years (19-88). 75 (65%) had stage I/II disease and were treated with combined modality therapy (CMT) n=48, chemotherapy (CT) n=14 or radiotherapy (RT) n=14. 40 pts had stage III/IV disease and were treated with CT (n=23), CMT (n=12) or RT (n=5). CT regimens used alone or in CMT were either anthracycline-based (n=68) or other (n=29). 63% of stage I/II pts and 40% with stage III/IV achieved complete remission (CR). 30 pts underwent a stem cell transplant (SCT); 14 in first CR and 16 at progression/relapse (autologous, n=21; allogeneic, n=9). Pts with stage I/II disease had a better progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with stage III/IV (12 vs 5.2 months (p=0.003) and 41.5 vs 8.9 months (p<0.0001), respectively). For all stages, treatment with CMT compared with CT or RT alone was also associated with better PFS and OS, 18.0 vs 3.9 months (p<0.0001), and 41.5 vs 10.2 months (p=0.002) respectively. Non-anthracycline-based regimens were associated with better PFS (p=0.001) and OS (p=0.045). No survival differences were seen between Asian and non-Asian pts. Conclusions: This series represents one of the largest experiences of ENKL in NA. Our data are consistent with Asian studies in: 1) majority of pts present with early stage disease; 2) overall poor outcome; 3) superiority of CMT and non-anthracycline regimens. Advances in understanding biology and international collaborative efforts are required to improve outcome in this rare entity.