Nowakowski, Grzegorz S.

Abstract Background: Limited data exist regarding histological transformation in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). In this study, we present the disease characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for histological transformation in WM. Methods: Patients with WM seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between January 1996 and December 2017 were included. Patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the setting of WM were considered to have transformation. Univariate analysis for comparing baseline characteristics of transformed versus non-transformed WM was performed using Wilcoxon, Fisher's exact and Chi square tests, as appropriate. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis. Cox proportional hazard method was used to assess the impact on time-to-transformation. All time-to-event analyses were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 1014 patients with WM, 42 patients (4.1%) developed histological transformation. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 9.5 years (95% CI: 8.8-10.5 years). The cumulative probability of transformation was 2.3% at 5 years, 5.3% at 10 years and 8.5% at 15 years from diagnosis of WM, respectively. There was no difference in the 5-year cumulative probability of transformation in patients with WM diagnosed between 1996-2000 (2.1%), 2001-2005 (2.9%), 2006-2010 (2.7%) and 2011-2015 (3.8%), p=0.61.The disease characteristics, laboratory parameters and histology at transformation are outlined in Table 1. In patients with DLBCL histology (n=39), Revised-International Prognostic Index was calculable in 28 patients, with 50% (n=14), 46% (n=13) and 4% (n=1) of DLBCL belonging to poor, good and very good risk groups, respectively. For DLBCL histology, 18 patients were classifiable using Hans algorithm into germinal center B-cell (GCB) type (n=3, 17%) and non-GCB type histology (n=15, 83%). The median lines of therapy received prior to transformation for the entire cohort was 2 (range 0-9), with 5 (11%) patients not having received any therapy for WM before transformation. Number of lines of alkylator-based therapy used prior to transformation [median 1 line (range 0-4)] was comparable to that used in patients in whom WM did not occur [median 1, (range 0-6); p=0.78]. The median time-to-transformation from diagnosis of WM was 4.8 years (95% CI: 2.6- 6.8 years). Overall survival (OS) from transformed disease was 3.2 years (95% CI 1.1-3.9 years). The 10-year OS of patients with WM who transformed was lower (46%) compared to patients without transformation (60%) with a trend towards statistical significance (p=0.08), Figure 1. The MYD88L265P mutation status was available in 333 patients in the entire cohort (22/42 pts in the transformed cohort and 311/972 in the non-transformed cohort. Of the 22 patients in the transformed WM cohort, 13 (59%) exhibited MYD88WT genotype and 9 (41%) exhibited MYD88L265P genotype. The risk of transformation was higher in patients with MYD88WT status [Odds ratio 6.3 (95% CI: 2.6-15.5); p<0.0001]. Additionally, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was higher at diagnosis of WM in patients who transformed, Table 2. On multivariate analysis, MYD88WT status remained an independent predictor of disease transformation [p=0.003; odds ratio 10 (95% CI: 2.1-48)]. On univariate Cox proportional hazard analysis for identifying predictors of time-to-transformation, only MYD88WT mutational status was associated with shorter time-to-transformation with a 5-year transformation rate of 15.5 % for MYD88WT versus 2.6 % with MYDL265P mutated patients [risk ratio 6.2 (95% CI: 2.5-16.4); p<0.0001]. Treatment-related details in the transformed cases were available for 37 (90%) patients; R-CHOP was the most common (41%) frontline therapy for transformation; 33% patients underwent autologous stem cell transplantation for transformed disease during their disease course. Conclusion: Histological transformation is an uncommon event in WM but confers poorer survival. MYD88WT genotype is independently associated with histological transformation a shorter time-to- transformation in patients with WM. Disclosures Ansell: Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Gertz:Apellis: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; janssen: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy. Dingli:Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction. Vitreoretinal lymphoma (VRL) is a rare ocular malignancy. Diagnosis and optimal treatment remain a challenge for clinicians. We present clinical characteristics and outcome of a cohort of 69 patients affected by vitreoretinal diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) lymphoma treated at Mayo Clinic over a 28-year period. Methods. We accessed the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Data Base to identify all patients > 18 years old with VRL diagnosed between 01/01/1990 and 01/31/2018. Only patients with DLBCL, confirmed at pathological review, were included. Clinical characteristics, therapies, response, relapse patterns and follow up status were collected and analyzed in the cohort and in the different subgroups: primary (PVRL, localized only in eye at diagnosis) vs concurrent (CVRL) vs secondary VRL (SVRL). Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's signed-rank test were used for analysis. Failure-free survival (FFS), overall survival (OS), central nervous system (CNS) and eye relapse-free survival were analyzed according to Kaplan Meier method. Differences between subgroups were compared with log-rank test. Since the group of SVRL can be affected by a survivorship selection bias, it was investigated separately for the outcome analysis. Results. A total of 69 patients with vitreoretinal DLBCL were included. At diagnosis, 33 (48%) were PVRL, 18 (26%) CVRL (eye plus CNS (N=17) or systemic (N=1) disease) and 18 (26%) had SVRL (9 primary CNS lymphomas, 9 systemic at diagnosis, among which 4 were primary testicular lymphomas). Unilateral intraocular involvement was observed in 16 (23%) cases. Clinical characteristics are reported in Table I. At diagnosis, patients received a systemic treatment in 35 (50%, including high-dose systemic MTX (HD-MTX, N 14, 20%), MTR (HD-MTX, Temozolomide and Rituximab) (N 7, 10%) and CHOP (Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine and Prednisone) with or without Rituximab (N 10, 15%)), combined systemic plus intraocular treatment in 15 (22%), local radiotherapy in 10 (14%) and intraocular therapy (intraocular injections of rituximab or MTX or steroids or a combination of these) in 9 (13%) cases. Systemic Rituximab, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and therapeutic vitrectomy/enucleation were performed in 36 (53%), 20 (29%) and 5 (7%) patients, respectively. The median number of treatments was 2 (range 0-10). Among PVRL and CVRL (N=51), median FFS, CNS relapse-free survival, eye relapse-free survival and OS were: 1.8 y, 4.9 y, 3.8 y and 4.1 y, respectively (Fig 1). Among PVRL they were: 2.6 y, not reached (NR), 5.2 y and 9.3 y, respectively. No CNS relapse occurred beyond 4 years in the PVRL subgroup. The median OS for patients diagnosed between 1990 and 1999, in contrast to 2000 and 2018 was 1.5 y vs 9.4 y respectively (p= 0.0002). OS was significantly higher in PVRL, as compared to CVRL (p= 0.04). Previous immunosuppression and poor performance status were predictive of worse outcome (p=0.04), while ASCT correlated with higher OS (p= 0.009). In PVRL, a combined systemic + intraocular therapy was associated with higher FFS (p=0.002) and CNS-relapse free survival (p= 0.003), but no difference in OS was observed. Among 18 SVRL, at a median follow-up of 1.1 y after vitreoretinal relapse, median FFS and OS were 0.3 y and 1.3 y, respectively. Systemic toxicities included 8 (11.6%) acute renal failures, 8 (11.6%) infections, and 3 (4.3%) hemorrhages. Intraocular toxicities included cataract in 11, vitreal detachment in 3 , ocular hypertension in 5, retinal vessel occlusion in 3 and keratitis in 2 cases. Of 69 patients, 39 (56.5%) died secondary to lymphoma (N=21, 53.8%), infectious toxicity (N=2, 5.2%), unrelated (N=3, 7.7%) or unknown (N=13, 33.3%) causes. Conclusions. VR DLBCL is a rare disease, which can occur as primary, concurrent with systemic, or in relapsed disease. OS over the decades has significantly improved. In PVRL, no late CNS relapses were observed, while late intraocular relapses can occur. A combined approach with intraocular + systemic HD-MTX based treatment at diagnosis was associated with a higher FFS and CNS-relapse free survival in PVRL and is recommended in bilateral involvement, even though no differences in OS were observed. Treatment consolidation with ASCT can be considered in cases with concurrent systemic disease. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and to better define the role of new drugs in treatment of this uncommon malignancy. Disclosures Witzig: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Diffuse large B cell lymphoma post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (DLBCL-PTLD) represents a fatal complication after a solid organ transplant (SOT). Approximately 50% of DLBCL-PTLD can be related to Epstein Barr Virus (EBV) infection. However, the EBV status is not taken into account in the DLBCL-PTLD categorization, although increasing evidence suggests its critical role in biological, clinical and prognostic aspects of the disease. In this single center retrospective study, we compared clinical and histological features, as well as outcomes of DLBCL-PTLDs by EBV status. Methods This study focused on patients with SOT who were diagnosed with DLBCL-PTLD at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). Patients were identified through the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Data base and the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), between 1989 and 2017. The histology was re-reviewed (RLK) and classified according to the WHO Classification or Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues 2017. Cell of origin (COO) was performed by Hans algorithm. EBV RNA in situ hybridization (EBER) was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association of clinical factors in overall survival (OS). Results 148 DLBCL-PTLD were identified. The median age at SOT and at the time of PTLD diagnosis were 50 years (range: 15-71) and 56 years (range: 18-82), respectively. The median time to PTLD diagnosis from SOT was 38 months (range: 1-499). The types of SOT included renal (44%), liver (36%), cardiac (9%), renal/pancreas (5%), pancreas (8%), lung (7%) and multiorgan (4%). 62% were stage III-IV, 30% had elevated LDH and 67% had an IPI >1. 88% of patients presented with extranodal disease, and 16% had involvement of the grafted organ. Eighty-three (56%) cases were EBV positive. The COO information was available on 35 cases. The non-GCB subtype was identified in 24 cases and GCB subtype in 11 cases. The initial treatment was as follows: reduction in immunosuppression (12%), immunosuppression reduction with rituximab (26%), rituximab alone (5%), chemotherapy with or without rituximab (35%). Patients with EBV positive PTLD were more likely to have grafted organ involvement (20% vs. 8%, p=0.047) and late PTLD (occurring after 12 months from SOT - 60% vs. 8%, p<0.001) than patients with EBV negative PTLD. There was no association between EBV status and age, sex, stage, LDH, and extranodal site involvement. At a median follow-up of 80 months (range 9-269), 83 patients (56%) had died. The 5-year survival rate from PTLD diagnosis was 56% (95% CI: 48-65%). The median OS was 85 months (95% CI: 37-148). There was no difference in OS in patients with EBV positive PTLD (median OS=84.7 months, HR=1.21, 95% CI: 0.77-1.92) versus patients with EBV negative DLBCL-PTLD (median OS=85.4 months, p=0.41). Conclusion Our study assessed the impact of EBV status on the presentation and clinical outcome of DLBCL-PTLD in a 148-patient single-institution cohort. 56% of cases were EBV positive. EBV positivity was associated with grafted organ involvement and late PTLD diagnosis. Patients with EBV-negative and EBV-positive disease had similar survival from PTLD diagnosis. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), is typically responsive to initial chemoimmunotherapy, but relapse is expected. Single-agent rituximab is FDA approved and frequently administered for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) low-grade or follicular CD20-positive B-cell NHL. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent with preclinical and clinical antilymphoma activity alone and in combination with rituximab. We compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) to rituximab (plus placebo) in patients with R/R iNHL. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs rituximab/placebo (control) in patients with FL grade 1-3a or MZL who were previously treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy with documented relapsed or refractory disease but not refractory to rituximab (refractory was defined as < partial response to rituximab or rituximab-chemotherapy OR disease progression < 6 months after last rituximab dose). Patients were stratified by prior rituximab treatment (yes vs no), time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2 vs > 2 years), and histology (FL vs MZL), and then randomized 1:1 to R2 or control for up to 1 year. R2 patients received oral lenalidomide 20 mg/day (d), d1-21/28 for 12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-5. Control patients received rituximab and placebo on the same schedule. Dose modifications were pre-specified in the protocol to manage toxicities. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG criteria without PET as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC; central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DOR), time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 358 patients were randomized (n = 178 R2; n = 180 control), median age was 63 years (range, 26 - 88), 34% FLIPI score ≥ 3, and histologies of 82% FL/18% MZL. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 1 (range, 1 - 12); 84% received prior rituximab and 51% had prior antilymphoma therapy within 2 years of enrollment. At median follow-up of 28.3 months, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS with HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 - 0.62; P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Median PFS was 39.4 months for R2 vs 14.1 months for control. IRC-assessed ORR for R2 was 78% vs 53% for control (P < 0.0001). CR was 34% for R2 vs 18% for control (P = 0.001). Median DOR was 36.6 and 21.7 months for R2 and control arms, respectively. TTNLT was improved for R2 vs control with HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 - 0.78; P = 0.0007). OS data were not mature with 16 deaths reported in the R2 arm vs 26 deaths in control (HR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.33 - 1.13]). Selected all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest more common in the R2 vs control arm (≥ 10% difference) were infections (63% vs 49%), cutaneous reactions (32% vs 12%), constipation (26% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 4%), and tumor flare reaction (11% vs 1%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 69% R2 and 32% control patients. More frequent grade 3/4 TEAEs in the R2 vs control arm were primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 13%) and leukopenia (7% vs 2%). Grade 5 TEAEs were reported in 2 patients in each arm. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide occurred in 9% of patients vs 5% for rituximab + placebo. Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in > 1 patient (n = 5). Seventy-one percent of R2 patients completed all 12 cycles of planned treatment vs 61% of control. Disease progression was the leading reason for discontinuation of lenalidomide/placebo (n = 21 R2, n = 54 control). Conclusions: R2 demonstrated superior efficacy over rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary endpoint of progression-free survival as well as secondary endpoints of ORR, CR, DOR, and TTNLT in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL. At this early analysis, fewer deaths have been observed in the R2 arm. Despite additional hematologic toxicity, greater efficacy of the R2 regimen (and fewer early progressions) allowed more patients to complete the planned therapy and delayed the need for subsequent treatment. R2 represents an important new treatment option in patients with previously treated FL/MZL, with meaningful advantages over single-agent rituximab. Disclosures Leonard: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria. Izutsu:Otsuka: Honoraria; Bristol- Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Nihon Medi-Physics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundhi: Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience International: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Symbio: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Meiji Seika: Honoraria; Shionogi: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei: Honoraria. Fowler:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital (Peking University Cancer Hospital): Employment. Scheliga:INCA - Instituto Nacional Do Cancer, Brazil: Employment. Pinto:Servier: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Moreira:Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto FG, EPE, Porto, Portugal: Employment. Liu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kalambakas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction. The peripheral blood absolute lymphocyte (ALC)/monocyte (AMC) ratio (ALC/AMC), as a surrogate of host immunity (i.e. ALC) and tumor microenvironment (i.e. AMC), is a predictive biomarker for clinical outcomes in diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) patients. An ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 has been shown to be predictive of better survival both at baseline and during each therapy cycle in patients treated with R-CHOP [Porrata et al, 2014]. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug, effective in DLBCL patients, with various mechanisms of actions on the tumor microenvironment and the host immune response. In this study we analyze the prognostic value of ALC/AMC ratio in a cohort of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients treated with Lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, R2-CHOP) in a phase II trial (MC078E trial, [Nowakowski et al, 2015]). Methods. All patients with de-novo DLBCL enrolled in the phase II trial MC078E and treated at diagnosis with R2-CHOP regimen were included in the analysis. We investigated the ALC/AMC ratio at baseline and each R2-CHOP cycle as predictor of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The ALC/AMC ratio was obtained by dividing the ALC by the AMC from the automated white blood cell differential obtained from the complete blood cell count on day 0 of each treatment cycle (range from day -3 to day 0 of each course). Patients were then divided in 4 groups on the basis of pattern of ALC/AMC ratio during treatment: group A: patients with ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 throughout all cycles; group B: patients with ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 at baseline, but then obtained an ALC/AMC < 1.1 during treatment; group C: patients with ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 at baseline, but then gained an ALC/AMC ≥ 1.1 during treatment; group D: patients with ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 throughout all cycles. PFS and OS were analyzed in the different groups. We separately conducted the same analysis in a matched control cohort of 94 DLBCL patients from the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Database treated with standard R-CHOP. Results. A total of 63 patients with de-novo DLBCL treated with R2CHOP regimen at diagnosis were included in the analysis. Clinical characteristics were: median age 67 years (22-87), male sex 61.9%, III-IV advance stage 87.3%, elevated LDH serum levels 66.7%, intermediate-high/high International Prognostic index (IPI) score in 54% cases. No differences in 3y-PFS and 3y-OS in patients with ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 vs ALC/AMC < 1.1 at baseline and at each R2-CHOP course have been observed. In a landmark analysis from day 0 of the last cycle, 3y-PFS in group A vs B vs C vs D was: 71.4% vs 67.1% vs 66.7% vs 85.7%, respectively (p 0.80); 3y-OS in group A vs B vs C vs D was: 85.7% vs 86.5% vs 66.7% vs 100%, respectively (p 0.74). No differences in both 3y-PFS and 3y-OS were observed comparing group A vs B, in group C vs D, and in group A vs D. Unlike what was observed in the R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients, in a univariate analysis ALC/AMC < 1.1 during all cycles of R2CHOP was not a predictor for inferior outcomes (Figure 1.a). In the matched cohort of patients treated with standard R-CHOP, ALC/AMC < 1.1 at baseline and at each course demonstrated to be predictive of worse outcome (p <0.01),survival was significantly different in the 4 groups identified according to ALC/AMC ratio during treatment and ALC/AMC < 1.1 maintained during all cycles of R2CHOP was predictive of worse PFS and OS (Figure 1.b). Conclusions. Lenalidomide in combination with standard R-CHOP (R2-CHOP), in previously untreated DLBCL patients, appears to overcome the negative prognostic value of ALC/AMC ratio observed in patients treated with R-CHOP alone. This could reflect the additional effect of lenalidomide to standard therapy on tumor microenvironment and on host immunity response. Figure 1: Landmark Analysis for Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival by ALC/AMC groups within R2CHOP (1.A) and R-CHOP (1.B). Group A: ALC/AMC >=1.1 for all cycles; Group B: ALC/AMC >=1.1 at baseline and obtained <1.1 during treatment; Group C: ALC/AMC <1.1 at baseline and obtained >=1.1 during treatment; Group D: ALC/AMC <1.1 for all cycles. Disclosures Witzig: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The addition of Rituximab to chemotherapy has significantly improved the outcome of patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients treated with immunochemotherapy for DLBCL who achieve EFS24 (event-free for 2 years after diagnosis) have an overall survival equivalent to that of the age- and sex-matched general population. Relapses after achieving EFS24 have been considered to be unusual but have been understudied. We sought to define the rate, clinical characteristics, treatment pattern, and outcomes of such relapses. Methods: 1448 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL from March 2002 to June 2015 were included. Patients were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE, treated per physician choice (predominantly R-CHOP immunochemotherapy) and followed prospectively. An event was defined as progression or relapse, unplanned re-treatment after initial therapy, or death from any cause. Cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality after achieving EFS24 were analyzed as competing events using Gray's test in the EZR software. Post-relapse survival was defined as time from relapse to death from any cause and analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method in SPSS (V22). Results: Among the 1448 patients, 1260 (87%) had DLBCL alone at diagnosis, and 188 (13%) had concurrent indolent lymphoma (follicular lymphoma 115, marginal zone lymphoma 18, chronic lymphocytic leukemia 14, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma 4, unspecified 37) at diagnosis. After a median follow-up of 83.9 months, 896 patients achieved EFS24. For all 896 patients who achieved EFS24, the cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was 5.7%, 9.3% and 13.2%, respectively, at 2, 5 and 10 years after achieving EFS24. Patients with concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis had a higher CIR compared to those with DLBCL alone at diagnosis (10.2 vs 4.8% at 2 years, 15.7 vs 8.0% at 5 years, 28.8 vs 9.7% at 10 years, P<0.001; Figure 1). There were a total of 84 patients who relapsed after achieving EFS24. The median age at initial diagnosis was 66 years (range 35-92), and 48 (57%) were male. At diagnosis, 11 (13%) had ECOG PS >1, 37 (50%) had LDH elevation, 62 (74%) were stage III-IV, 14 (17%) had more than 1 extranodal site, and 26 (31%) were poor risk by R-IPI score. There were 58 patients with DLBCL alone at diagnosis who relapsed after achieving EFS24, and 38 (75%) relapsed with DLBCL, 13 (25%) relapsed with indolent lymphoma (predominantly follicular lymphoma), and pathology was unknown in 7 patients. In contrast, there were 26 patients with concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis who relapsed after achieving EFS24, and 9 (41%) relapsed with DLBCL, 13 (59%) relapsed with indolent lymphoma, and pathology was unknown in 4 patients. In the 47 patients who relapsed with DLBCL after achieving EFS24, 45% received intensive salvage chemotherapy, 19% received regular intensity chemotherapy, 9% received CNS directed chemotherapy, and 36% went on to receive autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). In the 26 patients who relapsed with indolent lymphoma after achieving EFS24, 27% were initially observed, 54% received regular intensity chemotherapy, 4% received intensive salvage chemotherapy, and 19% received ASCT after subsequent progression. The median post-relapse survival (PRS) for all patients with a relapse after achieving EFS24 was 38.0 months (95% CI 27.5-48.5). The median PRS for patients who relapsed with DLBCL and indolent lymphoma after achieving EFS24 were 29.9 (19.9-39.9) and 89.9 (NR-NR) months, respectively (P=0.002; Figure 2). Conclusions: Relapses after achieving EFS24 in patients with DLBCL were uncommon in the rituximab era. Patient with DLBCL alone at diagnosis can relapse with either DLBCL or indolent lymphoma (3:1 ratio). Patients with concurrent DLBCL and indolent lymphoma at diagnosis had a significantly higher CIR, and relapses with DLBCL and indolent lymphoma were similar (2:3 ratio). Even with high intensity salvage chemotherapy and consolidative ASCT, patients who relapsed with DLBCL had a significantly worse survival compared to those who relapsed with indolent lymphoma. Late relapses with DLBCL remain clinically challenging, with a median survival of 2.5 years after relapse. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding.

Abstract Background An association has been identified between the diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) and prognostic clinical factors and outcomes in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Maurer et al, JCO 2018). This association can result in inadvertent selection bias in clinical trials to exclude patients with aggressive disease due to the inability to delay treatment long enough to fulfill enrollment criteria, compromising the validity of clinical trial study results to the general population. A similar concern exists in the relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL setting regarding patient selection bias against patients with aggressive disease requiring immediate treatment following relapse or progression. Here we examine the time from progression after immunochemotherapy (IC) to the initiation of first salvage chemotherapy and its association with outcome. Patients and Methods: Newly diagnosed patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), now a subcohort of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study, and followed for progression/relapse, retreatment, and death. This analysis includes patients with their first r/r DLBCL following frontline IC who initiated aggressive salvage chemotherapy as identified and included in a previous publication (Farooq et al, BJH 2017). The progression-to-treatment interval (PTI) was defined as the time in days from date of progression from IC to initiation of salvage therapy. The date of progression was defined as either a) the date biopsy was obtained for patients who had a biopsy to confirm progressive disease or b) the date of the scan or clinical examination indicating progression in patients who did not have a biopsy performed. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from initiation of first salvage therapy to progression or relapse, initiation of new anti-lymphoma therapy, or death due to any cause; overall survival (OS) was defined as time from initiation of salvage therapy until death due to any cause. Results: 162 patients with r/r DLBCL enrolled in the MER from 2002-2012 who initiated aggressive salvage chemotherapy with intent to transplant and had confirmed dates for both progression after IC and start of salvage therapy were evaluated. Median age at first progression for these patients was 64 years (range 36-76) and 104 (64%) were male. Median time from diagnosis to first progression on IC was 6.7 months (IQR: 4.6-12.7). Initial salvage therapy was R-ICE (80%), R-DHAP (8%), rituximab, oxaliplatin, cytosine arabinoside, and dexamethasone (ROAD) (6%), and other (7%). At a median follow-up of 49 months from initiation of salvage therapy (IQR: 33-74), 116 patients had died (72%). Median PTI was 6 days (IQR: 2-13). 110 patients (68%) had biopsy confirmation of disease prior to initiating salvage therapy; median PTI was 2 days (IQR: 1-7) for patients who had biopsy confirmation vs. 7 days (IQR: 3-16) in patients without biopsy confirmation, Wilcoxon p=<0.0001. There was no difference in OS from initial salvage therapy between patients who did not have biopsy confirmation (HR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.74-1.60, p=0.68) compared to patients with biopsy confirmation. Patients with short PTI (0-6 days) had significantly worse overall survival from initiation of salvage therapy (median OS = 7.6 months, HR=2.10 (95% CI: 1.43-3.08) compared to patients who initiated therapy 7 or more days from progression (median OS = 29.7 months), logrank p<0.0001. This association remained consistent (HR=2.20, 95% CI: 1.48-3.26, p<0.0001) after adjusting for age and biopsy confirmation of progression. Short PTI was also associated with inferior response rate to initial salvage therapy (51% vs. 65%, p=0.058), lower rate of proceeding to transplant after initial salvage therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0063), lower rate of being event-free 24 months from initial salvage therapy (16% vs 33%, p=0.011) and lower rate of ever proceeding to transplant (44% vs. 59%, p=0.057). Conclusions: A short progression-to-treatment interval is strongly associated with inability to proceed to transplant and inferior overall survival in r/r DLBCL. These results have implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials in the relapsed/refractory setting. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board.

Abstract Background: As our healthcare system faces increasing complexity, it is important for all healthcare providers to practice at the full scope of their training. However, there are limited current options for subspecialty training in hematology for advanced practice providers (APPs), a group of health care providers including both nurse practitioners and physician assistants. We are unaware of any existing postgraduate fellowship for APPs focused on education in both malignant and nonmalignant hematologic disorders. We hope that by creation of the first such fellowship, we can better prepare APP graduates with the subspecialty-specific knowledge required to become highly skilled and competent clinicians in hematology. Methods: Using surveyhero.com, we conducted a web-based needs assessment survey which was distributed to 68 APPs currently working in the hematology and blood & marrow transplant (BMT) teams at three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, Scottsdale, and Jacksonville). This survey included questions regarding hematology-specific education the respondents had received in their APP schools, as a way to assess participant's perceptions about the readiness to practice in hematology after completion of APP education, and to identify the learning/training needs that are most important for APPs to practice in hematology. Results: Of 68 APPs, 49 (72%; 34 NPs,15 PAs) completed the survey. 57% of respondents were new APP graduates when hired and 35% had no prior work experience in hematology/BMT. All APPs held a Master's or higher degree (doctorate 31%). Thirty-nine (80%) reported <5% of their APP school curriculum was hematology-focused. The majority (92%) felt that the level of subspecialty training they received in APP schools did not adequately prepare them with the full confidence to practice in hematology. Forty-four (90%) APPs believed subspecialty training could help them to become more competent providers for patients with hematologic disorders. Forty-seven (96%) APPs agreed that being confident and knowledgeable in their practice positively impacted their job satisfaction, and most APPs (84%) felt structured hematology training would attract them to stay within the specialty. The educational subjects that APPs identified as most important included variety of malignant and benign hematologic disorders as well as hematopathology, bone marrow transplant, palliative care, transfusion medicine, infectious disease and pharmacology related to hematology practice. The top three effective learning strategies reported by the APP respondents were active learning from direct patient care, cased based teaching, and educational experience during hospital rounds. Conclusions and Discussions: This needs-based assessment educational project revealed to us the significant gaps in subspecialty training of APP education in hematology and confirmed the necessity of this fellowship. The findings of the survey helped us to optimize the fellowship curriculum in order to meet the learning needs of future APP trainees. Development of the subspecialty fellowship program is a step forward in the future training of APPs. We believe our fellowship has the potential to serve as the postgraduate training model for other institutions nationwide. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Lenalidomide (Len) in association with standard Rituximab-CHOP (R2CHOP21) has been shown to be safe and effective in newly diagnosed Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphomas (DLBCL) [Nowakowski et al. JCO 2014, Vitolo et al. Lancet Oncol 2014]. The addition of lenalidomide appears to benefit primarily patients with non-Germinal Center B-cell (non-GCB) phenotype as determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). These early results led to currently ongoing randomized trial in ABC subtype of DLBCL, however efficacy of R2CHOP in ABC DLBCL as defined by Gene Expression Prophyling (GEP) has not been reported. In the present combined analysis of two independent phase 2 studies, we report the long-term follow-up (FU) outcome in DLBCL patients treated with R2CHOP, comparing GCB and ABC according to Nanostring Platform. Methods: We included all newly diagnosed histologically-confirmed de-novo DLBCL patients enrolled in two R2CHOP21 phase 2 trials, conducted by Mayo Clinic (MC) and Italian Lymphoma Foundation (FIL). Inclusion criteria in the two trials were similar, main differences included: all age and all International Prognostic Index (IPI) vs age between 60 and 80 years old and IPI >1, in MC vs FIL study, respectively. All pts received R-CHOP21 plus Len at 25 mg/day for 10 days/cycle and 15 mg/day for 14 days/cycle in MC and FIL trial, respectively. Cell of origin (COO) was determined by IHC, according to Hans algorithm, and retrospectively, in patients with available pathological material, by Nanostring, performed according to Scott algorithm and Masque-Soler signature in MC and FIL study, respectively. We analyzed the long-term FU outcome in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), comparing between GCB and ABC phenotypes according to GEP. Results: A total of 112 DLBCL pts (63 MC, 49 FIL) were included. Main characteristics were: median age 69 years (y) (range 22-87), male 65 (58%) pts, advanced stage III-IV in 94 (84%), B symptoms in 38 (34%), International Prognostic Index (IPI) intermediate-high/high in 71 (63%). At a median follow-up of 5.1 years (y), 5y-PFS was 63.5%, 5y-TTP 70.1% and 5y-OS 75.4%. A total of 32 relapses were observed, with only 2 cases of Central Nervous System (CNS) relapse. Late relapse occurring beyond 3 years was observed in 4 cases (3 cases with GCB phenotype and one case with missing COO data). In a subgroup analysis by IPI 0-2 vs 3-5 were: 5y-PFS, 5y-TTP and 5y-OS were: 69.0% vs 59.0% (p=0.100), 73.2% vs 67.4% (p=0.285) and 82.3% vs 70.2% (p=0.059), respectively. Regarding for COO defined by IHC, GCB phenotype vs non-GCB were 45 (40%) vs 41 (37%) patients respectively; 26 (23%) patients were not evaluable. 5y-PFS, 5y-TTP and 5y-OS were: 52.8% vs 64.5% (p=0.198), 61.6% vs 69.6% (p=0.444) and 68.6% vs 74.1% (p=0.238) in GCB vs non-GCB, defined by IHC, respectively. Regarding Nanostring analysis, GCB vs ABC vs Unclassified (Uncl) were 31 (46%) vs 22 (32%) vs 15 (22%) respectively; 44 pts were not evaluable. 5y-PFS, 5y-TTP and 5y-OS were: 62.3% vs 70.8% vs 64.2% (p=0.645), 68.1% vs 79.8% vs 64.2% (p=0.662) and 76.0% vs 74.8% vs 79.0% (p=0.658) in GCB vs ABC vs Uncl, defined by Nanostring, respectively (Table1, Fig1). Conclusions: The association of Len with R-CHOP21 appears to overcome the negative prognostic impact of ABC phenotype determined by GEP, with high PFS, TTP and OS rate, maintained at a long-term FU analysis. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Chiappella: Teva: Other: lecture fees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: lecture fees; Nanostring: Other: lecture fees; Roche: Other: lecture fees; Amgen: Other: lecture fees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: lecture fees. Gaidano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Vitolo:Janssen: 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, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 85 Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with a highly variable natural history. Clinical variables describing either patient- or tumor-specific characteristics, many of which are included in the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI), are used to risk-stratify patients at the time of diagnosis. However, characteristics of non-malignant cells present within the tumor microenvironment provide important prognostic information. For example, both immunohistochemistry and gene expression profiling studies demonstrate that lymphoma-associated macrophages (LAMs) are prognostically important in FL. As LAMs are monocyte-derived, we sought to determine whether the absolute monocyte count (AMC) obtained from a CBC at diagnosis is an adverse prognostic factor in FL. Methods: Consecutive patients with FL who were evaluated and treated at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester between 1998 and 2007 were considered for study participation. Study approval was granted by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board. The primary objective of the study was to determine the significance of the AMC, obtained at the time of diagnosis from a standard complete blood count with differential, in predicting overall survival. The secondary study objective was to determine whether the AMC is an independently significant prognostic factor when compared with the FLIPI. Results: The median follow-up was 4.2 years (range: 2 months to 11 years) for the 355 patients included in this study. At diagnosis, 43%, 34% and approximately 23% of patients were classified as low-, intermediate- or high-risk by the FLIPI. The median AMC at diagnosis was 510/μL, with 8% of patients presenting with an absolute monocytosis. At diagnosis, 45% of patients were initially observed, 42% received combination chemotherapy or immunochemotherapy alone, while the remaining 13% underwent surgery or radiation. The AMC was evaluated as both a continuous and dichotomized variable on univariate analysis. The optimal cut-point for the AMC was determined to be 570/μL by ROC analysis and was used when analyzing the AMC as a dichotomized variable. A relative elevation in the AMC was associated with inferior overall survival, whether analyzed as a continuous or dichotomized variable, with hazard ratios (HR) of 1.002 (HR per unit change in AMC; 95% confidence interval 1.001–1.002; p=0.0002) and 3.4 (95% confidence interval 2.0–6.0; p<0.0001), respectively. The median OS for patients with an AMC <570/μL at diagnosis has not been reached, whereas a median OS of 10.2 years (95% confidence interval 7.8–11.2 years; p<0.0001) was observed for those patients with an AMC ≥570/μL. For comparison, median OS has not been reached for high-risk patients identified by the FLIPI. Among those patients who were initially observed, the median time to progression (TTP) was 31 months (95% confidence interval 25–37 months) for those with an AMC <570/μL at diagnosis. In contrast, patients with an AMC ≥570/μL experienced a significantly shorter TTP following initial observation, with a median TTP of 18 months (95% confidence interval 8–28 months; p=0.03). When adjusting for prognostic factors included in the FLIPI on multivariate analysis, the association between the AMC as a dichotomized variable and survival remained significant with a HR of 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.5–4.6; p=0.001). When the FLIPI alone (high vs. low/intermediate) was analyzed on multivariate analysis, the AMC remained an independent predictor of survival (p<0.0001). Furthermore, the AMC provided additional prognostic information when superimposed upon the FLIPI. For example, a subset of patients classified as high-risk by the FLIPI were observed to have an OS comparable to low/intermediate risk patients identified by the FLIPI upon further risk-stratification by the AMC, with a 6-year OS of 80%. In contrast, high-risk FLIPI patients with an AMC ≥570/uL were observed to have a median OS of 4.2 years (95% confidence interval 2.7–7.2) and 6-year OS of 47%. Conclusions: The AMC is associated with overall survival in FL and is independent from the FLIPI on multivariate analysis. While the AMC did not appear inferior to the FLIPI in identifying high-risk patients, it may be most helpful when used in conjunction with the FLIPI. These results further support the central role of nonneoplastic myeloid-lineage cells in FL biology. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.