Lechowicz, Mary Jo

Abstract Castleman disease (CD) describes a group of rare lymphoproliferative disorders that exhibit a wide range of symptomatology and degree of lymphadenopathy, particularly across the 2 forms of CD with unknown etiology, unicentric CD (UCD), and human herpesvirus-8–negative/idiopathic multicentric CD (iMCD). Whereas UCD cases typically present with localized lymphadenopathy and mild symptoms, iMCD involves multicentric lymphadenopathy and cytokine storm–driven symptoms with 3 recognized clinical phenotypes. Increasingly, there are anecdotal reports of cases that do not fit into this framework, but these cases have not been systematically described. Herein, we use the ACCELERATE natural history registry to characterize the spectrum of CD based on disease features, symptomatology, and severity. Our results characterize a cohort of 179 CD cases, which were reviewed and confirmed by an expert panel of clinicians and hematopathologists. We show that patients with CD present on a continuous spectrum of clinical phenotypes, and we describe oligocentric CD (OligoCD), an intermediate phenotype that does not fit the criteria for UCD or iMCD. These cases tend to have “oligocentric” lymphadenopathy (median [interquartile range] regions of lymphadenopathy, 3.0 [2.0-4.0]) in a regional pattern and exhibit a mild clinical phenotype that is more similar to UCD than iMCD. We also show that patients with OligoCD are inconsistently categorized as UCD vs iMCD, highlighting the need for this characterization. Future data collected through ACCELERATE may further elucidate the natural history and risk profile of these patients.

SummaryThere remains no one standard induction for nodal‐based peripheral T‐cell lymphoma (PTCL). We conducted a phase II study of lenalidomide plus CHOEP as a novel induction strategy. Patients received CHOEP at standard doses in combination with 10 mg of lenalidomide on days 1–10 of a 21‐day cycle for six cycles of therapy followed by observation, high‐dose therapy with autologous stem cell rescue, or maintenance lenalidomide per provider preference. Among 39 patients evaluable for efficacy, the objective response rate after six cycles was 69%, with complete response in 49%, partial response in 21%, stable disease in 0% and progressive disease in 13%. Thirty‐two patients (82%) completed full induction, and seven patients (18%) discontinued for toxicity, primarily hematologic. Any grade hematologic toxicity occurred in over 50% of patients, with grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia occurring in 35% of patients despite mandated growth factors. With a median followup of surviving patients of 21.3 months, the estimated 2‐year progression‐free and overall survival were 55% (95% CI 37%–70%) and 78% (95% CI 59%–89%), respectively. In sum, six cycles of lenalidomide plus CHOEP resulted in a modest response rate primarily due to hematologic toxicity, which prevented all patients from completing planned induction.

Abstract The number of patients with primary cutaneous lymphoma (PCL) relative to other non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) is small and the number of subtypes large. Although clinical trial guidelines have been published for mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome, the most common type of PCL, none exist for the other PCLs. In addition, staging of the PCLs has been evolving based on new data on potential prognostic factors, diagnosis, and assessment methods of both skin and extracutaneous disease and a desire to align the latter with the Lugano guidelines for all NHLs. The International Society for Cutaneous Lymphomas (ISCL), the United States Cutaneous LymphomaConsortium (USCLC), and the Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) now propose updated staging and guidelines for the study design, assessment, endpoints, and response criteria in clinical trials for all the PCLs in alignment with that of the Lugano guidelines. These recommendations provide standardized methodology that should facilitate planning and regulatory approval of new treatments for these lymphomas worldwide, encourage cooperative investigator-initiated trials, and help to assess the comparative efficacy of therapeutic agents tested across sites and studies.

Abstract Castleman disease (CD) includes a group of rare and heterogeneous disorders with characteristic lymph node histopathological abnormalities. CD can occur in a single lymph node station, which is referred to as unicentric CD (UCD). CD can also involve multicentric lymphadenopathy and inflammatory symptoms (multicentric CD [MCD]). MCD includes human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8)–associated MCD, POEMS-associated MCD, and HHV-8−/idiopathic MCD (iMCD). The first-ever diagnostic and treatment guidelines were recently developed for iMCD by an international expert consortium convened by the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network (CDCN). The focus of this report is to establish similar guidelines for the management of UCD. To this purpose, an international working group of 42 experts from 10 countries was convened to establish consensus recommendations based on review of treatment in published cases of UCD, the CDCN ACCELERATE registry, and expert opinion. Complete surgical resection is often curative and is therefore the preferred first-line therapy, if possible. The management of unresectable UCD is more challenging. Existing evidence supports that asymptomatic unresectable UCD may be observed. The anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody siltuximab should be considered for unresectable UCD patients with an inflammatory syndrome. Unresectable UCD that is symptomatic as a result of compression of vital neighboring structures may be rendered amenable to resection by medical therapy (eg, rituximab, steroids), radiotherapy, or embolization. Further research is needed in UCD patients with persisting constitutional symptoms despite complete excision and normal laboratory markers. We hope that these guidelines will improve outcomes in UCD and help treating physicians decide the best therapeutic approach for their patients.

AbstractIdiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD) is a rare immunologic disorder characterized by systemic inflammation, multicentric lymphadenopathy, and organ dysfunction. Enlarged lymph nodes demonstrate a spectrum of characteristic but variable histopathologic features historically categorized into hyaline vascular (HV) (or hypervascular [HyperV] more recently), plasmacytic, or “mixed.” Though the etiology is unknown, a pro‐inflammatory cytokine storm, often involving interleukin‐6 (IL‐6), contributes to pathogenesis. Anti‐IL‐6 therapy with siltuximab is the only FDA‐ or EMA‐approved treatment based on efficacy and safety in multiple studies. Importantly, no patients considered to have HV histopathology achieved the primary endpoint in the Phase II study. NCCN currently recommends siltuximab first‐line for iMCD, except for patients considered to have HV histopathology. We investigated whether histopathologic subtype should guide siltuximab treatment decisions. Secondary analyses of clinical trial and real‐world data revealed similar clinical benefit across histopathologic subtypes. Notably, only 18 of 79 patients in the Phase II study were consistently classified into histopathologic subtype by three independent review panels, demonstrating limited reliability to guide treatment decisions. Real‐world data further demonstrate siltuximab's effectiveness in patients considered to have HV (or HyperV). Though histopathology is a critical component for diagnosis, there is insufficient evidence to guide treatment based solely on lymph node histopathologic subtype.

Abstract Introduction: Lenalidomide (len) is an immunomodulatory agent with single agent activity in relapsed and refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisone) is a common initial regimen. Herein, we report the completed phase II results of the combination of len-CHOEP. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had newly diagnosed PTCL, ANC ≥1000 cells/mm3, platelets ≥100 K/mm3, and adequate organ function. Based on phase I results [Lunning et al. T-cell Forum 2018] 10 mg of len was chosen for phase II. CHOEP was administered at standard doses with len given on days 1-10 of 21-day cycle for six planned cycles. Mandatory prophylaxis included aspirin (ASA) or alternative thromboprophylaxis and growth factor support per institutional guidelines with each cycle. A PET/CT after two cycles (PET-2) for interim response assessment was required per protocol. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) by PET/CT after 6 cycles (PET-6) of len-CHOEP utilizing the revised Cheson 2007 criteria with secondary endpoints to include toxicity, overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), 2-year PFS, and overall survival (OS). Pts who had CR or partial response (PR) at the end of therapy had the option of len maintenance (10 mg/day for 21 out of 28 days) for 1-year or consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) without len maintenance. Per protocol pts dosed at 10 mg in phase I (N=8) were included in the phase II analysis. Results: Forty pts with PTCL-NOS (23), ALK negative ALCL (5) and AITL (12) enrolled into the phase II portion. Median age was 62 years (range 24-79) and 21 were male. Thirty (75%) pts completed all 6 cycles. Reasons for discontinuing len-CHOEP early were toxicity (n=6) and progressive disease (PD; n=4). PET-2 was not done in 4/40 pts (n=2 each either not performed or PD). In an intent to treat (ITT) analysis the CR rate at the end of treatment was 48% (19/40; 95CI-32-64%) with an ORR of 68%. In pts who completed 6 cycles (n=30) the CR/ORR rate was 63%/87% respectively. Seven pts (18%) experienced primary treatment failure. Of the 19 pts in CR at end of initial therapy, 14 were in a CR at PET-2 assessment. Two pts in a PET-2 CR discontinued prior to cycle 6 due to toxicity and have not progressed. Five pts converted from a PR to CR after PET-2, but 7 of 13 PRs remained PRs. Responding pts (CR/PR; n=30) proceeded either to an ASCT (n=18), len maintenance (n=10) or neither (investigator/pts preference; n=2). At a median follow up of 13 months (range: 4-23 months), the 1-year estimated PFS and OS is 68% [95% CI--50-80%] and 89% [95%CI--73-96%] respectively. There were five grade (G) 5 events including PD (n=1), secondary malignancy (n=1; AML), sepsis (n=2), and cardiac arrest (n=1). Serious or recurrent adverse events (SAEs or AEs) of interest occurring during any cycle included 38% G 3-4 febrile neutropenia despite mandated GCSF use, 43% G 3-4 anemia, 43% G 3-4 thrombocytopenia (without report of G 3-4 bleeding or bruising despite ASA use), 3% G3-4 rash (all G 23%), and 8% G 3-4 diarrhea (all G 43%). Conclusions: The phase II portion of the study in an ITT population noted an unexpectedly modest 48% CR rate and a high discontinuation rate (15%) due to AEs or SAE. The utility of response at PET-2 and post initial therapy strategy (len maintenance vs ASCT) continue to be monitored for PFS and OS in this limited cohort. Improving frontline outcomes for pts with PTCL remains an unmet need. Disclosures Lunning: Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Horwitz:Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Kyowa-Hakka-Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Aileron Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Advani:Janssen Pharmaceutical: Other: Institutional Research Support; Cell Medica: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Merck: Other: Institutional Research Support; Forty Seven, Inc: Other: Institutional Research Support; Millenium: Other: Institutional Research Support; Roche/Genentech: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role, Institutional Research Support; Pharmacyclics: Other: Institutional Research Support; Celgene: Other: Institutional Research Support; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Institutional Research Support; Kura: Other: Institutional Research Support; Infinity: Other: Institutional Research Support; Autolus: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Kyowa: Other: Consulting/Advisory Role; Takeda: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role and Institutional Research Support; Agensys: Other: Institutional Research Support; Gilead/Kite: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Seattle Genetics: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role, Institutional Research Support; AstraZeneca: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role. Vose:Epizyme: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding. Mehta-Shah:Verastem: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Haverkos:Viracta Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moskowitz:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Merck & Co: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) are a heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL) characterized by poor treatment outcomes with conventional chemotherapy, including CHOP [complete remission (CR) ∼40%]. Retrospective studies suggest that the incorporation of etoposide into chemotherapy regimens may improve outcomes compared to CHOP. In contrast, anthracyclines appear to have a limited role in PTCL, largely attributed to p-glycoprotein related resistance. Pralatrexate was the first drug approved for patients (pts) with relapsed PTCL, providing a rationale to evaluate it in the front-line setting. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy of a novel combination for the primary therapy of pts with PTCL whereby the anthracycline in CHOP backbone was replaced with etoposide (CEOP) alternating with pralatrexate (P). Methods Pts > 18 years (yrs) with PTCL stages II-IV with no prior therapy and adequate end organ function were eligible. Eligible histologies included, PTCL-NOS, AILT, ALCL (ALK positive pts only allowed if IPI >3). CEOP (Cycle A) was administered as: cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 IV d1, etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV d1-3 (or 100 mg/m2 IV d1 and 200 mg/m2 PO days 2-3), vincristine 2 mg IV day 1 and prednisone 100 mg/day X 5 alternating with P (cycle B) 30 mg/m2 IV d 15, 22 and 29 (with vitamin B12 and folate supplementation). Growth factors were used to support both cycles of therapy. Imaging to assess response was done after cycle 2B, 4B and 6B. Pts achieving a remission were eligible for consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) after cycle 4B at physician discretion. The primary statistical aim was to improve the CR rate from 40 to 63% with CEOP-P and optional transplant. Secondary objectives included assessment of event free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity of the regimen. A two-stage Simon design (alpha=0.10, 90% power) tested the null hypothesis that the CR rate would be </= to 40%. For the first stage of 20 evaluable pts, the trial would be terminated if 8 or fewer pts experienced a CR after course 2B of chemotherapy. For the second stage, a total of 34 pts were required with at least 17 achieving a CR at the end of therapy to consider the regimen useful. Results 34 pts were enrolled and one withdrew consent before starting therapy, leaving 33 pts enrolled between 7/2011 and 1/2013. Characteristics are shown in Table 1. 27 pts received at least 2 cycles of therapy. 6 pts received only 1 cycle due to early disease progression in 4 and adverse events in 2. Grade 3-4 toxicities attributed to therapy included, anemia (27%), thrombocytopenia (12%), febrile neutropenia (18%), mucositis (18%), sepsis (15%), increased creatinine (12%) and liver transaminases (12%). At the end of stage 1, 10 of 20 pts (50%) achieved a CR; therefore accrual proceeded to stage 2. At the time of this initial analysis, the overall response rate is 70%. To date 15 pts (45%) have achieved a CR with two additional pts pending evaluation. Overall, the 1-yr EFS is 48% (95% CI 28-64), and 1-yr OS 70% (95% CI 47-84) (Figures 1 and 2). 6 pts (18%) to date (n=3 CR, n=2 PR and 1 with stable disease) have received consolidation with ASCT and all are in CR post-transplant. Pts who proceeded to ASCT were younger than the non-transplant cohort (median age 58 versus 64 yrs) with other clinical characteristics being similar. On exploratory bivariate analyses, age <60 yrs, absence of B symptoms, low IPI score (0,1), achieving a CR, and receiving a ASCT were associated with better EFS. Attaining a CR was the only factor associated with better OS and was highest in patients with low IPI (78%) and those with ALCL histology (75%). Conclusions CEOP-P met the pre-defined stage 1 response criteria. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact on the final CR rate and secondary objectives of EFS and OS. Defining optimal front line therapy in PTCL continues to be a challenge and an unmet need. Disclosures: Advani: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Pralatrexate is currently only approved for relapsed/refractory PTCL. Lechowicz:Allos Therapeutics: 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; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Carson:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Foss:merck: Research Funding; spectrum: Research Funding; eisai: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; seattle genetics: Research Funding. Horwitz:Celgene : Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharamaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirn Pharma: Consultancy; Genzyme : Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pro:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Pinter-Brown:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Smith:Micromet: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Allos: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy. Shustov:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Savage:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Vose:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 2686 Background: DLBCL is the most commonly occurring form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is a highly curable disease, but one that is universally fatal if untreated or improperly treated. In a series of studies, we have reported racial disparities in the clinical presentation and the treatment outcomes for patients (pts) with DLBCL in the United States (Shenoy Cancer 2010; Flowers CEBP 2012). These studies showed that black pts with DLBCL are diagnosed at an age a decade younger than whites, are more likely to have advanced stage disease, and are less likely to survive 5 years. One explanation is that black patients in the US less often receive standard of care therapy (Flowers CEBP 2012). However, in a cohort study of 533 white and 144 black patients with DLBCL managed at Emory and University of Alabama-Birmingham (UAB) black race predicted worse overall survival (OS) even when black and white pts received the same therapy (CHOP; Hazard ratio [HR] 1.8, p<0.001) suggesting a biological basis for some disparities(Flowers Leuk Lymph 2012). To address these findings, we examined whether known prognostic biological variants within DLBCL [germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) and activated B-cell like (ABC)] occurred differentially between black and white pts. Methods: DLBCL pts within our Emory-UAB cohort study provided formalin fixed material available for construction of tissue microarrays (TMAs). All pts were diagnosed with DLBCL from 1990–2010 and met the following criteria: age ≥18 years at diagnosis and available information on demographics, race, gender, initial clinical features at presentation, treatment, and treatment outcomes. H&E slides from each block for each case were reviewed to identify the appropriate zone(s) for cores. Sections placed in TMAs underwent immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining with BCL6, GCET1, CD10, FOXP1, and LMO2 antibodies. The percentages of positive cells were scored in 10% increments for each antibody, and recorded for each case by 3 hematopathologists blinded to the clinical and demographic data. The Choi algorithm was used to classify all patients into ABC and GCB subsets; other IHC algorithms were used as a backup. Descriptive statistics for the baseline characteristics of black and white pts were compared using Chi-square tests. Kaplan–Meier estimation was used to evaluate OS for the two groups and compared with the log-rank test. To evaluate prognostic factors and the effects of treatment on OS, Cox proportional hazards models were used controlling for age, sex, stage, LDH, performance status, presence of B-symptoms, race, treatment (R-CHOP vs. other), and ABC subtype. Results: Tissues for 26 black pts and 63 white pts meeting all eligibility criteria were evaluated in the TMA. There were significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups; 23% of black pts vs. 46% of whites were > 60 years of age (p=0.04), 73% had stage III/IV disease vs. 56% (p=0.03), and 77% had an LDH>ULN vs. 51% (p=0.04). There were no significant differences between the two racial groups in terms of sex, ECOG PS, presence of B-symptoms (38% vs. 29%p=0.46), extranodal sites (50% vs. 78% ≤ 1, p=0.27), IPI risk, or treatment received (RCHOP 46% vs. 40% p=0.93). By the Hans, Natkunam, Tally, and Choi algorithms black patients more commonly presented with the poor-risk ABC/non-GCB subtype (by Choi black 64% ABC vs. white 37%; p= 0.01, Table). After controlling for clinical confounders including age, sex, stage, LDH, performance status, presence of B-symptoms, race, treatment (RCHOP vs. other), and ABC subtype, being >60 years of age [HR 3.1 95% CI 1.3–7.2], being black (HR 3.5 95% CI 1.5–8.2), and receiving treatment other than RCHOP (HR 12.8, 95% CI 3.2–50.6) were associated with inferior OS. Conclusions: The rate of ABC DLBCL is significantly higher in black pts compared to white pts in this university-based cohort from the Southern United States. Additional studies confirming these findings in larger populations and examining the mutations associated with these differences are underway to address biological differences intrinsic to DLBCL that may in part explain comparatively adverse features and outcomes for black pts with DLBCL. Disclosures: Flowers: Celgene, Spectrum, Millennium, Gilead, Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche (unpaid), Millennium (unpaid), Celgene: Consultancy. Bernal-Mizrachi:Empire Genomics (not related to current work): Patents & Royalties. Sinha:Celgene: Research Funding. Jaye:Millenium Pharmaceuticals (For single lecture on immunohistochemical subtyping of large B cell lymphomas): Honoraria.

Abstract Castleman disease (CD) describes a group of heterogeneous hematologic disorders with characteristic histopathological features. CD can present with unicentric or multicentric (MCD) regions of lymph node enlargement. Some cases of MCD are caused by human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8), whereas others are HHV-8–negative/idiopathic (iMCD). Treatment of iMCD is challenging, and outcomes can be poor because no uniform treatment guidelines exist, few systematic studies have been conducted, and no agreed upon response criteria have been described. The purpose of this paper is to establish consensus, evidence-based treatment guidelines based on the severity of iMCD to improve outcomes. An international Working Group of 42 experts from 10 countries was convened by the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network to establish consensus guidelines for the management of iMCD based on published literature, review of treatment effectiveness for 344 cases, and expert opinion. The anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody siltuximab (or tocilizumab, if siltuximab is not available) with or without corticosteroids is the preferred first-line therapy for iMCD. In the most severe cases, adjuvant combination chemotherapy is recommended. Additional agents are recommended, tailored by disease severity, as second- and third-line therapies for treatment failures. Response criteria were formulated to facilitate the evaluation of treatment failure or success. These guidelines should help treating physicians to stratify patients based on disease severity in order to select the best available therapeutic option. An international registry for patients with CD (ACCELERATE, #NCT02817997) was established in October 2016 to collect patient outcomes to increase the evidence base for selection of therapies in the future.