Cohen, Jonathon B.

Abstract Cancer clinical trial eligibility criteria may create patient populations studied in trials that do not reflect the patient populations treated in the real-world setting. Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent lymphoma with heterogeneous presentations across a broad range of individuals, resulting in many acceptable management strategies. We evaluated how first-line clinical trial eligibility criteria impacted the demographic makeup and outcomes of patients with FL for whom systemic therapy might be considered. We compared the characteristics of 196 patients with FL from a single institution to eligibility criteria from 10 first-line FL trials on clinicaltrials.gov. Next, we tabulated eligibility criteria from 24 first-line FL protocols and evaluated their impact on 1198 patients with FL with stages II to IV disease from the prospective Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort studies. We found that 39.8% and 52.7% of patients with FL might be excluded from clinical trials based on eligibility criteria derived from clinicaltrials.gov and protocol documents, respectively. Patients excluded because of renal function, prior malignancy, and self-reported serious health conditions tended to be older. Expanding stage requirement from III-IV to II-IV, and platelet requirement from ≥150 000 to ≥75 000 increased population size by 21% and 8%, respectively, in MER and by 16% and 13%, respectively, in LEO, without impacting patient demographics or outcomes. These data suggest that management of older individuals with FL may not be fully informed by recent clinical trials. Moreover, liberalizing stage and platelet criteria might expand the eligible population and allow for quicker trial accrual without impacting outcomes.

7573 Background: While most patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) usually have favorable outcomes, those with refractory disease after first-line anti-CD20 based immunochemotherapy (IC), or progression within 24 months of diagnosis (POD24) have higher risk of premature death. There are no standard approaches for treating this vulnerable group and studies testing novel agents are ongoing in this setting. We sought to investigate clinical practice treatment choices and efficacy for pts with POD24 that align with eligibility criteria for the randomized SWOG1608 which compares IC with novel agents in this population. Methods: This was a multicenter observational cohort study from the LEO Consortium. Eligible pts had grade 1-3a FL diagnosed between 1/1/2002 and 2/1/2019, and initiated therapy after POD24 to first-line bendamustine or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) based IC. Observation, radiotherapy, or rituximab monotherapy were permitted prior to IC and pts with transformation prior to the subsequent therapy after IC were excluded as per S1608. Outcomes of interest were overall and complete response rate (ORR/CR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 196 eligible pts with early progression to IC (39% antiCD20 Benda; 61% antiCD20 CHOP) who received subsequent therapy. Median age at post IC treatment was 57 years, 78% grade 1-2 FL. Treatments for pts with POD24 included CHOP- or Benda-based in 31%, salvage/hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in 27%, novel therapies in 10% (including phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors), antiCD20 monotherapy in 9%, and lenalidomide-based treatment in 8% (table); 21% of pts were treated on clinical trials. Across all treatments, ORR (CR) was 63% (37%) (95% CI: 55-70). At a median follow up of 6.2 years, 2 year PFS was 22% (95% CI: 17%-29%) and 5 year OS was 71% (95% CI: 65-79). Outcomes by regimen are shown in the table. Conclusions: Pts with FL experiencing POD24 following first-line IC are treated heterogeneously, with many pts still receiving IC as subsequent therapy. Despite modest CR rates and low 2-year PFS, 5-year OS appear to be improving compared to historical outcomes. This supports the ongoing need to investigate novel treatments in this population. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Differences in outcomes between clinical trial and real-world populations in follicular lymphoma (FL) may be partially explained by differences in characteristics between clinical trial and real-world patients. We hypothesized that certain eligibility criteria may be responsible for populations with distinct demographic/clinical characteristics. In this study, we compiled a list of eligibility criteria from front-line FL trials and evaluated their impact on the potentially eligible FL patients derived from two national cohort studies. We also evaluated whether criteria were duplicative and whether liberalizing criteria might enlarge the pool of eligible patients. Methods: Eligibility criteria were abstracted from 21 first-line clinical trials in FL in the FLASH database. We identified FL patients in two prospective cohort studies: Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patients included and excluded by various eligibility criteria. Chi-square tests and two-sample t-tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. To study the relative impact of individual criteria, we used a step-wise approach to quantify the number of additional patients excluded with each individual criterion after applying other criteria. Results: Eligibility criteria included in at least one-third of studies included stage (present in all 21 trials), renal function (18), HIV/AIDS status (17), performance status (16), history of other malignancies (16), hepatic function (16), and cardiac function (15), other serious health conditions (13), pregnancy status (10), neuro/psych function (10), age (10), metabolic disease status (9), CNS involvement (9), birth control (8), pulmonary function (8), WBC count (8), HBV status (8), platelet count (7), measurable disease (7), HCV status (7), active infection status (7), and CD20 status (7). We included 738 patients with newly diagnosed FL undergoing first-line therapy from MER and 703 patients from LEO. In MER, the median age was 60 years; 87% were White vs 2% non-White, 80% were non-Hispanic vs 2% Hispanic, and 68% were stage III/IV. In LEO, the median age was 60 years; 88% were White vs 11% non-White, 87% were non-Hispanic vs 11% Hispanic, and 67% were stage III/IV. Exclusion criteria impacting more than 10% of patients included stage (31 in LEO vs 29% in MER), self-reported serious health conditions (17 vs 31%), prior cancer diagnosis (14 vs 11%), performance status (10%), and platelet count (10%). Patients excluded due to the following criteria tended to be older: renal function (median 70 vs 60 years in MER), prior malignancy (67 vs 58 years), and self-reported serious health conditions (66 vs 58 years). This pattern was consistent in LEO (Table). No eligibility criteria significantly impacted race/ethnicity. Given the potential for multiple eligibility criteria to exclude the same patients, we used a step-wise approach to evaluate the impact of individual criteria on patients remaining after exclusion by the larger group of criteria, and whether liberalizing criteria impacted patient numbers and/or demographics. We found that only self-reported serious health conditions significantly impacted numbers (excluding 43% of patients), whereas hematologic parameters and performance status excluded only 5 and 1% of patients, respectively, with no impact on age or race/ethnicity. We also found that liberalizing stage requirement from III-IV to II-IV could increase enrollment by 14% in MER (12% in LEO), and liberalizing platelet requirement from ≥150,000 to ≥100,000 could increase enrollment by 11% (15% in LEO). Moreover, liberalizing eligibility criteria had no impact on age or race/ethnicity of the patient pool or on EFS (Figure). Conclusions: We found that excluding patients with prior malignancies, poor renal function, and self-reported serious health conditions appears to inadvertently exclude older patients. Other serious health conditions appeared to exclude a significant number of patients but did not impact patient demographics. Liberalizing certain criteria, including stage and platelet requirement, could potentially increase trial accrual, but would not likely correct the older patient deficit. These findings may serve in developing consensus eligibility criteria for future first-line FL trials. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Flowers: Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Iovance: Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Ziopharm: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Friedberg: Acerta: Other: DSMC ; Bayer: Other: DSMC ; Novartis: Other: DSMC . Cohen: Genentech, Takeda, BMS/Celgene, BioInvent, LAM, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Loxo/Lilly: Research Funding; Janssen, Adaptive, Aptitude Health, BeiGene, Cellectar, Adicet, Loxo/Lilly, AStra ZenecaKite/Gilead: Consultancy. Kahl: AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy. Lossos: Lymphoma Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; NCI: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; NIH grants: Research Funding; University of Miami: Current Employment. Nastoupil: Bayer: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: DSMC, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Denovo Pharma: Other: DSMC; Caribou Biosciences: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Honoraria. Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan: NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding. Martin: ADCT: Consultancy.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with variable clinical outcomes. Commonly used risk stratification tools (Ki67 IHC, MIPI) in newly diagnosed MCL are not frequently used when selecting therapy, resulting in treatment choice being dictated by age and co-morbidities rather than disease biology. The MCL35 risk score was developed as a more reliable measure of proliferation and has been shown to be prognostic and can risk stratify younger transplant eligible MCL patients into three groups with significantly different overall survival (OS; Scott et al. 2017; Holte et al. 2018) but has not been evaluated in older transplant ineligible patients. We report results evaluating the prognostic value of the MCL35 assay in older MCL patients (≥65) treated with frontline bendamustine/rituximab (BR). METHODS: Archived tissue samples from 119 patients age ≥65 years treated with BR from collaborating Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP) sites and the LEO/MER cohort were collected and analyzed using the MCL35 assay and stratified into three distinct risk groups (low, standard, and high risk). Association between MCL35 proliferation scores and OS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and hazard ratios were calculated. Associations between Ki67, s-MIPI, p53 IHC status, morphology and OS were also evaluated. RESULTS: The MCL35 assay was run on tissue samples from 119 patients. Median patient age was 74 (range 65-93) and 69.5% were male. Ki67 was <30% in 29 patients (24%) and ≥30% in 90 patients (76%). Simplified MIPI (s-MIPI) score was 0-3 in 21 patients (24%), 4-5 in 42 patients (48%) and ≥6 in 25 patients (28%). Thirty-one did not have sufficient data to calculate a s-MIPI score. MCL35 was low risk in 51 patients (43%), standard risk in 39 patients (33%) and high risk in 29 patients (24%). Eleven patients had blastic morphology, 7 had pleomorphic morphology and the remainder were classic morphology (n=56). Of 57 samples with p53 IHC staining 7 (12.3%) were positive. At a median follow up of 33.4 months, 82 patients were alive and 35 had died. Patients with high risk MCL35 score had inferior OS compared to low risk (HR 2.27, 95% CI: 1.03-5.00; p=0.042) while standard risk was not statistically significant compared to low risk (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.37-2.0; p=0.740)(Figure 1). Ki67 IHC using a cutoff of ≥ 30% and 10%-29% was not significantly associated with OS compared to Ki67 <10% ( Ki67 ≥ 30% vs. Ki67 < 10%, HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.12-6.41; p=0.892, Ki67 ≥ 10%-29% vs. Ki67 < 10%, HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.04-2.83; p=0.303), however high s-MIPI score (≥6) (s-MIPI ≥6 vs. s-MIPI 0-3, HR 3.86, 95% CI 1.20-12.5; p=0.024) and positive p53 IHC (HR: 9.51, 3.26-27.7; p <0.001) were both associated with poor OS. Eighteen cases were blastic/pleomorphic by morphology, 12 of which were in the high-risk group by MCL35, and this subset also had worse survival than classic MCL (p=0.0052). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest high risk MCL35 score is a prognostic biomarker of poor OS in patients >65 with MCL treated with BR. Conversely, Ki67 was not significantly associated with OS in these patients. Additional clinical validation using a larger sample size from the E1411 study is planned. If similar results are found, the MCL35 assay in combination with s-MIPI and p53 status may have utility in stratifying patients into risk adapted treatment arms in future prospective clinical trial designs. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Hill: Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Raess: Scopio Labs: Research Funding. Scott: Celgene: Consultancy; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling.; BC Cancer: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing assigning DLBCL COO by gene expression profiling--licensed to NanoString Technologies. Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling. ; Rich/Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract.

Abstract Background: Chemoimmunotherapy is considered standard initial therapy for follicular lymphoma (FL) with high tumor burden (HTB). Obinutuzumab and Bendamustine (OB) with maintenance Obinutuzumab (mO) is considered a standard therapy for the frontline treatment of HTB FL (GALLIUM, Marcus et al, NEJM 2017). Venetoclax (VEN), an oral BCL2 inhibitor, is an attractive target in FL given the high BCL2 expression; though single agent activity has been disappointing (Davids et al. JCO 2017). BCL2 inhibition is thought to be synergistic with chemotherapy. Thus, the PrE0403 study evaluated the OB-VEN combination in frontline HTB FL. Here we present end of induction (EOI) outcomes. Methods: The primary objective of this Phase II study was to estimate the complete remission (CR) rate at EOI. Potential participants must have had a histologically confirmed diagnosis of FL grade 1, 2, or 3a with HTB defined by GELF or high risk defined by FLIPI-1 criteria. They must have had adequate performance status and organ function. Notably, creatinine clearance must have been ≥50 mL/min. Participants must have not had prior treatment for FL. Eligible participants were treated with Bendamustine IV 90 mg/m2 Day (D) 1 & 2, Obinutuzumab IV 100 mg D1, 900 mg D2, 1000 mg D8 and D15 of Cycle (C) 1 then D1 of each cycle, and VEN 800 mg orally daily D1-10 every 28 days for 6 total cycles. Due to a high rate of laboratory tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during C1 in the first 21 patients, VEN was removed from C1 and given in C2-6 only. Participants with a CR at EOI were treated with mO IV 1000 mg D1 every 8 weeks for 2 years. Those with a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) were treated with mO as well as VEN 800 mg orally daily for 2 years. Pneumocystis jiroveci Pneumonia (PJP) and antiviral prophylaxis was required as was G-CSF support. Response was assessed via Lugano Criteria at EOI including PET/CT and bone marrow assessment. Adverse Events (AEs) were evaluated using CTCAE v5.0. To be considered promising, OB-VEN should improve the null hypothesis CR rate of 50% (OB) to 65%. With an 85% power and a one sided 15% type I error, 56 participants would be needed with an estimated 51 eligible. Support for the study was from Genentech, Member of the Roche Group. Results A total of 56 participants were enrolled and treated between 12/2017 and 11/2020; baseline characteristics are listed in Table 1. TLS was closely monitored in C1 and 8/21 participants developed TLS when VEN was administered in C1; 0/35 when it was not. However, monitoring for TLS in C1 became less stringent when VEN was not administered. Treatment related Grade ≥3 toxicities occurred in 47/56 participants (83.9%) with serious adverse events in 31 of 56 (55.5%). Atypical infections were seen; there was one treatment related death on study due to cytomegalovirus (CMV) encephalitis as well as PJP pneumonia which occurred after induction C6. Enrollment was temporarily suspended and CMV monitoring was implemented with no further occurrences. Another participant receiving mO later developed BK virus nephropathy following mO C6 and now requires ongoing hemodialysis. Another was diagnosed with Respiratory Syncytial Virus pneumonia 30 days after C6 and later PJP pneumonia after C2 of mO. Common (incidence >10%) AEs during induction are listed in Table 2. 45 of 56 (80.4%) participants were able to receive all 6 cycles of OB-VEN. CR was seen in 41 of 56 participants (73.2%, 2 sided 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 59.7-84.2%) at the EOI. 30 participants (53.5%) went onto maintenance. With a median follow up of 20.9 months, estimated 2 year Overall Survival (OS) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) (90% CI) is 94.4% (82.4-98.3%) and 85.8% (68.8-93.9%) respectively. Conclusions This Phase II study of OB-VEN in untreated HTB FL showed high CR rate and met its primary endpoint with early signs of prolonged PFS. Laboratory TLS was identified but it was unclear if attributed solely to VEN, as baseline laboratory TLS rate for OB is unknown. The rate of Grade ≥3 AE of 83.9% (compared to 69% for OB in GALLIUM, Hiddeman JCO 2018) and the observation of opportunistic infections including CMV encephalitis, PJP pneumonia and BK nephropathy, suggests the combination is highly immunosuppressive. Therefore, while the study met its primary outcome, the combination of OB-VEN at 800 mg for 10 days, plus mO, does not have an acceptable risk/benefit profile. Participants will continue to be followed for efficacy and safety during the maintenance phase. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; SeaGen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Nowakowski: MorphoSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl: AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is not approved for follicular lymphoma or in combination with bendamustine and obinutuzumab

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