Cohen, Jonathon B.

Abstract Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can be curative for patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Based on studies suggesting that anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) can sensitize patients to subsequent chemotherapy, we hypothesized that anti-PD-1 therapy before ASCT would result in acceptable outcomes among high-risk patients who progressed on or responded insufficiently to ≥1 salvage regimen, including chemorefractory patients who are traditionally considered poor ASCT candidates. We retrospectively identified 78 HL patients who underwent ASCT after receiving an anti-PD-1 mAb (alone or in combination) as third-line or later therapy across 22 centers. Chemorefractory disease was common, including 42 patients (54%) refractory to ≥2 consecutive systemic therapies immediately before anti-PD-1 treatment. Fifty-eight (74%) patients underwent ASCT after anti-PD-1 treatment, while 20 patients (26%) received additional therapy after PD-1 blockade and before ASCT. Patients received a median of 4 systemic therapies (range, 3-7) before ASCT, and 31 patients (41%) had a positive pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET) result. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 19.6 months, the 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 81% (95% CI, 69-89) and 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87-99), respectively. Favorable outcomes were observed for patients who were refractory to 2 consecutive therapies immediately before PD-1 blockade (18-month PFS, 78%), had a positive pre-ASCT PET (18-month PFS, 75%), or received ≥4 systemic therapies before ASCT (18-month PFS, 73%), while PD-1 nonresponders had inferior outcomes (18-month PFS, 51%). In this high-risk cohort, ASCT after anti-PD-1 therapy was associated with excellent outcomes, even among heavily pretreated, previously chemorefractory patients.

PURPOSE Lenalidomide combined with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) (R2CHOP) in untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has shown promising activity, particularly in the activated B-cell–like (ABC) subtype. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN trial E1412 was a randomized phase II study comparing R2CHOP versus R-CHOP in untreated DLBCL. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, stage II bulky-IV disease, International Prognostic Index (IPI) ≥ 2, and ECOG performance status ≤ 2 were eligible and randomly assigned 1:1 to R2CHOP versus R-CHOP for six cycles. Tumors were analyzed using the NanoString Lymph2Cx for cell of origin. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients with the co-primary end point of PFS in ABC-DLBCL. Secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Three hundred forty-nine patients were enrolled; 280 patients (145 R2CHOP and 135 R-CHOP) were evaluable: 94 were ABC-DLBCL, 122 germinal center B-cell–like-DLBCL, 18 unclassifiable, and 46 unknowns. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between arms, and the median age was 66 (range, 24-92); 70% of patients had stage IV disease; 34%, 43%, and 24% had IPI 2, 3, and 4 or 5, respectively. Myelosuppression was more common in the R2CHOP arm. The ORR and CR rate were 92% and 68% in R-CHOP and 97% ( P = .06) and 73% ( P = .43) in the R2CHOP arm, respectively. The median follow-up was 3.0 years; R2CHOP was associated with a 34% reduction in risk of progression or death versus R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.01) and 3-year PFS of 73% versus 61%, one-sided P = .03, and an improvement in OS (83% and 75% at 3 years; HR, 0.67; one-sided P = .05). The PFS HR for R2CHOP was 0.67 for ABC-DLBCL, one-sided P = .1. CONCLUSION In this signal-seeking study, the addition of lenalidomide to R-CHOP (R2CHOP) improved outcomes in newly diagnosed DLBCL including patients with ABC-DLBCL.

Introduction: Lymphoma is the most common cancer among adolescents and young adults (AYAs). We examined changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and its predictors in AYA patients (pts). Patients and Methods: We identified AYA pts (aged 18-39) enrolled 2002-2015 in a prospective cohort of pts with newly diagnosed lymphoma from the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource, part of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort. Enrollment could occur prior to or after initiation of treatment. We measured HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire at baseline, 12, and 24 months. FACT-G yields five HRQoL domain scores: emotional well-being (EWB), functional WB (FWB), physical WB (PWB), social/family WB (SFWB), and total FACT-G score (a sum of the domains). Pts completing <80% of the FACT-G questions were excluded. Linear mixed models with random subject intercepts estimated changes in FACT-G scores from baseline. The covariates in multivariate analysis were lymphoma subtype, stage, and treatment. Interaction effects between treatment (chemotherapy and/or radiation) and subtype were added to the model. We calculated effect sizes (ES) for the magnitude of mean change scores: 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 were considered small, medium, and large ESs, respectively. Only ESs for mean score differences with p<0.05 are reported. Results: We identified 467 pts; median age at diagnosis was 30 years, median follow up was 5.9 years. 53% of pts completed the baseline FACT-G assessment pre-treatment, 47% completed after treatment began. Pts assessed after treatment initiation had lower baseline total FACT-G (ES -0.25), FWB (ES -0.27), and PWB scores (-0.46); but baseline EWB was higher in pts assessed prior to treatment (ES 0.20). There was no association between HRQoL scores at baseline or over time and lymphoma subtype, stage, or treatment type, or interactions. Total FACT-G scores modestly improved over time, ES 0.32 at 1 year and ES 0.45 at 2 years after enrollment. EWB, FWB, and PWB also improved over time (ES 0.36, 0.44, 0.30 at 1 year; and 0.49, 0.56, 0.38 at 2 years, respectively). SFWB scores slightly worsened over time (ES -0.24 at 1 year and -0.12 at 2 years). Conclusions: AYA pts with lymphoma had higher baseline total FACT-G scores, FWB and PWB prior to therapy initiation compared to after initiation. HRQoL improved from diagnosis through the first 2 years after diagnosis, except for SFWB. Neither stage, lymphoma subtype, nor treatment type affected change in HRQoL. The lack of improvement in SFWB suggests social interventions and future studies should examine factors impacting SFWB in AYA pts. Disclosures Cohen: Genentech, BMS, Novartis, LAM, BioInvent, LRF, ASH, Astra Zeneca, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo: Consultancy. Flowers:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

7536 Background: While most patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) achieve an initial response to treatment, the majority relapse. Recently, Goldman et al. reported that surveillance imaging (SI) in FL is not associated with improved post-relapse outcomes and is frequently associated with false positive scans (ASH 2017). The goal of this study was to validate these findings. Methods: Pts were enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), a prospective cohort of newly diagnosed lymphoma pts. All pts were followed for events including relapse, re-treatment, and death, with events verified by medical records. Pts eligible for this study had biopsy proven FL grade 1, 2, or 3a who had achieved a response after induction therapy and later relapsed. Initial and post-treatment management was per treating physician. Medical records were re-reviewed in pts with events for clinical details at relapse in relationship to planned follow-up visits and SI. Relapse detection was categorized either by clinical suspicion (CS) via history, exam, and/or labs; or by SI in an asymptomatic pt. Univariate survival analysis was conducted for each variable. The hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval based on Cox Proportional Hazard models was presented along with the log rank test p-value. Kaplan-Meier plots were produced to evaluate the difference in overall survival (OS) between groups. Results: 1121 FL pts were enrolled in MER from 2002-2015, of which 117 were eligible. Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 35-83), and 61% were men. Median time to relapse of the 117 pts was 26 months (range 9-125). At a median follow-up from relapse of 69 months (range 0.23-179), 26 pts died. Pts completed a median of 3 imaging studies (range 0-15) during post-induction surveillance. 63 relapses (56%) were detected based on CS; 50 (44%) were detected by SI; and 4 were unknown. There was no difference in OS from relapse for those with relapse detected via CS vs. SI (HR = 0.98 [0.45,2.12], p = 0.96). Conclusions: Routine SI does not appear to improve survival outcomes in FL after achieving first remission, and its common practice should be questioned. Further investigation of prognostic markers to identify high-risk FL pts who may benefit from SI is needed.

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of > 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: 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, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.

Introduction. The VES-13 is a simple, self-reported, function based tool originally developed to screen community-dwelling populations to identify persons age 65 years and older at risk of death and functional decline, including death in the next 12 months. The VES-13 items include patient's age, self-rated overall health status, functional limitations in physical activity, and functional disabilities in more complex activities of daily living. As part of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study, we collected self-reported VES-13 data at study enrollment on all participants regardless of age, and here we report on the prevalence of vulnerable status defined by the VES-13 and its association with 1-year mortality, overall, stratified at age 65 years, and in the subset of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with immunochemotherapy. Methods. From 7/2015 to 6/2017, 3253 participants with NHL were enrolled within 6 months of their diagnosis into the LEO cohort. 2004 were evaluable on VES-13, and 1183 (59%) completed it before the initiation of therapy. VES-13 scores range from a minimum of 0 (low risk for decline) to a maximum of 10 (greatest risk for decline), and a score ≥3 was classified as vulnerable. Clinical, pathology and treatment data were abstracted using a standard protocol, and participants were contacted every 6 months for the first three years and then annually thereafter to identify outcomes. Medical records were reviewed by LEO clinicians to classify cause of death according to a standard protocol. Therapy was determined by the treating physician, and this was independent of knowledge of the VES-13 score. The association of VES-13 with 1-year mortality from date of diagnosis was estimated using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression models, which also provided model c-statistics. Results. The median age of the 2004 participants in this analysis was 62 years (range 18-94); 57% were male; 54% were ≥65 years; and 28% had a normal body mass index (BMI), 1% were underweight, 35% were overweight, and 36% were obese. Clinically, 59% of participants had an aggressive subtype, 65% were stage III-IV, 24% had B-symptoms, and 11% had a performance status (PS) of ≥2. Overall, 28% of participants were classified as vulnerable (95% CI 26%-30%), with a higher prevalence among those completing the survey after initiation of therapy (38%, 95% 34%-41%) versus before initiation of therapy (22%, 95% CI 20%-24%), and a higher prevalence for those ≥65 years (32%, 95% CI 29%-34%) versus <65 (25%, 95% CI 22%-28%). During the first year of follow-up, there were 147 deaths, with 61% due to lymphoma, 14% therapy-related, 12% due to another malignancy, 3% other causes, and 10% unknown. Significant univariate predictors of 1-year mortality included vulnerable status, older age, PS 2+, stage III-IV, aggressive subtype, lower quality of life score, lower BMI, and 1 or more comorbidities, and were included the backward stepwise modeling. Vulnerable status (OR=3.26, 95% CI 2.15-4.96) was retained in the final model that also included age, PS, stage, and NHL subtype (Table), with a model c-statistic of 0.81. As shown in the Table, these associations were similar whether VES-13 was assessed before (c-statistic 0.77) or after (c-statistic 0.81) initiation of therapy. After adjustment for age, PS, stage and NHL subtype, vulnerable status predicted 1-year mortality in participants ≥65 years (OR=1.96, 95% CI 1.15-3.36; model c-statistic 0.80) as well as <65 years (OR=6.38, 95% CI 3.07-13.3; model c-statistic 0.83). Finally, in the DLBCL patients treated with immunochemotherapy (N=521), vulnerable status (38% of patients) also predicted 1-year mortality (OR=2.11, 95% CI 1.05-4.26) after adjusting for age, PS and stage (model c-statistic 0.78). Conclusion. Based on a self-administered VES-13, 28% of newly diagnosed NHL patients in the LEO cohort were classified as vulnerable, including 25% of those <65 years, and vulnerable status was a strong predictor of 1-year-mortality, even in the subset of DLBCL patients treated with presumed curative intent. These results highlight the potential value of screening for vulnerable status overall and across a wider age spectrum in order to optimize patient management and reduce early mortality. Disclosures Martin: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Casulo:Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses. Cohen:Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Farooq:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Friedberg:Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kahl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maurer:Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nastoupil:Spectrum: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rutherford:Heron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Juno Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flowers:National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; V Foundation: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody targeting programmed death receptor-1, has recently been FDA approved for classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) that has relapsed or progressed after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and post-transplantation brentuximab vedotin (BV). CheckMate 205 (NCT02181738) is a phase 2, international, multicohort study evaluating nivolumab monotherapy in patients with cHL after failure of ASCT. At minimum 6 months' follow-up of Cohort B (205B) which included patients who had received BV after disease recurrence following ASCT, objective response rate (ORR) per independent radiologic review committee (IRRC) was 66% and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 77%, with an acceptable safety profile (Younes et al. Lancet Oncol 2016; Jul 20 [Epub ahead of print]). Here we report outcomes with longer follow-up (minimum 12-month follow-up) in 205B. Primary results from Cohort A, which enrolled patients who relapsed after ASCT but were BV-naïve, will also be presented for the first time as data were not available at time of abstract submission. Methods: CheckMate 205 was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab monotherapy in patients with cHL who relapsed after ASCT in 3 cohorts: 205A (BV-naive patients; n = 63); 205B (BV after failed ASCT; n = 80); 205C (BV at any time prior to study drug; n = 100). Nivolumab was given at 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity in 205A and 205B. The primary endpoint was IRRC-assessed ORR. Results: 80 patients were treated in Cohort 205B; the median age was 37 years (range 18-72). Patients had received a median of 4 prior regimens (range 3-15). At data cut-off (April 2016) with median duration of follow-up of 15.4 months (range 1.9-18.5), 43 patients (54%) still remained on therapy. IRRC-assessed ORR for patients in 205B was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56%, 78%). CR and partial response (PR) rates per IRRC were 8% (3%, 16%) and 60% (48%, 71%), respectively. With longer follow-up, the median duration of response was prolonged to 13.1 months (95% CI, 8.7, not reached; range, 0.0+, 14.2+). The median duration of CR (DOCR) was not reached (95% CI, 4.6, not available [NA]; range, 0.7+, 10.4+) and the median duration of PR was 13.1 months (95% CI, 7.79, NA; range, 0.0+, 13.4+) (Table 1). IRRC median PFS was 14.8 months (95% CI, 11.3 months, NA); 12-month PFS was 54.6% (95% CI, 40.9%, 66.4%), and 12-month overall survival (OS) was 94.9% (median OS not reached). Of 37 patients (46%) who discontinued nivolumab, the most common reasons were disease progression (n = 19 [24%]), allogeneic stem cell transplant (n = 7 [9%]) and adverse events (n = 5 [6%]). Seventy-four patients (93%) had drug-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade. The most common drug-related AEs were fatigue (28%), infusion reaction (20%), arthralgia (15%), and rash (15%). 29% of patients had Grade 3-4 drug-related AEs; the most common were increased lipase (8%), neutropenia (5%), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (4%). The most common serious AEs were pyrexia, pneumonia, tumor progression, arrhythmia, infusion reaction, and meningitis (≤4% each). Conclusions: In this report with extended 12-month follow-up, longer remissions are noted following nivolumab monotherapy in relapsed cHL, including durable PRs in heavily pretreated patients. Nivolumab has an acceptable safety profile, similar to previously reported. Primary results following nivolumab monotherapy in BV-naïve patients with cHL who progressed after ASCT (Cohort 205A) will also be presented at the meeting. Study funding: Study funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Professional writing assistance was provided by K. Jesien of Caudex and funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Disclosures Timmerman: Seattle Genetics, Genmab, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kite Pharma, Valor Biopharmaceuticals, Janssen: Research Funding. Engert:Takeda, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Armand:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sequenta Inc: Research Funding. Collins:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kuruvilla:Roche Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria. Cohen:Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Trneny:Roche, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Celgene: Research Funding. De Boer:NKI-AVL: Employment. Shipp:Cell Signaling: Honoraria; Merck, Gilead, Takeda: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Bayer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rodig:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Perkin Elmer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kato:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Sumbul:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Ansell:BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Despite advances in chemotherapy, relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains a significant clinical challenge and an unmet medical need. HL has a unique biology in which a small number of malignant Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells propagate an immunosuppressive microenvironment. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting HRS cells with the CD30 antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV), could overcome tumor cell resistance. E4412 is a Phase 1 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combination of BV and ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (Nivo) in patients with R/R HL. Here we present the preliminary safety and response data on the patients treated with BV + Nivo (Arms D and E). Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R HL were treated with Nivo 3mg/kg and BV 1.2mg/kg (Arm D: Dose Level 1) or 1.8mg/kg (Arm E: Dose Level 2) in dose escalation with a 3+3 design and an expansion cohort (Arm F) of 9 patients. BV and Nivo are given every 21 days for 16 cycles; Nivo may be continued for an additional year (total 2 years of Nivo therapy). Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined for purposes of dose escalation within the first cycle of therapy. Patients are followed for toxicity up to 30 days beyond their last treatment. Results: As of 7/20/2016 10 patients (1 ineligible) have been treated with BV + Nivo. We report the data on the dose escalation population: 3 patients: Arm D, 7 patients: Arm E. Data will be updated to include the full BV + Nivo dose escalation and dose expansion cohorts (Arms D, E & F) (N = 19) by the time of the Annual Meeting. Median age was 46; (range: 25-53). Six patients were male. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of 3 prior therapies. Six patients had prior SCT (5 autologous, 1 allogeneic); 2patients had prior treatment with BV. Safety: Ten of 10 patients are evaluable for safety. Overall safety profiles show that the regimen of BV + Nivo was extremely well tolerated. One patient out of 7 in dose level 2 experienced a DLT (pneumonitis grade 3 with grade 3 dyspnea and hypoxia, and typhilits grade 3), this patient had received a prior SCT, and made a full recovery from his toxicities. Per protocol he discontinued further therapy. No other DLTs were noted for the remaining 9 patients. Common and relevant toxicities considered at least possibly related to drug during any cycle of treatment are shown in Table 1. There were no Grade 4 treatment related adverse events (AEs). The only additional grade 3 AEs noted were one each grade 3 rash and puritis. The most common grade 1-2 treatment related adverse events were: transaminitis (9), peripheral sensory neuropathy (6), and rash (3). Other AEs of interest included: diarrhea (3), blurry vision (2), and myalgias (2). One grade 1-2 infusion reaction was noted, this patient was able to receive subsequent therapy with pre-medication. Response: Eight of 10 patients are evaluable for response. One patient is not yet evaluable. For the 8 evaluable patients the overall response rate (ORR) for the combination of BV + Nivo was 100%, with a CR rate of 62.5% (5/8), with 95% CI of 0.25-0.91. One patient was ineligible for laboratory studies that were out of range at screening, however this patient continues on therapy, and also had a response. One of 5 CRs occurred at in dose level 1 (BV 1.2 mg/kg). Both patients who had been treated with prior BV achieved CRs. The progression free survival (PFS) to date is 100% with a median follow-up of 0.3 years. Conclusion: In this first reported study of the combination of the checkpoint inhibitor Nivo and the ADC BV therapy was well tolerated with one DLT, and primarily grade 1 and 2 toxicities. In a heavily pretreated patient population, 20% of whom had had prior BV and 60% of whom were s/p ASCT, the ORR of 100% and CR rate of 62.5% suggests a deepening of response compared to either therapy alone. Optimization of this combination strategy is planned with ongoing accrual to cohorts receiving BV + Nivo, and BV + Ipi + Nivo. Data will be updated to include the full BV + Nivo cohort (N = 19) by the time of the Annual Meeting. Disclosures Diefenbach: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Oncomed: Research Funding; This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Hong:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Cohen:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Advani:Stanford University: Employment; Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sutro: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; FortySeven: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kahl:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Ansell:BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding.

Introduction Approximately 20% of patients (pts) with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) are age ≥ 60 years (yrs) at diagnosis (dx). Standard anthracycline-based therapies (ABTx) have historically shown lower efficacy and greater toxicity in this older population compared with younger pts, especially for unfit or frail pts. However, prior analyses have pre-dated the use of brentuximab vedotin (BV) and other novel targeted agents in the front-line setting and there remains no clearly defined or unified standard of care for this pt population. Studies in older lymphoma pts have also defined specific categories of pt fitness that may potentially guide therapy, although continued validation of these definitions in cHL are needed. We performed a large, multicenter retrospective study to identify current practice patterns in the US in older untreated cHL pts with specific attention to pt fitness using established definitions and to outcomes with ABTx versus non-ABTx. Methods Following IRB approval at each site, detailed pathologic and clinical data, including geriatric assessments (GAs) for the latter, were collected across 10 US academic medical centers. Eligible pts included: cHL dx on or after 1/1/2010, age ≥ 60 yrs at dx, and no preceding hematologic malignancy. Subjects with inadequate clinicopathologic and outcomes data or with dx other than cHL were excluded. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was developed to study the association of PFS and OS with various factors of interest, and survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier using SPSS. Associations were considered significant for two-sided P values ≤ 0.05. Results Among 254 eligible older cHL pts with newly diagnosed disease, clinical features included: median age 67 yrs (range 60-90+), 54% male, 64% stage III/IV, 46% B symptoms, and 86.1% ECOG PS 0-1. 68.9% had nodular sclerosis, 18.9% mixed cellularity, and 12.2% other subtypes; EBV was detectable by IHC or peripheral blood in 39.3% of evaluable cases (n=98). In terms of geriatric measures, 31 pts (12.2%) had loss of at least one ADL; 40 (15.8%) had a geriatric syndrome; and 16 (6.3%) had both. Of note, only one pt underwent a comprehensive GA prior to treatment. Using established fitness definitions in lymphoma (Tucci et al, 2015), pts were classified as "Fit" (n=129; 50.8%), "Unfit" (n=8; 3.2%), or "Frail" (n=112 (44.1%); 5 (2%) were unclassifiable due to incomplete data (Table 1). Front-line regimens included ABVD (n=145; 57.1%), AVD (n=33; 13.0%), and CHOP (n=18; 7.1%). 6 pts (2.4%) received BV monotherapy; 21 (8.3%) received BV with AVD, the latter either concurrently (N=11) or sequentially (n=10). 11 pts did not receive systemic tx, of whom 9 received radiation alone; 58 pts received radiation with systemic tx. ABVD recipients received an average of 7.4 doses of bleomycin (range 1-14) and 18.4% (n=26) had pulmonary toxicity. In addition, 56.7% (n=130) of pts experienced at least one tx-related toxicity, which was similar across all fitness groups (Table 1). 15.1% (n=38) of pts stopped tx due to toxicity, which was noted more often in "frail" pts though it was relatively uncommon. 11 pts (4.3%) experienced treatment-related mortality (TRM). Compared with pts receiving non-ABTx, ABTx was associated with significantly improved PFS (HR 0.391, P=0.008) and OS (HR 0.195, P=0.0004). ECOG PS >1 was associated with inferior PFS (HR=1.96, P=0.017) and OS (HR=3.09, P=0.002). Pts defined as "frail" had no apparent difference in PFS compared with fit pts (Figure 1A;P=0.169), although decreased OS was seen (Figure 1B; P=0.01). Discussion To the best of our knowledge, these data represent one of the largest analyses of older cHL pts in the modern era. Our real-world analysis shows that in those who are able to receive them, anthracyclines provide meaningful survival benefit in this older cHL patient population and can be well-tolerated for many pts. The impact of dose intensity and backbone regimen are not yet known. In addition, current definitions of "fitness" incompletely identified pts at risk for poor outcomes or greater toxicity. Further studies are planned to better delineate fitness in this population. Disclosures Bartlett: Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genenetech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Bennani:Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board. Hill:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Advani:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences, Inc./Kite Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Infinity Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Celmed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Developments, Inc.: Consultancy; Agensys: Research Funding; Stanford University: Employment, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cell Medica, Ltd: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Magarelli:Tevan Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding. Cohen:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Evens:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Tesaro: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Portell:AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION Complete staging via bone marrow assessment is standard of practice for most newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, though the methods and patterns of bone marrow assessment vary in clinical practice. The 2014 Lugano Classification recommends that in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) alone can designated advanced-stage disease in many, but not all cases. For most other NHL subtypes, obtaining bone marrow biopsy (BMB) remains recommended. We aimed to assess clinical practice patterns of marrow assessment and the performance of PET/CT in the clinical setting. METHODS The Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort is a prospective cohort from 8 academic medical centers. All patients were enrolled in the cohort within 6 months of diagnosis, and prospectively followed. Patients with lymphoma enrolled in the cohort between July 2015 and June 2017 were included for study. Baseline clinical characteristics at diagnosis, whether BMB and/or PET/CT were performed, and the result of these assessments were extracted from the database. Bone marrow involvement on PET/CT was abstracted via review of radiology reports. No central review of images was utilized. RESULTS In total, 3,251 patients were included, consisting of the following subtypes: DLBCL (n=1,098), follicular lymphoma (FL n=730), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL n=302), T-cell lymphoma (TCL n=278), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL n=269), other NHL (n=505) and composite lymphoma (n=69). Other clinical characteristics are shown in table 1. Staging BMB was obtained in 78% of patients, PET/CT was obtained in 56%, both BMB and PET/CT were obtained in 46% while neither were obtained in 9% (table 1). There were significant differences in lymphoma subtype between patients having any bone marrow assessment vs no bone marrow assessment (p<0.0001). MCL (96%) and DLBCL (94%) most frequently had any bone marrow assessment, while MZL was least frequently assessed (84%). Patients undergoing any bone marrow assessment had higher median lactate dehydrogenase (247 U/L vs 206 U/L, p=0.0002). Among the 8 enrolling medical centers, the frequency of bone marrow biopsy at diagnosis ranged from 53% to 86%, and the frequency of PET/CT at diagnosis ranged from 34% to 94% (p<0.0001, table 1). Among patients with DLBCL who had positive bone marrow by either PET/CT or BMB (N=107), 41% (44/107) were positive by BMB only, 19% (20/107) were positive by PET/CT only, and 40% (43/107) were positive by both. Figure 1 shows results of similar analyses for FL, MCL, MZL, and TCL. Using BMB as a gold standard for marrow involvement, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PET/CT for marrow assessment in DLBCL is 49%, 90%, 68% and 91%, respectively. Data for other subtypes are shown in table 2. Patients undergoing both PET/CT and BMB had lower median LDH (231 U/L vs 254 U/L, p=0.0032) than those undergoing one or neither assessments. CONCLUSION Overall, 91% of all patients with newly diagnosed NHL had bone marrow assessments via either PET/CT, BMB or both. The significant variation in the frequency of BMB and PET/CT use among the 8 centers reflects a lack of clear consensus on staging practices regarding bone marrow assessment. The sensitivity of PET/CT for detection of marrow involvement was less than 50% across all subtypes. It is possible the sensitivity of PET/CT could be improved via a centralized review process of the images, as is performed in some clinical trials, however practical approaches for implementing such reviews in clinical practice have not been developed. Between 92-100% of all positive bone marrows were detected by BMB, except in cases with DLBCL in which 19% of positive bone marrows were missed by BMB but detected by PET/CT. Thus, in our analysis, BMB more reliably captured marrow involvement that PET/CT in all subtypes in which both assessments were performed. However, neither PET/CT nor BMB alone were able to identify all cases of bone marrow involvement and use of both modalities may be necessary in cases where marrow involvement would have clinically important implications. Disclosures Rutherford: Juno Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Heron: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Friedberg:Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Casulo:Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses. Cohen:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Flowers:Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.