Macon, William R.

Abstract Background: A significant percentage of DLBCL patients present with a composite histology, often seen as a node containing both follicular lymphoma and DLBCL or DLBCL in the node and discordant indolent lymphoma in the bone marrow. Literature from the pre-rituximab era suggests DLBCL patients with transformed lymphoma or composite histology have worse outcome than de novo DLBCL. Here we report on early events in a cohort of R-CHOP treated patients. Goal: To determine whether patients with composite lymphoma have an inferior event free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma when treated with R-CHOP. Methods: Newly diagnosed patients treated with an R-CHOP containing regimen were prospectively enrolled in our Lymphoma SPORE registry from 9/2002 through 6/2007. Pathology was centrally reviewed. All patients were followed for retreatment, disease progression, and death. Results: 401 DLBCL patients were enrolled; 14% (57/401) had a composite histology. 33 patients had DLBCL and another histology, predominantly follicular lymphoma (n=29), in the same node. 20 patients had a non-DLBCL histology in a distinct location from the DLBCL; this was primarily indolent lymphoma in the bone marrow (n=15). 4 patients had both. 19% (75/401) of patients died during follow-up and 30% (121/401) had an event (death due to any cause, progression, or retreatment). Median follow-up for living patients was 34 months (range, 5–73). Composite DLBCL patients had higher event-free (3 year EFS = 79%) and overall (3 year OS = 93%) survival then de novo DLBCL (3 year OS = 66%, 3 year EFS 79%), p=0.05 and p=0.005 respectively. These differences remained statistically significant after adjusting for the International Prognostic Index (IPI): EFS HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29–0.97, p=0.02; OS HR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.76, p=0.002. OS and EFS for composite DLBCL more closely resembled R-CHOP treated grade III follicular lymphoma (A,B) from the same cohort (3 year EFS = 81%, 3 year OS = 93%). Improved outcome for composite DLBCL was consistent whether the additional histology was in the same node or distinct from the DLBCL. Conclusions: R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients with indolent discordant bone marrow involvement or other composite histology have improved early OS and EFS compared to de novo DLBCL. Further follow-up is needed to assess the long-term prognosis of composite DLBCL in the rituximab era. Histology N Age > 60 Stage III/IV LDH > ULN PS > 1 >2 EN Sites 3 YR EFS 3 YR OS * Denotes statistically significant difference at p=0.05 de novo DLBCL 344 58% 56% 56% 17% 22% 66% 78% Composite DLBCL 57 65% 77%* 34%* 18% 32% 79%* 93%* Figure Figure

7554 Background: Predicting early clinical failure in patients with untreated FL is important but difficult. Lymphoma involvement of EN sites is better detected by FDG-PET/CT than CT alone, but PET parameters are not part of the usual predictive indices. We aimed to determine the incidence and patterns of spleen and EN disease using PET/CT, and learn if they are useful in predicting early clinical failure. Methods: PET/CT images from 613 cases of newly diagnosed FL between 2003 – 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The location, pattern, and number of EN sites, as well as splenic involvement, were recorded. Associations with outcomes were assessed using event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 49% (301/613) of patients had PET/CT-detected EN involvement, and 28% (171/613) had spleen involvement. Presence of ≥2 EN sites, spleen, bone, or soft tissue involvement, as well as a multifocal on diffuse pattern of bone involvement by imaging, were univariate predictors of EFS; presence of ≥2 EN sites and bone involvement pattern were also predictive of OS. In a multivariate analysis with FLIPI-2 factors, spleen involvement, pattern of bone involvement, and soft tissue involvement independently predicted a lower EFS (Table). When the multivariate analysis was performed using PRIMA-PI factors, the presence of ≥2 EN sites was an adverse independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 2.28; 95% CI 1.01-5.18; p=0.05). Conclusions: Baseline PET/CT identifies EN and spleen sites of disease that can predict early clinical failure of FL. These results may be useful to better identify high-risk patients and guide appropriate therapy. [Table: see text]

8504 Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive lymphoma. The optimal follow-up strategy for patients (pts) in remission is not clear. The goal of this study is to determine the utility of surveillance scans in a large, prospective, multi-institutional cohort of DLBCL pts. Methods: Patients 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. Patients eligible for this study had biopsy proven DLBCL and were treated with anthracycline based immunochemotherapy (IC). Initial and post-treatment management was per treating physician. Medical records were re-reviewed in pts with events for clinical details at relapse and relationship to planned follow-up visits and surveillance scans. Results: 644 pts with DLBCL treated with IC were enrolled in MER from 2002-2009. Median age was 63 years (range 18-92), 54% were men, and median f/u was 59 months (range 8-116). 537 pts entered post-treatment observation; 109 (20%) of the 537 pts relapsed and 41 died from other causes. 42% of relapses were in the first 12 months following diagnosis, 27% between 12-24 months, and 31% >24 months. In the 109 who relapsed, 62% of pts (62/100, 9 unknown) presented to their physician earlier than a planned follow-up visit due to symptoms. At the time of relapse, 68% were symptomatic, 42% of pts had abnormal physical exam, and 55% had elevated LDH; 87% of pts had ≥1 of these features. Of the 38 pts with relapse detected at a planned visit, 26 had clinical features of relapse and 12 pts had relapse detected solely by planned surveillance scan; 4 pts had relapse of low-grade or other subtype and 8 had DLBCL relapse (4 of whom had equivocal/positive PET at the end of IC). Thus, surveillance scanning detected DLBCL relapse prior to clinical manifestations in only 8/537 pts (1.5%) observed post DLBCL therapy. Conclusions: The vast majority of DLBCL relapses occur outside of planned follow-up visits and are accompanied by symptoms, physical exam, or laboratory abnormalities. Routine surveillance scans post-therapy add little to detection of DLBCL relapse.

9057 Background: The incidence of CAM use among patients with cancer is higher when compared to the general population. However, there are few studies examining CAM use in NHL survivors, and limited data are available regarding beliefs in CAM. This study was conducted to examine the prevalence of CAM use in NHL, define CAM beliefs among NHL survivors, and explore differences between patients with indolent and aggressive lymphoma. Methods: Newly diagnosed lymphoma patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource from 2002-2008. NHL patients who completed the 3-year post diagnosis questionnaire, which includes questions regarding CAM use and beliefs, were included in this study. Chi-squared tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess the association of CAM use with prognostic and demographic factors. Results: 719 patients were included with a median age of 63 years (range 22-92). 53% were male. Overall, 636 (89%) reported ever using CAM. 78% of patients used vitamins and 54% alternative therapies (chiropractic (36%) and massage therapy (24%)). Among CAM users, 141 (22%) believe CAM can assist the body to heal, 123 (19%) believe CAM can relieve cancer symptoms, 115 (18%) believe CAM use gives a feeling of control, 106 (17%) believe CAM can boost immunity, 24 (4%) believe CAM can cure cancer, and 35 (6%) believe CAM can prevent the spread of cancer. Female gender was associated with increased overall CAM use (p<0.0001) as well as use of vitamins (p<0.0001), herbal supplements (p=0.006) and alternative therapy (p=0.0002) specifically for cancer. Older age was also associated with increased vitamin use (p=0.005) and decreased herbal supplements use (p=0.008). There was no significant difference in overall CAM use between those with follicular lymphoma grades I-II (n=195, 91%) and non-relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=151, 87%), although massage therapy was utilized more often by FL survivors (29% versus 18%, p=0.005). Conclusions: CAM modalities are used by the majority of NHL survivors (89%). The assessment of CAM use and education regarding potential harms is imperative for the NHL survivor.

Abstract Background: Vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) has been associated with inferior outcomes in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) treated with chemotherapy and an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (immunochemotherapy; IC), but whether this association holds for other FL treatment strategies is not known. Furthermore, the subset of FL patients who experience clinical failure (progression, treatment failure) within 12 months of diagnosis have an inferior outcome compared to those achieving event-free status at 12 months (EFS12). We tested the hypothesis that VDI is predictive of early clinical failure (failure to achieve EFS12), overall survival (OS), and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS) among FL patients overall and in subgroups who were initially observed, treated with IC, rituximab monotherapy, or other therapies. Methods: We evaluated this hypothesis in a prospective cohort study of 642 newly diagnosed patients with grade 1-3a FL enrolled from 2002-2012 in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource of the Iowa/Mayo Lymphoma SPORE. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy, and VDI was defined as serum total 25(OH)D <20 ng/mL (per Institute of Medicine criteria) determined within 120 days of diagnosis. We used logistic regression to estimate Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. We adjusted for FLIPI, body mass index, and month of blood draw; for the full cohort, we additionally adjusted for treatment. Results: The mean age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 23-93); 19% of patients had VDI. The median follow-up period was 59 months (range 1-144), with 297 events and 78 deaths (42 due to lymphoma). Treatment included IC (N=252), observation (N=218), rituximab monotherapy (N=76), or other (N=96). OS and EFS curves are shown in figures 1 and 2. In the full cohort, VDI was associated with inferior EFS12 (OR=2.05; 95% CI 1.18-3.54), OS (HR=2.35; 95% CI 1.37-4.02), and LSS (HR=2.97; 95% CI 1.52-5.80). In the IC subset, VDI was associated with inferior EFS12 (OR=3.00; 95% CI 1.26-7.13), OS (HR=2.86; 95% CI 1.39-5.85), and LSS (HR=2.96; 95% CI 1.29-6.79). VDI was associated with inferior OS in patients who were observed (HR=2.25; 95% CI 1.20-6.76) or received other therapies (HR=3.06; 95% CI 1.01-9.24). VDI was positively but not statistically significantly associated with inferior EFS12 in the patients who were observed (OR=1.71; 95% CI 0.70-4.17) or received other therapies (OR=2.31; 95% CI 0.41-13.07), with low power for these associations; LSS could not be estimated due to lack of deaths. There were too few events (N=10) and deaths (N=5) in the R-monotherapy group for analysis. Conclusions: We confirm previous findings that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with adverse long-term prognosis among patients with FL treated with IC, and extend these findings to patients who are initially observed or treated with other therapies. For the first time, we observed an association of vitamin D insufficiency with early clinical failure, suggesting a potentially modifiable factor to address in this subset of patients with poor outcomes. Whether treating VDI improves outcomes in FL warrants assessment. Disclosures Ansell: BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding. Nowakowski:Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Standard first-line treatment for patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the R-CHOP regimen. Despite numerous efforts to improve on this regimen, in all comers and specifically in those with activated B-cell (ABC)-type DLBCL, results from large randomized studies have failed to show a significant clinical advantage above this standard. Recently, 2 large clinical trials in previously untreated DLBCL evaluated the combination of lenalidomide/R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) vs standard R-CHOP and demonstrated discordant results. We analyzed data from these trials to identify differences that may have impacted the disparate trial outcomes while identifying patient characteristics associated with benefit from the addition of lenalidomide across the trials. Methods: The 2 trials included in this evaluation are ROBUST, an international, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III study of R2-CHOP vs placebo/R-CHOP, and the Intergroup ECOG-ACRIN 1412 (E1412) trial, a US-only, randomized, open-label, phase II study of R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP. Additional key study design differences included dosing, and subtype timing and inclusion (both studies used gene expression profiling [GEP] by NanoString). R-CHOP dosing differed only for prednisone, which was a flat 100 mg dose, d1-5 in ROBUST and 100 mg/m2, d1-5 in E1412. The lenalidomide dose and schedule varied between studies: 15 mg/d, d1-14/21 for ROBUST (210 mg/cycle) and 25 mg/d, d1-10/21 (250 mg/cycle) for E1412. ROBUST enrolled only patients prospectively identified with the ABC subtype, whereas E1412 enrolled all otherwise eligible patients and retrospectively evaluated for ABC-type with prespecified ABC-type accrual and power parameters. Both studies enrolled patients with IPI status ≥ 2, ECOG PS 0-2, and Ann Arbor stage II-IV (E1412 stage II with mass > 10 cm). The primary endpoint in both was progression-free survival (PFS; central review for ROBUST and investigator-assessed for E1412). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS; key for ROBUST), overall and complete response rates, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: ROBUST enrolled 570 ABC patients and E1412 enrolled 280 GCB, ABC, and unclassified DLBCL patients. Patient profiles in both studies (ROBUST [ABC]/E1412 [all COO]) were similar in terms of median ages (65 y/66 y), male sex (58%/61%), and ECOG PS 1-2 (55%/63%). Patients in E1412 were more high risk: IPI 2 (42% ROBUST/34% E1412), IPI ≥ 3 (58%/66%), and Ann Arbor stage III/IV disease (87%/97%). Importantly, there was a notable difference in the time from patient diagnosis to treatment: median 31 days for ROBUST and 21 days (22% > 31 d) for E1412. Only 6% of patients in ROBUST were treated within 2 weeks of diagnosis vs 30% in E1412. At a median follow-up of ~2.5 y for both studies, E1412 met its primary endpoint of improvement in PFS with 34% reduction in the risk of PD/death (2-y PFS: 76% vs 70%) for all patients, but did not reach statistical significance in ABC-DLBCL patients for 2-y PFS (71% vs 61%) or 2-y OS (88% vs 76%). ROBUST showed no significant improvement in the primary PFS endpoint (2-y PFS: 67% vs 64%) or 2-y OS (79% vs 80%) in ABC patients. Subgroup analyses of PFS comparing R2-CHOP vs R-CHOP control within each study suggested that certain baseline factors favor the R2-CHOP arm, including: female sex, high IPI score (≥ 3), non-bulky disease (< 7 cm), and high Ann Arbor stage IV disease. Conclusion: While the ROBUST study design integrated state-of-the-art, real-time GEP to prospectively identify ABC-DLBCL patients with rapid lab turnaround time, cases of logistical delays in tissue submission for central analysis and staging procedures may have resulted in accrual of patients with lower-risk DLBCL and prolonged time from diagnosis to treatment. In contrast, E1412 retrospectively stratified patients by COO through GEP and was able to accrue higher-risk patients irrespective of COO within a shorter time from diagnosis to treatment, which among other differences (eg, smaller population size, study phase), could contribute to the improvement over R-CHOP control. Our comparative findings have significant implications for the design of future biomarker-driven trials and provide momentum for studies of novel combinations with R-CHOP in DLBCL. Further investigation into other factors, including dose intensity and their correlation with outcomes, will be presented. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chiappella:Servier: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Hong:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Employment; Merck: Consultancy. Scott:Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution], Research Funding. Amengual:Appia Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau. Leonard:BeiGene: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Kostakoglu:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Jurczak:Morphosys: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celtrion: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Yamamoto:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; ARIAD: Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SymBio: Research Funding; HUYA/IQVIA Services Japan: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sumitomo Dainippon: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Solasia Pharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Russo:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hudak:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership; Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wade:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Vitolo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Yes, these trials discuss off-label clinical trial investigation of lenalidomide plus R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Introduction: New Diffuse Large B-cell (DLBCL) treatments remain a clinical need despite the success of rituximab combined with CHOP chemotherapy (RCHOP), which results in durable responses in 60-70% of patients. Those refractory to, or who relapse following, first-line therapy have a very poor outcome, with only 20% surviving beyond 5 years. Rationally-targeted frontline strategies are needed, especially for those with high-risk disease. Significant advances have been made in the genomic classification of DLBCL, but none have impacted the design of phase III trials for untreated DLBCL patients. Building on new genetic profiling studies to personalize clinical treatment, an NCI initiative, could allow clinicians to add targeted therapies to the RCHOP backbone based on individual tumor signatures. The phase II ECOG-ACRIN1412 trial, which compared RCHOP combined with lenalidomide (R2CHOP) versus RCHOP showed significantly superior event free survival (EFS) and overall survival benefits for those treated with R2CHOP. Herein, we report the profile of a high-risk ABC/non-GCB subset of DLBCL driven by genomic alterations in inflammatory genes that are susceptible to front-line R2CHOP, but continue to experience poor outcome with RCHOP alone. Methods: We studied a total of 196 DLBCL patients. 47 were treated with R2CHOP from an investigator-initiated, open-label, single-arm phase II study (NCT00670358). 149 were newly diagnosed DLBCL cases treated with RCHOP, or R-immunochemotherapy (herein called RCHOP), and followed prospectively through the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE that served as a contemporary cohort. Patients from each treatment group were divided based on their event free survival at 24 months (EFS24). DNA alterations within these populations were identified through whole exome sequencing (WES). Variants were analyzed for their presence in EFS24 achievement or failure groups in both RCHOP and R2CHOP. Both tumor and germline sequencing was performed for 47/47 R2CHOP cases and 49/149 RCHOP cases. Gene expression data from the PanCan panel of 730 B-cell-related genes was analyzed to determine gene expression profiles characteristic of the high-risk/R2CHOP-profile on 59 available non-GCB DLBCL cases (45 RCHOP; 14 R2CHOP). A two-sided comparative marker analysis T statistic test was applied to assess what genes displayed differential expression based on achieving EFS24 in both R2CHOP and RCHOP populations. Positive values represented associations with achieving EFS24 and negative values were associated with cases of EFS24 failure. Results: Three genes were enriched in the RCHOP cases that failed EFS24 but achieved EFS24 with R2CHOP among non-GCB patients: PIM1, SPEN, and MYD88 (L265P), herein referred to as Responder Alterations. In R2CHOP cases, patients with a Responder Alteration had a better overall EFS (P = 0.051) compared to wild type patients. In contrast, RCHOP treated patients with a Responder Alteration in their tumor had a significantly worse overall EFS (P = 0.0004) compared to patients without a mutation. Together, PIM1, SPEN, or MYD88 (L265P) mutations were present in 38.0% (30/79) of all non-GCB cases. Collective R2CHOP and RCHOP EFS24 differential gene expression T values were significantly different for 18 previously-defined signatures. The R2CHOP cases that achieved EFS24 were enriched for genes involved in cell cycle, JAK-STAT, cytokine signaling, and NF-κB pathways based on these signatures and ontology analyses. Lastly, cases with WES and PanCan data were analyzed together to observe differential gene expression patterns between cases with and without signature mutations. These data suggest that R2CHOP disrupts tumors reliant on IRF4, NF-κB, and STAT transcription factors, leading to a loss of proliferative feedback systems. Conclusions: Our combined analysis of DNA and RNA across R2CHOP and RCHOP treatment cohorts identifies a high-risk non-GCB phenotype that encompasses approximately 38% of non-GCB patients, is capable of sustaining JAK-STAT and NF-κB signaling, and is sensitive to R2CHOP. Our study lays the groundwork for a precision therapy approach in DLBCL in which DNA or RNA profiles can be used to identify patients early in treatment who may not benefit from the current standard of care, RCHOP, and who would benefit from the addition of lenalidomide or other targeted agents. Disclosures Gandhi: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski:Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Novak:Celgene Coorperation: Research Funding.

Purpose: We aimed to describe the clinical and histologic findings in a few enucleation cases with intraocular lymphoma. Methods: Retrospective review of pathology files from a 22-year period identified cases with intraocular lymphoma among all enucleation specimens. Patient demographics, clinical findings, laboratory results, radiographic studies, and indication for enucleation were abstracted from electronic health records; slides were reviewed. Results: Four patients (three women and one man; age range, sixth through eighth decades of life) underwent enucleation with a final diagnosis of intraocular lymphoma. Two patients with primary vitreoretinal large B-cell lymphomas had been treated for refractory uveitis. Specimens showed retinal and subretinal infiltrates by atypical large B-lymphocytes and rare neoplastic cells in the vitreous. The remaining two patients had systemic lymphoproliferative disorders. One patient had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and floaters in his eye; vitreoretinal lymphoma developed, consistent with intraocular Richter transformation. The other had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in remission; however, blurred vision developed, she was treated for panuveitis without improvement, and was later found to have ocular involvement by diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Conclusion: Our series details the unusual circumstances when an eye is removed for intraocular lymphoma. Different patterns of ocular tissue involvement were observed when we compared primary and secondary lymphomas.

Abstract Introduction: Outcomes of multidisciplinary and molecular tumor boards have been reported. Lymphoma specific tumor board outcomes have not been reported in the molecular era. In addition, the utility of multi-site, interactive tumor boards using videoconference technology are not widely reported. We prospectively followed the outcomes of a multidisciplinary multi-site lymphoma tumor board in the molecular era and during a change in the revision of the World Health Organization Classification in first published in 2016. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board is a component of the international Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN). The format includes the clinical case presentation, presentation of radiology and hematopathology findings by the appropriate specialist, proposed treatment options, review of the literature pertinent to the case, and discussion followed by recommendations. Requirement for presentation includes having a diagnosis of lymphoma with pathology reviewed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (MCR). Pathology and radiology material, when relevant to the case, are required to be reviewed at MCR and presented by MCR pathologists/radiologists. Patients must be presented prospectively, and have active clinical issues or questions to be addressed. Four cases are presented per 60-minute meeting. 309 consecutive highly selected cases with a diagnosis of lymphoma were presented at the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board from 2014 to 2018. The pathology material was independently reviewed by the presenting hematopathologists and radiology material by the presenting radiologist. Participants are office based and included multiple members of the health care team which also incudes pharmacists, clinical research associates affiliated with lymphoma research, and physicians in training. Recommendations were prospectively tracked for changes in radiology interpretation, pathologic diagnosis, and treatment approaches. Actual follow-up of all patients after the meeting was not allowed in the MCCN. Participation in the meeting can be either via in-room attendance at MCR, video conference at a participating MCCN site, or via non-participatory live-stream online. Results: 309 cases were presented were presented from 2014-2018. 258 cases were from MCR, and 51 were not physically seen at MCR. 16 cases were presented at a subsequent meeting for further recommendations in the course of their disease after the initial presentation. 54% of patients presented had changes in some aspect of their care as a result of the meeting. Changes in radiologic interpretation occurred in 5 (1.6%) patients. The pathologic diagnosis changed in 27 (8.7%). Additional testing was recommended in 44 (14%). Clinical management changes were recommended in 90 (29%) cases. These included alterations in treatment approach in 43 (14%), change from undecided to pursuit of treatment 10 (3%), change from undecided regarding treatment approach to further diagnostic testing 4 (1.3%), change from observation to treatment 9 (3%), change from treatment to observation 4 (1.3%), and treatment to further tests in 2 (0.6%) Site in room average attendance (internal/external) was 16.8/8.6. Non-participatory live-stream attendance was not possible to track. In an annual electronic evaluation of this activity, 93% of the responders reported an improvement in knowledge and competence, and 100% recommended no changes to the format of the conference. Enhancements over time have included Continuous Medical Education credit, an in room microscope, and real-time radiology images. Selected cases will now be on line on an international web site. Conclusion: In this highly selected group of lymphoma cases from multiple sites over a 4-year period, 54% of the (167/309) case presentations resulted in changes to some aspect of care as a direct result of this tumor board. A multidisciplinary lymphoma tumor board approach was of value, efficacious, and meaningfully impacted lymphoma patients while substantially enhancing interdisciplinary interactions. Disclosures Ansell: Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding.

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