Pophali, Priyanka A.

AbstractAdolescents and young adults (AYA) with lymphoma experience treatment‐related effects in the short and long term that impact their quality of life and survivorship experience. The effort to improve outcomes for AYA lymphoma survivors requires understanding the available literature, identifying current knowledge deficits, designing better clinical trials incorporating the patient perspective, using novel tools to bridge data gaps and building survivorship guidelines that translate research to clinical practice. This review article summarizes the current state of lymphoma treatment‐related outcomes in AYAs and provides future direction.

AbstractCheckpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy with anti–PD-1 antibodies has been associated with mixed outcomes in small cohorts of patients with relapsed aggressive B-cell lymphomas after CAR-T failure. To define CPI therapy efficacy more definitively in this population, we retrospectively evaluated clinical outcomes in a large cohort of 96 patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas receiving CPI therapy after CAR-T failure across 15 US academic centers. Most patients (53%) had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, were treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (53%), relapsed early (≤180 days) after CAR-T (83%), and received pembrolizumab (49%) or nivolumab (43%). CPI therapy was associated with an overall response rate of 19% and a complete response rate of 10%. Median duration of response was 221 days. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 54 and 159 days, respectively. Outcomes to CPI therapy were significantly improved in patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. PFS (128 vs 51 days) and OS (387 vs 131 days) were significantly longer in patients with late (>180 days) vs early (≤180 days) relapse after CAR-T. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 19% of patients treated with CPI. Most patients (83%) died, commonly because of progressive disease. Only 5% had durable responses to CPI therapy. In the largest cohort of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with CPI therapy after CAR-T relapse, our results reveal poor outcomes, particularly among those relapsing early after CAR-T. In conclusion, CPI therapy is not an effective salvage strategy for most patients after CAR-T, where alternative approaches are needed to improve post–CAR-T outcomes.

Purpose: Anthracyclines can cause long-term cardiovascular (CV) morbidity, especially in long-term Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) lymphoma survivors. Pre-treatment left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) evaluation is recommended, although its utility in AYA is not established. We sought to determine the pre-treatment LVEF assessment practices in AYA lymphoma survivors treated with anthracyclines and factors associated with long-term cardiotoxicity. Methods: Through an electronic health records review, we retrospectively identified AYA lymphoma survivors with ≥5 years of follow-up postanthracycline treatment. Pre-treatment and follow-up data were abstracted. CV health conditions were defined as risk factors for CV disease and confirmed CV diagnoses. Survivors who had new CV health conditions at follow-up were compared to those who were not using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Results: One hundred fifteen AYA lymphoma survivors met the study criteria. Pre-treatment LVEF assessment did not affect chemotherapy decisions. Survivors with pre-treatment CV evaluation had mean follow-up since diagnosis of 8 ± 3.3 years, while survivors without it had 10.3 ± 4.2 years, p < 0.05. Survivors with pre-treatment LVEF assessment received lower cumulative anthracycline dose (240.4 mg/m 2 vs. 280.1 mg/m 2 , p < 0.05) and fewer cycles of chemotherapy (4.8 ± 1.5 vs. 5.6 ± 1.2, p < 0.05). Body mass index (BMI) category at diagnosis and follow-up, in addition to age were associated with development of new CV health conditions, pre-treatment LVEF evaluation was not. Conclusion: Pre-treatment LVEF assessment for AYA lymphoma survivors does not impact oncologic treatment decisions or development of CV health conditions. It may be more valuable to assess and modify CV risk factors such as BMI for CV disease prevention.

Abstract Background: The ECOG-ACRIN randomized phase 3 clinical trial E1912 established ibrutinib-rituximab (IR) as the standard of care for CLL patients &lt;= 70 years in the frontline setting by improving the progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to previous standard chemo-immunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) (Shanafelt et al. NEJM 2019). Quality of life (QOL) was an important secondary endpoint on this trial comparing continuous (IR) vs time-limited (FCR) therapy due to the differing profile of treatment-related toxicities over the short and long-term. E1912 patient-reported outcomes (PROs) results are presented here. Methods: Patients enrolled on E1912 completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and Leukemia subscale at randomization (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomization, and every 6 months for 2 years regardless of disease status. The primary outcome was the 31-item FACT-Leukemia Trial Outcome Index (FACT-Leu TOI), calculated by summing items from the FACT-G physical wellbeing (PWB), functional well-being (FWB), and leukemia subscales (score range: 0-124). The primary endpoint was defined as the difference in FACT-Leu TOI change scores from randomization to 12 months (at response evaluation) between patients treated with continuous therapy Arm A (IR) vs time-limited therapy Arm B (FCR). Mean change scores from baseline to each time point were calculated using all cases with data at baseline and the corresponding time point. Comparisons between treatment arms were performed using two-sample t tests. Linear mixed effects models were used to estimate the trajectories of PRO scores. Results: PRO data was extracted on 3/8/2021. PRO data was provided at baseline and 12 months for 233/354 (65.8%) patients on the IR arm and 118/175 (67.4%) patients on the FCR arm. At enrollment, there were no significant differences in the baseline FACT-Leu TOI scores (mean ± SE) between the two arms: IR (93.27 ± 1.03) vs FCR (92.68 ± 1.38; p=0.73). The FACT-Leu TOI score improved from baseline to 12 months in both arms (Table 1 and Figure 1). The change scores from baseline to 12 months, the primary outcome, were not significantly different between IR (7.59 ± 1.09) vs FCR (8.22 ± 1.44; p=0.73). Change in FACT-Leu TOI from baseline to 3 months was 5.77 ± 0.77 and 4.06 ± 1.18 (p=0.22); and from baseline to 6 months was 6.87 ± 0.87 and 8.01 ± 1.44 (p=0.50) in the IR and FCR arms, respectively. After the first 6 months of treatment, the improvement in FACT-Leu TOI scores was maintained in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in total FACT-Leu TOI score in the continuous therapy (IR) vs time-limited therapy (FCR) arms over the first 36 months post registration. Analysis of FACT subscales showed PWB improved in the IR arm (0.37 ± 0.22) and declined in the FCR arm (-0.92 ± 0.39) from baseline to 3 months (p=0.004 for difference in PWB change between arms) but there was no significant difference between the two arms for change in PWB scores from baseline to 6 and 12 months. There were no significant differences between the two arms for change in FWB and FACT-Leu subscales from baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months. Conclusions: QOL improves in CLL patients age 70 and younger when treated in the frontline setting with IR or FCR. The improvement in QOL is maintained during continuous therapy with ibrutinib and there is no significant decline in QOL over time. Given the improvement in PFS and OS with IR over FCR seen in E1912, the results of this QOL analysis support the use of frontline ibrutinib in previously untreated younger CLL patients. Acknowledgement: This study was conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Peter J. O'Dwyer, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers: U10CA180794, U10CA180820, UG1CA189863, UG1CA190140, UG1CA232760, UG1CA233180, UG1CA233230, UG1CA233253, UG1CA233277, UG1CA233290, UG1CA233339, UG1CA189859, UG1CA233332. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kay: Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Coutre: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding. Barr: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mato: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Litzow: Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Tallman: NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Honoraria; UC DAVIS: Honoraria; Northwell Grand Rounds: Honoraria; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Danbury Hospital Tumor Board: Honoraria; Acute Leukemia Forum: Honoraria; Miami Leukemia Symposium: Honoraria; New Orleans Cancer Symposium: Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; NCCN: Honoraria. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Wagner: Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson: Other: Spouse, previously held individual stocks;; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Athenex Inc: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.

e24030 Background: Physical activity (PA) in cancer survivors improves quality of life (QOL), functioning, fatigue, and reduces the risk of treatment complications, cancer recurrence and death. However, the optimal intervention for increasing PA is not established. Most prospective studies have shown a 6-12-week program to be an effective intervention but this is often not feasible. Therefore, we piloted a one-time individualized exercise prescription in our cardiac rehabilitation center to improve PA in cancer survivors. Methods: We prospectively enrolled cancer survivors who had completed curative intent treatment, with no evidence of active disease in this pilot study. Survivors who consented underwent a consultation with an exercise physiologist for needs assessment followed by a supervised exercise session with a tailored exercise prescription. Survivors also filled out surveys assessing their PA and QOL at baseline (bl), 3, 6 and 12 months after intervention. Clinical information was collected via chart review. We estimated longitudinal PA score and change in PA using mixed models incorporating scores from all available time points using SAS (v 9.4). Results: Between May 2018 and January 2020, 50 participants (26 lymphoma and 24 solid tumor survivors) completed the intervention. 20% participants were on maintenance therapy during the study. Clinical characteristics of 42 evaluable participants are summarized in Table. The survey response rate was 82%, 58%, 58%, 46% at bl, 3, 6 and 12 months respectively. The level of PA improved with time [mean (SE) PA score: 58.5 (4.3) bl, 63.9 (4.8) at 3, 57.6 (4.8) at 6, 62.6 (5.3) at 12 months]. The change in PA from baseline to follow-up time-points [bl vs 3m p=0.41; bl vs 6m p=0.88; bl vs 12m p=0.55] or between the lymphoma and solid tumor survivors was not statistically significant and limited by sample size. No significant trend in QOL was seen. Conclusions: Individualized exercise prescription using the cardiac rehabilitation program may be a feasible, widely applicable tool to implement a PA intervention among cancer survivors. The trend towards improvement in PA in this novel one-time intervention provides intriguing evidence and deserves future study in larger sample sizes to understand if it can improve and create sustainable PA change comparable to longer term exercise interventions.[Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Although increased physical activity (PA) is associated with improved quality of life in cancer survivors, knowledge about the impact of PA on survival in lymphoma patients is limited. We studied the impact of usual adult PA and PA at 3 years after diagnosis on overall (OS) and lymphoma-specific (LSS) survival in lymphoma patients. Methods: Lymphoma patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis into the Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort. At baseline, patients reported their usual level of mild, moderate and strenuous PA during most of their adult life and (for survivors) again at the 3 year follow-up (FU3), which we used to calculate the Godin Leisure Score Index (LSI). At FU3, patients also self-reported change in PA since diagnosis as increase, decrease or no change. LSI was modeled as a continuous score (per 10-point change) and by tertile. Survival was measured as time from diagnosis (for baseline PA) and time from FU3 (for FU3 PA) until death due to any cause and due to lymphoma. We evaluated the association of PA with outcome using Kaplan-Meier curves as well as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from Cox models stratified by lymphoma subtype and adjusted for age and sex (and baseline PA for change models). Results: Of 4087 patients enrolled in the MER at the Mayo Clinic from 2002-2012, 3129 had baseline PA data (3060 evaluable for LSI), and 1845 (1395 evaluable for LSI) had FU3 PA data. In the baseline cohort, 57.6% of the patients were male. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range 18-92 years). The majority had ECOG performance status &lt;2 (95%), no B-symptoms (85.8%) and advanced disease (63% stage III-IV) at diagnosis. The subtypes included were CLL/small lymphocytic (25.9%), follicular (18.1%), diffuse large B-cell (16.8%), marginal zone (8.1%), Hodgkin (6.9%), mantle cell (4.8%), T-cell (5%) and other (14.3%) lymphomas. The median LSI was 28 (range 0-57) at baseline and 25 (range 0-67) at FU3 with a median change in LSI of -2 (range -57 to 61). At a median follow-up of 84 months from diagnosis (IQR 59-119 months) in the cohort with baseline PA, there were 806 total deaths (271 in pts with FU3 PA) and 423 lymphoma deaths (104 in pts with FU3 PA). When analyzed as a continuous variable, baseline LSI was associated with OS (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99) and LSS (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.01). LSI by tertiles was associated with OS (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1a), and patients in the high LSI compared to the low LSI tertile had superior OS (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97) and LSS (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63-1.04). For prognosis after 3 years, continuous LSI at FU3 was also associated with superior OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77-0.92) and LSS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.89). LSI at FU3 by tertiles was associated with OS (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1b), and patients in the high LSI compared to the low LSI tertile had superior OS (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.77) and LSS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.67). A change in LSI from baseline to FU3 PA was associated with superior OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.92) and LSS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64-0.87) after FU3. Change in LSI by tertiles was associated with OS (p=0.0007, Figure 1c). Compared to patients with stable LSI (change of LSI between -10 and 5 points from baseline, n=429), patients who increased LSI by &gt; 5 (n=464) had improved OS (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45-1.00) and LSS (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23, 0.94), while patients who decreased LSI by &gt;10 (n=477) had no association with OS or LSS. Self-reported change in PA from baseline to FU3 was associated with OS (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1d); compared to no change, an increase in PA was not associated with OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.42-1.48) or LSS (OR 0.73, 0.26-2.07), while a reduction in PA was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.49-2.53) and LSS (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.62-3.88). After excluding patients with any events through FU3, the associations for the PA change and OS remained significant for change in LSI (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.83-1.00) and self-reported decrease in PA (HR 1.83, 95%CI 1.32-2.53). Conclusions: Patients with a higher level of usual PA during adult life have significantly better OS and LSS after lymphoma diagnosis compared to those who are less physically active. Higher PA in 3-year survivors is also associated with improved survival, while a reduction in physical activity is associated with worse outcomes. These data support an important role for PA in lymphoma survivorship and also provide a strong rationale for a PA intervention trial in lymphoma patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Cohen: LAM Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding; Takada: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioinvent: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flowers: Spectrum: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Burroughs Welcome Fund: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; National Institutes Of Health: Research Funding; Prime Oncology: Research Funding; Educational Concepts: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Clinical Care Options: Research Funding. Cerhan: Janssen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board (REMICADELYM4001); Janssen: Other: Multiple Myeloma Registry Steering .

Background: With the incorporation of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging as part of the standard staging evaluation of follicular lymphoma (FL), it is generally recommended to obtain the diagnostic biopsy from a lesion with the highest standardized uptake value (SUV) to rule out de novo histologic transformation (HT). In some cases such an approach might be impractical, while in other cases a biopsy from a diseased area with a high SUV may still demonstrate an indolent histology. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with FL with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of HT. Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, provide a better outcome than R-Bendamustine (BR). Furthermore, it is unknown whether rituximab (R) maintenance is beneficial in this setting. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of R-CHOP vs BR in newly diagnosed FL pts with high SUVmax at baseline PET and to clarify the role of maintenance. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified 261 consecutive pts with newly diagnosed biopsy-proven FL1-3A and a SUVmax≥13 on baseline PET, who were treated with frontline R-CHOP (n=183) or BR (n=78) at 7 US cancer centers based on the physician's choice. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from starting treatment until progression, relapse or death. Cut-offs of SUVmax ≥13≤18 and SUVmax&gt;18 were used for sub-analysis (Haematologica;2020;105:1907-1913). Results: Median age was 59 years. The baseline characteristics of the two groups differed significantly for a younger age (58 vs 62 years, p=0.009), a higher rate of B-symptoms (26% vs 10%, p=0.005) and baseline SUVmax&gt;18 (49% vs 36%, p=0.04) in the R-CHOP group. A diagnostic biopsy was obtained from the site at the highest SUV in 129 (71%) and 43 (55%) pts, respectively (p=0.01). These suggest a potential selection of R-CHOP in pts with adverse features. At the end of therapy (EoT), R-CHOP treated pts achieved higher PET-CT complete response rates (CR 82% vs 69%, p=0.02). This superiority held in pts with diagnostic biopsy at the highest SUV site (CR 83% vs 67%, p=0.03), but not in the others (CR 80% vs 71%, p=0.37). Progression occurred at EoT in 11 and 14 pts receiving R-CHOP and BR (6% vs 18%, p=0.02), with a higher rate of HT in the BR group (13% vs 4%, p=0.006). After a median follow-up of 76 months (range, 4-208 months), there was no significant difference in PFS between R-CHOP and BR treated pts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, p=0.34). PFS was strongly associated with FLIPI 2 (HR 2.32, p=0.01) and 3-5 (HR 2.69, p=0.003) in the univariate as well as in the multivariate analysis (FLIPI 2 HR 2.19, p=0.02; FLIPI 3-5 HR 2.51, p=0.01). There was a trend toward overall survival (OS) benefit in the R-CHOP group (Fig.1A). In the univariate analysis for OS, BR regimen (HR 2.12, p=0.03), age &gt;60 (HR 2.54, p=0.006), FLIPI 3-5 (HR 5.13, p=0.03) and biopsy at the highest SUV site (HR 0.44, p=0.01) were prognostic, however none of those remained significant in the multivariate analysis (BR regimen HR 1.84, p=0.09; age &gt;60 HR 1.92, p=0.08; FLIPI 3-5 HR 3.11, p=0.14; biopsy at the highest SUV site HR 0.60, p=0.13; SUVmax&gt;18 HR 1.87, p=0.055). Among pts with EoT response after R-CHOP or BR (n=170 and n=64, respectively), one third in each group (36% vs 41%, respectively) received R-maintenance for a median of 8 administrations (range, 2-12). A significant PFS advantage (landmark analysis) was observed with R-maintenance (Fig.1B; HR 0.53, p=0.02); however, this did not translate in survival benefit (HR 0.67, p=0.49). In a multivariable model, R-maintenance (HR 0.53, p=0.02), FLIPI 2 (HR 2.47, p=0.03) and 3-5 (HR 2.79, p=0.01) remained independent prognosticators of PFS, while no parameters significantly affected OS. The 2-year HT rate (10% vs 17%) and cumulative incidence did not statistically differ between R-CHOP and BR groups (Fig.1C, p=0.159). Early progression (POD24) occurred in 43 and 22 pts who received R-CHOP and BR, respectively (24% vs 28%) and resulted in a significantly higher risk of death (HR 4.12, p=0.006). Conclusion: In newly diagnosed FL pts with SUVmax≥13 at baseline PET, R-CHOP was more effective in achieving CR and reducing the risk of early HT compared with BR, and it was associated with a trend toward survival advantage. Rituximab maintenance significantly prolonged PFS. A prospective evaluation with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Joffe: Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ruella:Abclon, BMS, NanoString: Consultancy; Abclon: Consultancy, Research Funding; UPenn/Novartis: Patents & Royalties. Svoboda:Adaptive: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy. Witzig:Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding. Armand:Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria; Gamida Cell: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Younes:BioPath, Xynomic, Epizyme, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Janssen, Curis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Curis (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Novartis (Inst): Research Funding; Janssen, AbbVie, Merck, Curis, Epizyme, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda Millennium: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; MSKCC: Ended employment in the past 24 months.