Clausen, Michael Roost

Abstract A short diagnosis-to-treatment interval independently predicts inferior outcomes in follicular lymphoma. Using international discovery and validation cohorts, we demonstrate its prognostic value beyond established prognostic indices, with implications for risk stratification, clinical trial design, and interpretation.

Abstract Introduction Short diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) is associated with aggressive disease biology and inferior outcomes in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and is recognized as a potential source of selection bias in clinical trials if not properly addressed. However, its prognostic significance in follicular lymphoma (FL) remains poorly characterized. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of DTI in newly diagnosed FL patients who received frontline (1L) immunochemotherapy (IC), using a large international dataset and an independent external validation cohort. Methods For the discovery dataset, we evaluated patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2018 from ten observational cohorts as part of the FLIPI24 Consortium. External validation was conducted using data from patients enrolled in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort between 2010 and 2015. All patients had FL grade 1–3A and received 1L IC within 100 days of diagnosis. Patients with a concurrent DLBCL were excluded. Missing baseline laboratory values were addressed via multiple imputation. The primary endpoint was event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24); secondary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS), both calculated from treatment initiation. DTI was analyzed as continuous (via splines) and dichotomized variable (≤14 vs >14 days; as defined in DLBCL). Results In the discovery cohort (n=3,907), median age was 61 years (IQR 53–69), and 50% were male; 49% of patients were high-risk according to FLIPI, 26% according to PRIMA-PI, and 38% according to FLIPI24. Included patients received R-CHOP (54%), R-CVP (26%), or B-R (20%) as 1L treatment, followed by anti-CD20 maintenance in 60%. The median DTI was 30 days (IQR 17–48). Using the 14-day cut-off, 851 patients (22%) had short DTI. These patients had more adverse baseline characteristics, including B symptoms (42% vs 32%, P<0.01), ECOG performance status ≥2 (15% vs 8%, P<0.01), elevated LDH (51% vs 40%, P<0.01), hemoglobin <12 g/dL (30% vs 17%, P<0.01), and elevated β2-microglobulin (56% vs 44%, P<0.01). Prognostic indices (PIs) were also more frequently high-risk in the short-DTI group: FLIPI (56% vs 47%), PRIMA-PI (36% vs 24%), and FLIPI24 (51% vs 34%, all P<0.01). Spline modeling showed a decreasing EFS24 rate with increasing DTI, reaching a plateau at 30–40 days. In logistic regression model, each additional week of DTI improved EFS24 (OR 0.92, P<0.01). DTI attenuated but remained prognostic after adjusting for PIs (OR 0.93 for FLIPI, 0.95 for PRIMA-PI, 0.96 for FLIPI24, all P<0.01). When analyzed as a dichotomized variable, short DTI was associated with inferior EFS24: OR 1.74 adjusted for FLIPI, 1.63 for PRIMA-PI, and 1.53 for FLIPI24 (all P<0.01). The 2-year EFS of short vs long DTI groups was 71% vs 82% (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.34–1.67, P<0.01), 5-year OS was 80% vs 86% (HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.21–1.56, P<0.01), and the 5-year cumulative risk of histologic transformation was 7.7% vs. 5.4% (P<0.01). In the validation cohort (n=516), median age was 61 years (IQR 52–69 years), 55% were male; 36% of patients were high-risk according to FLIPI; 29% according to PRIMA-PI, and 33% according to FLIPI24. Patients received B-R (59%) or R-CHOP (41%) as 1L treatment. The median DTI was 31 days (IQR 19–48), 84 patients (16%) had DTI ≤14 days. Similar patterns were observed; patients with short DTI had adverse baseline characteristics, PIs, and shorter 2-year EFS (72% vs 84%, HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.13–2.55, P=0.01). DTI remained associated with EFS24 when analyzed as a continuous variable (per week: OR 0.88 unadjusted, 0.90 with FLIPI, 0.89 with PRIMA-PI, and 0.89 with FLIPI24), and dichotomized (≤14 vs >14 days: OR 1.83 adjusted for FLIPI, 1.88 for PRIMA-PI, and 1.73 for FLIPI24). Conclusion Short DTI, defined as ≤14 days (observed in 22% of FL patients vs 46% in DLBCL), is a strong and independent predictor of inferior outcomes in newly diagnosed FL patients treated with IC. While DTI correlates with adverse baseline features and established PIs, it retains independent prognostic value. Although a 14-day threshold is reasonable for risk modeling, DTI contains greater informational value when modeled as a continuous variable. Among PIs, FLIPI24 most strongly attenuated the DTI effect, underscoring its superior discriminative power over FLIPI and PRIMA-PI. Clinical trials designs should mitigate any potential barriers to enrollment of FL patients requiring urgent therapy.

PURPOSE Although most patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) can expect an indolent course, progressive lymphoma remains the primary cause of death during the first decade after diagnosis. Progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) of starting first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy defines a high-risk population with poor survival, but better risk stratification at diagnosis is needed. METHODS The FLIPI24 model was developed and internally validated to predict 24-month event rates using individual data from 4,485 patients treated with 1L immunochemotherapy from 10 observational cohorts of FL. Overall and cause-specific survival was further evaluated in FLIPI24 risk groups. External validation in the 1L immunochemotherapy setting was performed using the prospective observational Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort (N = 565) and three randomized phase III trials (N = 3,192); extension to all patients with FL (any 1L therapy) was performed in the LEO cohort (N = 1,445) and its Molecular Epidemiology Resource subcohort (N = 1,074). RESULTS The FLIPI24 model uses age and four blood-based variables (hemoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, beta-2 microglobulin, and WBC count). FLIPI24 showed consistent performance across validation and extension data sets, which was superior to existing prognostic tools. Across the four external immunochemotherapy validation data sets, patients with high-risk FLIPI24 (23%-32% of patients) had significantly higher 24-month event rates (22%-35%) and inferior 5-year overall survival (77%-83%) compared with patients with low-risk FLIPI24 (29%-31% of patients, 24-month event rates: 10%-12%; 5-year OS: 96%-97%). Results were consistent when evaluating lymphoma-related death and when extended to all patients with FL. CONCLUSION The FLIPI24 model robustly stratifies, at diagnosis, patients with FL at increased risk of lymphoma-related death versus patients with very low lymphoma-related mortality during the first decade after diagnosis. FLIPI24 can be used to enrich future clinical trial designs in newly diagnosed FL.

ABSTRACTThe development of new first‐line treatments for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) is becoming increasingly challenging due to already excellent survival outcomes. The present study investigated the outcomes of patients with FL who underwent contemporary first‐line therapies but would not have been eligible for inclusion in recent trials and explored how commonly used in/exclusion criteria impacted their survival outcomes. This study included adult patients diagnosed with FL in the period 2000–2018 registered in the Danish Lymphoma Registry. Through searches on ClinicalTrials.gov, four recent 1st line phase 3 randomized controlled trials with R‐Bendamustine, R‐CVP, and/or R‐CHOP as control or experimental arms were included. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for each trial were retrieved and categorized. Patients were then divided into trial‐eligible and ineligible groups according to blood test results correlated to organ function and ECOG performance score (PS). Survival outcomes were significantly worse among trial‐ineligible patients, with adjusted differences between trial‐eligible and ineligible patients of 12%–20% in five‐year overall survival (OS) overall. Inclusion criteria based on PS and renal function were the main drivers of OS differences. More inclusive trials will lead to faster recruitment and secure focus on developing medicines for the group of patients with the worst outcomes.

Introduction: Splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL) is a rare, indolent disease. There is no universally accepted standard therapy and long-term outcome data are limited. Rituximab monotherapy is increasingly used over splenectomy in the first-line setting despite a paucity of comparative studies. In the absence of randomized trials, large-scale international real-world data studies are critical to evaluate outcomes of different treatment interventions and to understand the natural history of SMZL in the rituximab-era. Methods: Adult patients with SMZL diagnosed between Jan 1 st 2000 and Dec 31 st 2018 were identified using regional/nationwide population-based registries or hospital registries in Europe, the UK, North America, and Australia. Medical records and pathology reports from eligible patients were reviewed locally by clinicians with specialty experience in hemato-oncology. SMZL cases were required to meet the diagnostic criteria by Matutes et al. Detailed data on clinico-pathological features, comorbidities, treatments (including treatment intention), treatment responses and survival outcomes were entered in a central study database. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from diagnosis until death from any cause or censoring at last follow-up unless stated otherwise. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until histological transformation, initiation of new chemotherapy or death from any cause. Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cumulative risk of transformation was estimated with death as a competing risk. Primary endpoints were 10-year OS and 5-year EFS respectivly. Results: A total of 934 patients from 25 sites were included. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (IQR 60-76) and 54% were female. Bone marrow involvement was present in 96% (564/590) of those assessed, anemia (Hb <12g/dL for women or <13g/dL for men) in 58%, LDH >UNL in 46%, lymphocytosis (>5 x10 9/L) in 34%, and B-symptoms in 34%. Treatment data were available for 97% of patients. Median follow-up was 9.1 years (range 0-23). Watch and wait was the initial strategy in 28% and 88% of patients received at least one line of treatment during follow-up with the most common being splenectomy (45%), immuno-chemotherapy (19%) or rituximab monotherapy (8%). Fifteen percent received “other” treatments (i.e., combinations of listed therapies and/or radiation). The overall response rate to first-line treatment was 88% (95%CI: 85-90%) with 61% (95%CI: 57-64%) achieving CR. Second line (2L) therapy was needed in 34% during follow-up, 3L in 20% and 4L+ in 9%. The 5-year EFS and OS for all patients were 61% (95%CI: 57-65%) and 77% (95%CI: 74-80%) respectively. The 10-year OS and lymphoma-specific mortality (with non-SMZL deaths as competing risk) estimates were 60% (95%CI: 57-64%) and 11% (95%CI: 9-14%) respectively. The 5-year OS after 2L and 3L were 61% (95%CI: 55-68%) and 51% (95%CI: 42-61%) respectively (figure 1). The 10-year cumulative risk of histological transformation was 17% (95%CI: 13-21%), with 5-year post-transformation OS of 42% (32-54%). At the time of transformation, 60% were chemo-naive and 52% had never been treated for SMZL. The 5-year OS for chemo-naive patients with transformation was 54% (95%CI: 41-71%) versus 24% (95% CI: 13-44%) for transformations after (immuno)chemotherapy (p = 0.01). When comparing patients intended for treatment in first line with splenectomy (n=312) versus rituximab (n=70), patients treated with splenectomy more frequently presented with extra-hilar lymphadenopathy (35% vs 18%), splenomegaly (92% vs 87%) and anemia (64% vs 48%). OS was similar for the two groups (Figure 2, p = 0.53). The 5-year EFS were 63% (95%CI: 57-68%) and 64% (95%CI: 54-77%), respectively (p = 0.31). Conclusions: To date, this is the largest real-world study of SMZL with detailed treatment and outcome data. The study shows that histological transformation was not uncommon with 10-year risk of 17%. However, outcomes for the entire cohort were excellent irrespective of initial treatment and both OS and EFS were similar after first line rituximab versus splenectomy. Long-term survival remained relatively high even following multiple lines of therapy.

Abstract Background: CD20 antibody plus alkylator and/or anthracycline based immunochemotherapy (IC) is a standard frontline therapy for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) with 10-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of approximately 50% and 80% respectively in long-term follow-up of clinical trials. Currently available clinical prognostic indices for FL have been designed using PFS and OS endpoints. Early events, commonly defined as progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) or early transformation to a more aggressive histology, are associated with inferior outcomes and increased risk of death due to refractory FL. Timely identification of the minority of patients with elevated mortality risk might enhance clinical management and research strategies. The FLIPI24 Consortium was created to develop a clinical prognostic index using early events as the primary endpoint. We report the outcomes for the pooled cohort and investigate the implications of therapy patterns on potential model development. Methods: Individual patient data were pooled and harmonized from 11 prospective observational cohorts from Europe, North America, and Australia. Patients who were diagnosed with grades 1-3A FL and initiated frontline IC were eligible. EFS was defined as time from start of IC to progression, relapse, retreatment (2nd line), histologic transformation, or death due to any cause. Early events were defined using status at 24 months from start of IC. OS was defined as time from start of IC to death due to any cause. Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate outcomes by clinical features and therapy types. Results: 9006 patients were abstracted and harmonized, 6111 patients initiated frontline IC between 2002 and 2018 and were included in this analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 61 years (IQR 52-69) and 50% were male. Complete FLIPI data were available in 5637 patients (92%) and 46%, 32%, and 22% were low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. IC type was 3079 R-CHOP or like (50%) , 1529 R-CVP or like (25%), 918 R-bendamustine (B-R) or like (15%), and 585 fludarabine or other alkylator based IC (10%); 3187 received CD20 antibody maintenance (52%). Patients receiving R-CHOP were younger, more frequently grade 3A, and more frequently had elevated LDH; differences in other characteristics by IC type were not clinically meaningful. At median follow-up of 42 months (IQR 17-72), 2647 patients (43%) had an event (any) and 1494 patients (25%) died. Median survival after an early (non-death) event was 49 months (95% CI: 41-58); 5-year OS was 46% (95% CI: 43-49) compared to 89% (95% CI: 88-90) in patients without POD24. Across all IC types, EFS estimates at 2 and 10 years from start of IC were 80% (95% CI:79-81) and 49% (95% CI:48-51) and OS estimates were 92% (95% CI: 91-92) and 70% (95% CI: 69-72), respectively. FLIPI was highly associated with both EFS (c-statistic=0.61) and OS (c-statistic=0.65) from the initiation of IC (both p<0.0001). There were significant differences in EFS and OS by IC type (both p<0.0001) and use of maintenance was associated with prolonged EFS in landmark analyses at both 6 and 12 months from initiation of IC (both p<0.0001). Treatment patterns changed significantly over the study timeframe. Use of B-R and/or maintenance increased to 30% and 70% respectively in N=2937 patients treated in 2010-2018 (Era2) compared to <1% and 40% respectively in N=3174 patients treated 2002-2009 (Era1). EFS was significantly higher for Era2 compared to Era1 (HR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.71-0.83), which remained significant after adjustment for FLIPI (EFS HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.76-0.89). However, the association between treatment eras and overall survival was weaker (HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99) and not significant after adjusting for baseline FLIPI (OS HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.88-1.10). Conclusion: EFS and OS from this large pooled analysis of observational cohorts is similar to long-term follow-up of randomized clinical trials in the IC era and support the use of these data for model development. Modeling efforts for early events should adjust for initial IC selection and use of maintenance therapy. Utilization of bendamustine and/or maintenance therapy increased over the study timeframe from 2002-2018, and Era2 was associated with improved EFS but not OS. This cohort provides comprehensive and robust observational data to define clinical predictors in IC treated patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Flowers: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Iovance: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Ziopharm: Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Weibull: Jansen-Cilag: Other: part of a research collaboration between Karolinska Institutet and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV for which Karolinska Institutet has received grant support. Ghesquieres: Janssen: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kridel: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Gandhi: Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Cheah: Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding. Hawkes: 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; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; 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. Seymour: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Freeman: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Teva: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Clausen: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wahlin: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Link: Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy. Ekstroem Smedby: Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Trněný: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Generalizability of results from clinical trials with narrow in-/exclusion criteria are a concern as significant deviations in efficacy or toxicity may occur when treatments are used in populations of elderly and more comorbid patients. The cost-effectiveness of novel therapies may also be less favorable if real-world treatment effects are inferior to clinical trial results. In diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), a recent US study showed that baseline organ function-based eligibility criteria had substantial impact on survival with ineligible patients being at higher risk of dying from progressive lymphoma (1). Aims: The present study explored the impact of commonly used in-/exclusion criteria in key completed and ongoing first line DLBCL trials on survival in a Danish population-based study of patients with de novo DLBCL. Patients and methods: DLBCL patients enrolled in the Danish Lymphoma Registry (LYFO) and treated with R-CHOP in the period 2008-19 were screened for completeness of data to match trial eligibility criteria. The key organ/hematology eligibility criteria of completed or ongoing all-comers DLBCL studies (REMoDL-B, Goya, Polarix and Hovon84) were collected (bilirubin, ALAT, creatinine, eGFR, leucocytes, neutrophils, thrombocytes and ECOG). First, high-level trial matching on disease risk group (Ann Arbor, bulky disease, international prognostic index (IPI)) and age-groups were performed so that patients assessed for trial eligibility had a relevant risk profile. Subsequently, patients were divided into eligible or ineligible based on selected in/exclusion criteria. For each trial, overall survival (OS) from treatment start were compared for eligible and ineligible patients using inverse probability of treatment weighted Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Crude OS and OS adjusted for residual imbalances in IPI and age were estimated. When possible, the OS curves from standard arms of the original trials were superimposed on OS plots. For each trial, the Shapley value of each criterion was calculated, using the HRs as well as the 5y restricted loss of lifetimes (RLOLs). The Shapley value measures the average influence of each eligibility criterion on the estimated IPI- and age-adjusted HR/5y RLOL. Results: A total of 3,150 R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients without discordant low-grade lymphoma were identified in the surveyed period. A total of 1,666 patients (52.89% of surveyed population) were available for the REMoDL-B trial, 1,431 (45.43%) for Goya, 1,125 (35.71%) for Polarix, and 1,432 (45.46%) for Hovon84. The variations of numbers for each trial evaluation were explained by trial inclusion criteria and missing data in LYFO. Crude OS estimates for patients with and without all necessary information were similar (data not shown). OS curves for eligible and ineligible patients are shown in Figure 1 and, when possible, with superimposed trial results (Goya, REMoDL-B, Hovon84). Survival differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients were robust to further adjustment of imbalances in age and IPI. Associated crude and adjusted 2 and 5-year OS rates for trial eligible and ineligible are shown in Table 1. The largest numerical difference in 2-year crude OS between eligible and ineligible was observed in the REMoDL-B trial (ineligible had 26% lower 2-year OS rate). The largest numerical difference in 2-year OS adjusted for IPI and age between eligible and ineligible was observed for the Polarix trial (ineligible had 17% lower 2-year OS rate). The strongest drivers of OS differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients in terms of the tested eligibility criteria were thrombocyte count (HR-contribution calculated from Shapley values -0.11; -0.14) and ECOG (HR-contribution -0.09; -0.21). Liver function parameters (bilirubin and ALAT) had low impact on OS (HR-contribution 0.00; -0.05 and 0.00; 0.07). Conclusions: The present population-based study confirms that trial ineligible patients have worse survival even after adjustments in imbalances in age and disease risk category. Thus, trial eligibility criteria have substantial impact on generalizability of results to a wider unselected population. Interestingly, the trial eligible patients identified in the present study had very similar outcomes to R-CHOP treated patients in the original trials supporting the possible use of RWD as synthetic control arms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: 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; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jørgensen: Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Larsen: BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Odense University Hospital, Denmark: Current Employment; Gilead: Consultancy. Clausen: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poulsen: Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

Abstract Background: Secondary CNS involvement (SCNS) is a detrimental complication seen in ~5% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with modern immunochemotherapy. Data from older series report short survival following SCNS, typically <6 months. However, data in patients that develop SCNS following primary therapy that contains a rituximab-based-regimen as well as the impact of more intensified treatment for SCNS are limited. Aims: The aims of this study were to i) describe the natural history of SCNS in a large cohort of patients treated with immunochemotherapy, and ii) determine prognostic factors after SCNS. Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with SCNS during or after frontline immunochemotherapy (R-CHOP or equivalently effective regimens). SCNS was defined as new involvement of the CNS (parenchymal, leptomeningeal, and/or eye) in patients without known CNS involvement at the time of first pathologic diagnosis of DLBCL. Patients were identified from local databases and/or regional/national registries in Denmark, Canada (British Columbia), Australia, Israel, US (University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE), and England (Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital, London). Clinico-pathologic and treatment characteristics at the time of SCNS were collected from medical records. Results: In total, 281 patients with SCNS diagnosed between 2001 and 2016 were included. Median age at SCNS was 64 (range 20-93) years and male:female ratio was 1.3. SCNS occurred as part of first relapse in 244 (87%) patients and 112 (40%) had documented concurrent systemic disease at the time of SCNS. The median time from initial DLBCL diagnosis to SCNS was 9 months, which was similar for patients treated with (N=76, 27%) or without upfront CNS prophylaxis (N=205, 73%) (10 vs 9 Mo; P=0.3). The median post-SCNS OS was 4 months (interquartile range 2-13) and the 2yr survival rate was 20% (95% CI 15-25) for the entire cohort. Associations between clinicopathologic features, management strategy, and post-SCNS survival are shown in Table 1, which excludes patients who did not receive any treatment against SCNS, patients treated with steroids alone, and a patient with unavailable treatment information (n=43, 15%). In multivariable analysis, performance status >1, concurrent leptomeningeal and parenchymal involvement, SCNS developing before completion of 1st line treatment, and combined systemic and CNS involvement by DLBCL were associated with inferior outcomes. Upfront CNS prophylaxis did not influence post-SCNS OS. High-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) and/or platinum based treatment regimens (i.e. ICE, DHAP, or GDP [+/- IT treatment and/or radiotherapy], N=163) for SCNS were associated with reduced risk of death (HR 0.45 [0.32-0.62, P<0.01]). The 2yr post-SCNS survival for patients treated with HDMTX and/or platinum-based regimens (N=163) was 29% (95% CI 22-37). For patients with isolated parenchymal SCNS, single modality treatment with radiotherapy resulted in 2-yr OS of 19% (95% CI 8-35). For the subgroup of 49 patients treated with HDMTX- and/or platinum-based regimens for isolated SCNS after 1st line DLBCL treatment and with performance status 0 or 1, the 2yr post-SCNS survival was 46% (95% CI 31-59). Overall, 9% of the patients received HDT with ASCT as part of salvage therapy at the time of SCNS. Amongst 36 SCNS patients without systemic involvement and in CR following intensive treatment (HDMTX and/or platinum-based treatments), 11 patients consolidated with HDT had similar outcomes to 25 patients treated without consolidating HDT (P=0.9, Fig 1) Conclusions: Outcomes for patients with SCNS remain poor in this large international cohort of patients from the immunochemotherapy era. Combined parenchymal and leptomeningeal disease, presence of systemic disease concurrent with SCNS, performance status >1, and SCNS developing during first line treatment were independently associated with inferior OS. However, a significant fraction of patients with isolated SCNS after first line DLBCL treatment and with good performance status may achieve long-term remissions after intensive regimens for SCNS. Disclosures El-Galaly: Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel funding. Cheah:Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaker's Bureau. Kansara:Celgene: Honoraria. Connors:Bristol Myers Squib: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Sehn:roche/genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; seattle genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Opat:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Provision of subsidised drugs, Research Funding. Seymour:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Villa:Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding.