Jaye, David L.

Background: Anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs) are CD30-positive T-cell lymphomas that share pathologic features but differ in clinical presentation, outcome, and molecular features. The World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) classify ALCLs by presence or absence of ALK rearrangements (R) and clinical presentation (systemic, cutaneous [c], or breast implant-associated [BIA]). ICC, but not WHO, recognizes DUSP22-R as defining a new genetic subtype of ALK- ALCL. The classifications otherwise do not reflect additional molecular heterogeneity in genetics (e.g., TP63-R) or therapeutic vulnerabilities (e.g., JAK-STAT3 pathway activation). Methods: ALCLs (N=689) underwent expert consensus review (WHO/ICC) through the Lymphoma/Leukemia Molecular Profiling Project (LLMPP). All cases also underwent genetic subtyping (ALK, DUSP22, TP63, and triple-negative [TN]) using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC), as well as IHC for phospho-STAT3 Tyr705 (pSTAT3). RNAseq was performed and evaluable in 393 cases; the remaining cases had insufficient tissue, tumor content, RNA yield or quality, and/or sequencing data quality. Sequenced and non-sequenced sub-cohorts had similar demographics and subtype distribution. Results: Unsupervised gene expression profiling (GEP) identified 2 main molecular types of ALCL. Type I ALCLs predominantly included ALK+ ALCLs, BIA-ALCLs, and a subset of TN ALCLs (designated TN-I), whereas Type II ALCLs predominantly included ALCLs with DUSP22-R, TP63-R, or both (double-hit; DH), and the remaining TN ALCLs (TN-II). Type I ALCLs were strongly associated with pSTAT3 expression (74.2±26.4% positive malignant cells vs 9.9±22.7% for Type II; P<0.0001). An independently derived pSTAT3 staining threshold of 30% assigned Type I vs II with 91% accuracy. A third cluster of ALCLs, mostly cALCL, showed an epithelial GEP signature rather than a lymphoma signature; these cases were assigned to Types I or II based on pSTAT3 IHC. Distinct sub-signatures were identified for ALK+, DUSP22-R, TP63-R, and BIA ALCL (Fig. 1), but not ALK- ALCL or cALCL. Gene set enrichment analysis showed Type I ALCLs to be enriched for JAK-STAT3 signaling genes (normalized enrichment score [NES], 2.22; FDR<0.0001) and related pathways, such as TNFα-NFκB signaling (NES, 2.21; FDR<0.0001). In contrast, Type II ALCLs were enriched for cell cycle, DNA repair, epigenetic, and metabolic pathway genes, but not for major tyrosine kinase-mediated signaling pathway genes. Enriched epigenetic pathways included chromatin modifying enzymes (NES, -1.86; FDR=0.002) and histone methylation (NES, -1.71; FDR=0.002). EZH2 was the most overexpressed gene in Type II ALCLs (fold-change, 7.74; FDR=8.84×10 -306). At the protein level, EZH2 IHC H-scores were 275±45 in Type II and 168±70 in Type I ALCLs (P<0.0001); H3K27me3 H-scores were 170±81 and 76±63, respectively (P<0.001). The top metabolic gene set involved cholesterol biosynthesis (NES, -1.88; FDR=0.002). Overall survival (OS) data were available in 257 systemic ALCL patients (145 sequenced and 112 non-sequenced; cALCL and BIA-ALCL were excluded). Non-sequenced TN ALCLs were assigned to TN-I or TN-II using pSTAT3 IHC. The results supported earlier data indicating favorable prognosis of DUSP22-R ALCL (5 y OS, 95%) and ALK+ ALCL (87%), intermediate prognosis of TN ALCL (TN-I, 52% and TN-II, 38%; P=NS), and poor prognosis of TP63-R/DH ALCL (0%)(P<0.0001; Fig. 2). Conclusions: Two overarching molecular types of ALCL exist, predominantly associated with the presence (Type I) or absence (Type II) of the JAK-STAT3 signaling program. Distinct GEP signatures exist for ALK+ ALCL and BIA-ALCL (predominantly Type I), and DUSP22-R ALCL and TP63-R ALCL (predominantly Type II). TN ALCLs lacking ALK-R, DUSP22-R, and TP63-R can be stratified into TN-I and TN-II subtypes. pSTAT3 IHC has >90% accuracy as a surrogate for GEP-based subtyping. ALK- ALCL and cALCL cluster by molecular subtype rather than by defining GEP signatures. Type II ALCLs are enriched for targetable epigenetic and metabolic pathways, including EZH2/histone methylation and cholesterol biosynthesis. This molecular classification is diagnostically, prognostically, and potentially therapeutically relevant, and can be applied using FISH and IHC in routine practice and in the clinical trial setting.

Background: QOL can be affected by disease burden, side effects of treatment, and psychosocial effects of living with cancer. Although MZL is considered incurable, we previously found that patients diagnosed from 2002-2015 had a good QOL both at baseline (BL) and the first decade after diagnosis, regardless of treatment choice (Bommier et al., submitted). Here, we evaluate whether these findings can be extended to the 2015-2020 treatment era and a more diverse US cohort. Methods: Adults with newly diagnosed MZL from 8 academic centers were prospectively enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis from 2015-2020 in the LEO cohort (NCT02736357). Participants were actively followed for disease progression/relapse, retreatment and death. QOL was measured at BL, and at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years after diagnosis using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) scale (range 0-164), which consists of the FACT-General (FACT-G, range 0-104) plus a lymphoma-specific scale (range 0-60). Total FACT-G measures 4 QOL domains (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being (WB). We also used the Trial Outcome Index (TOI; range 0-112), which consists of FACT-G physical and functional WB plus the lymphoma-specific scale and is commonly used as an endpoint in treatment trials. All MZL patients with both BL and at least one follow-up QOL questionnaire were eligible for analysis. Patients were grouped by initial management: active surveillance (observation), local/antibiotic therapy (radiation, surgery, or anti- H. pylori therapy), or systemic therapy (chemotherapy, targeted agents, or antibody therapy). Change in QOL scores over time was analyzed using mixed models for repeated measurements, and initial treatment groups were compared. Results: Of 384 patients, 60% were female, 91% were White, 6.6% were Black/African American, and 13% were Hispanic (all races). The median age was 64 years (range 19-94). For initial management, 28% (N=106) were observed, 31% (N=118) received local/antibiotic therapy, and 42% (N=160) received systemic therapy. Across treatment groups, there were no significant differences by age, gender, race, or performance status, while there were differences by Hispanic ethnicity (p=0.006), Ann Arbor stage (p<0.001) and MALT-IPI score (p<0.001) (Table). At BL, patients receiving systemic therapy had lower physical WB (p=0.008), emotional WB (p=0.04), functional WB (p=0.03), FACT-G total score (p=0.008), lymphoma subscale (p<0.001), FACT-Lym (p=0.001) and TOI (p<0.001) compared to observation and local/antibiotic therapy (Table). While FACT-G total scores were largely stable through 5 years after diagnosis, social/family WB declined from BL for patients initially receiving either local/antibiotic therapy (mean at 1-year -1.4, p<0.05; 2-year -2.1, p<0.05; 3-year -1.6, p<0.05; 5-year-2.9, p<0.05) or systemic therapy (mean at 2-year -1.2 , p<0.05; 3-year -1.4, p<0.05; and 5-year -1.2, p<0.05), while this was stable for observed patients. In patients receiving initial systemic therapy, there was a transient improvement in the lymphoma-specific scale (mean +1.7, p<0.05) and TOI (mean +3.7, p<0.05). Otherwise, QOL remained stable over time and global QoL (FACT-G, FACT-Lym), TOI, Lymphoma-specific scale (Figure), and the other FACT-G subscales (physical, emotional, or functional WB) did not differ by initial treatment strategy. Conclusions: In the diverse LEO cohort from the recent treatment era, we confirm our prior findings for newly diagnosed MZL patients that QOL is globally stable over the first 5 years after diagnosis; emotional WB is not associated with initial treatment type, providing evidence that being initially observed does not negatively impact emotional health; and there is a decline in social/family WB (support from friends and family, family acceptance of illness, family communication, close to partner), which supports the need to consider interventions for patients to address these unmet needs. In addition, this study extends these findings to the lymphoma-specific scale, FACT-Lym, and TOI, which all showing largely stable trends in the 5 years after diagnosis and suggest that recent MZL treatment strategies, including systemic therapies, neither impair nor improve QOL.

Background Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) comprise a rare, heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas of mature T-cell origin. Most systemic (s) PTCL subtypes typically have poor outcomes with conventional anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Biomarker-driven and subtype-specific treatments are promising but unmet needs. Few benchmark studies exist to characterize the current real-world landscape of clinical and pathologic practice. We report the patterns of care and updated outcome data for PTCL patients enrolled in the LEO-MER multi-center prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02736357). Methods Patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed PTCL were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER cohort (2002-2015) or the expanded LEO cohort (2015-2020). Clinical, pathology, treatment, and outcome data were abstracted from medical records using a standard protocol in both cohorts. Pathology underwent expert re-review based on WHO criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of diagnosis to date of death or last follow-up. Event-free survival (EFS) was calculated from date of diagnosis to disease progression, initiation of 2 nd line therapy, or death from any cause. EFS and OS were evaluated using Cox model and Kaplan-Meier estimator. Log-rank test was used to test the significance of difference between groups. Results LEO-MER enrolled 1132 PTCL patients during the study period (462 MER and 670 LEO). Of these, 722 were sPTCLs (281 MER and 441 LEO), including PTCL-NOS (N=253, 35%), anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL; N=180, 24.9% [74 ALK+, 106 ALK-]), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL, N=164, 22.7%), extranodal NK-TCL (N=50, 6.9%), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (N=33, 4.6%), enteropathy-associated TCL (N=19, 2.6%), and hepatosplenic TCL (N=13, 1.8%) ( Table 1). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years. M:F ratio was 1.5. Comparing LEO to MER, African American population was 15.4% vs 0.7%, and Hispanic was 10% vs 2.2%. Clinical characteristics were comparable between MER and LEO overall: PS≥2, 20.9%; elevated LDH, 50.7%; stage III-IV, 67.6%; and IPI 2-5, 65.7%. The most common 1 st line chemotherapy regimens overall were CHOP-based (N=506, 70%), including 60% receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy in both MER and LEO cohorts (CHOP [N=268, 37%], CHOEP [N=91, 13%] or EPOCH [N=75, 10%]), and 16% with CHOP-like in combination with novel agents in LEO cohort (BV+ [N=41, 9.3%], azacitidine+ [N=11, 2.5%], pralatrexate+ [N=10, 2.3%], lenalidomide+ [N=8, 1.9%]) ( Table 1). More patients received etoposide in LEO (40.3%) than in MER (20.3%). 74 patients (10.3%) underwent consolidative SCT following induction chemotherapy (71 auto and 3 allo). 65 patients (11.2%) received frontline therapy on clinical trials. At a median follow-up of 9.4 years in MER and 4 years in LEO, 177 (MER) and 269 (LEO) events, and 150 (MER) and 206 (LEO) deaths were observed, respectively. The 3-year EFS and 4-year OS estimates for sPTCL were 46.3% and 59.1% in MER, and 40.4% and 51.3% in LEO. EFS and OS correlated with IPI scores and differed by sPTCL subtypes ( Figure 1). ALCL had superior survival, with 3-year EFS and 4-year OS of 78.2% and 90.5% for ALK+, and 65.9% and 76.9% for ALK-. Non-ALCL subtypes including PTCL-NOS and AITL had inferior outcomes, with 3-year EFS and 4-year OS of 31.4% and 42.8% for PTCL-NOS, and 33.4% and 50.7% for AITL. In subset analysis, the addition of etoposide to CHOP chemotherapy as either CHOEP or EPOCH was associated with improved OS for ALK- ALCL (p=0.038, log-rank), but not for ALK+ ALCL (p=0.75) or non-ALCL subtypes of PTCL-NOS and AITL (p=0.88). Conclusion The LEO-MER study is the largest prospective cohort study of PTCL to date. Patterns of care in the LEO cohort begin to incorporate novel agents in frontline therapy. Outcomes continue to mature with longitudinal follow-up and ongoing accrual, which poise to shape benchmarks in the contemporary era. The lack of benefit of etoposide adding to CHOP induction and poor overall survival of non-ALCL subtypes underscores the unmet need of therapeutic breakthrough for non-ALCL frontline treatment, particularly through clinical trials with biomarker-guided approaches incorporating novel agents.

Background: The goal of clinical trial eligibility criteria is to identify a population of patients that have high risk disease or have unmet needs with standard of care therapy. Frontline trials of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) include patients with International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 as a way to identify a high risk population. Trials typically include patients with IPI score=2, and sometimes IPI score=1, to expand the eligible patient population. However, broader patient populations must be balanced by the potential inclusion of low-risk patients with excellent outcomes to standard of care therapy, leading to potentially underpowered trials. IPI is a sum of dichotomous variables which makes implementation easy but can result in heterogeneity in outcomes within IPI scores. This heterogeneity may be caused by unequal prognostic information across IPI variables, loss of information within IPI variables due to the use of cutoffs, as well as information captured by variables that are not included in the IPI. In prior modeling of outcomes in DLBCL (Maurer et al, AJH 2016), we identified that: i) LDH has a strong prognostic ability beyond the upper limit of normal (ULN) and ii) bulky disease is an independent variable for prognosis. Here we evaluate if the presence of either of these two variables, easily captured at diagnosis within the current standard clinical work-up, can identify a high-risk subset of patients within the population of those with IPI scores of 1-2. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis in the LEO Cohort at 8 academic medical centers from 2015-2020 and prospectively followed. Inclusion criteria for this analysis was aggressive B-cell lymphoma typically included in frontline trials (e.g. DLBCL, high grade B-cell lymphoma, FL3B), IPI 1-5, frontline therapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, stage II-IV disease and ages 18-80 years. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until progression, initiation of 2 nd line therapy, or death due to any cause; EFS was evaluated at 24 months (EFS24). Very high LDH was defined as LDH>1.3xULN based on prior modeling (Maurer et al, AJH 2016) and bulky disease was defined as maximum tumor diameter (MTD) of 7cm or greater. IPI 1 and 2 were first evaluated separately and then combined due to similar outcomes in patients with very high LDH and/or bulky disease. High risk IPI1-2 was defined as the presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH within an IPI score of 1-2. Confirmation was performed in a similar cohort of patients enrolled in the Iowa/Mayo SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) from 2002-2015; bulky disease was defined using a 10cm cutoff per availability in MER data collection forms. Results: 1560 patients from LEO were analyzed; median age was 64 years (IQR: 54-71), 42% were female and 83% had stage III/IV disease; subtype was DLBCL, NOS in 1335 (86%). IPI was 1-2 in 766 patients, 3 in 496 patients and 4-5 in 298 patients ( table). 391 (51%) with IPI1-2 had either bulky disease and/or very high LDH (high risk IPI1-2) and 375 had low-risk IPI1-2. EFS24 in high risk IPI1-2 (71.6%, 95% CI: 67.2-76.3) was significantly inferior to IPI1-2 without bulky disease or very high LDH (85.2, 95% CI: 81.7-88.9 logrank p=0.0035, figure) and similar to patients with IPI3 (70.7%, 95% CI: 66.8-74.9). Consistent results were observed in 1014 patients analyzed in the MER using a higher cutoff for bulky disease (10cm) due to data availability ( table). Patients with high risk IPI1-2 had significantly shorter diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in both the LEO (per-week OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.77-0.88) and MER (per-week OR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.68-0.87) cohorts compared to low risk IPI1-2, both p<0.0001). In sensitivity analysis, LEO results were similar when performed in the subset of patients with DLBCL, NOS. Conclusion: The presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH at presentation identifies a high-risk subset of patients with IPI 1-2 that have similar outcomes to patients with IPI 3 disease. These simple criteria can be easily implemented within existing clinical trial diagnostic work-ups. Future trial designs in frontline aggressive B-cell lymphoma should include patients with IPI 3-5 and patients with IPI 1-2 with either bulky disease and/or very high LDH to better define a high-risk population of patients for clinical trial eligibility.

Background: Understanding the symptoms and quality of life (QOL) over time of adults with follicular lymphoma (FL) is important for treatment decision-making and clinical management. However, there are limited population-level data on the long-term QOL of adults with FL. We aim to describe the real-world, long-term QOL of adults with newly diagnosed FL up to 5/6 years after diagnosis. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic/Iowa Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the multi-institutional Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) to identify adults with grade 1-3A FL who completed QOL surveys at baseline and follow-up. Participants with lymphoma were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the MER cohort from 2002-2015 and within 6 months of diagnosis in the multi-institutional LEO cohort study across 8 cancer centers from 2015-2020. The LEO/MER cohort studies systematically collected information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and functional assessment. Treatments, disease relapses, and deaths were verified by medical record review. Treating physicians determined clinical management. QOL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1, 2, 3, and 5/6 post-diagnosis. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better QOL across 4 subscales (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being. We categorized participants based on their frontline management at time of diagnosis: “observation” (surveillance), “treatment” (systemic treatment with immunotherapy +/- chemotherapy), and “local” (radiation) groups. We employed a generalized linear mixed model to evaluate and compare the changes in QOL scores (as a continuous variable) from baseline for the observation, treatment, and local groups, adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age, FLIPI risk, and cohort (i.e., LEO or MER). We also evaluated QOL changes by FLIPI risk. Results: Our study included 1,544 participants with FL and QOL data. At the time of enrollment, median age was 61 years (range 19-91), 88% were non-Hispanic White, and 49% were female. Based on initial management, 529 (34%) were in the observation group, 880 (57%) were in the treatment group, and 135 (9%) were in the local group. FLIPI risk was high for 17% in the observation group, 29.3% in the treatment group, and 3% in the local group. The mean (standard deviation) baseline FACT-G total score was lowest in the treatment group with the following baseline scores: 86 (13) for the observation group, 83 (14) for the treatment group, and 88 (12) for the local group (Table 1). The observation and local groups reported a greater worsening of their baseline FACT-G total score vs the treatment group at both the 2-year (-1.2, -0.8 vs +1.8, respectively) and 5/6 year (-5.4, -6 vs. -1.6, respectively) timepoints (Figure 1). This appeared to be driven by worsened physical and functional well-being in the observation (-1.3, -2.2, respectively) and local (-0.9, -2.4, respectively) groups vs the treatment group (0, -0.3, respectively). These differences were statistically significant between the observation vs treatment groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the other subscales, i.e., social/family and emotional well-being, by frontline management. Social/family well-being decreased across all groups by 5/6 years (-2.3 in observation, -2.2 in treatment, and -3 in local, p<0.05). Regardless of FLIPI risk, the total FACT-G scores decreased within each FLIPI risk group at 5/6 years (-4.4 for low, -3.8 for intermediate, and -4.9 for high, p<0.05). This was primarily due to worsened social/family well-being (-2.4 for low, -2.2 for intermediate, and -3 for high, p<0.05) at 5/6 years. There was no statistically significant difference in QOL between FLIPI risk groups. Conclusion: This is one of the first and largest studies with real-world longitudinal QOL data for FL. Our study suggests that frontline systemic treatment initially improved QOL and resulted in a lower degree of QOL decline over time. Social/family well-being decreased over time regardless of frontline management or FLIPI risk. Further research is warranted to explore the impact of timing and specific systemic treatments on QOL, incorporate the patient/caregiver experience to address social/family well-being, and identify the clinical significance of our findings.

Background: Shorter diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) has been shown to be associated with more aggressive disease features and inferior outcomes in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; Maurer et al, JCO 2018). Additional confirmatory studies have also shown that DTI is related to tumor volume (Alig et al, JCO 2021) and molecular phenotype (Aluaij et al, Blood 2023). Here we evaluate DTI in a large multicenter cohort of patients prospectively enrolled and followed as part of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcome (LEO) cohort. Methods: Patients were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis at one the 8 LEO cohort academic medical centers in the United States between 2015 and 2020. Patients in this analysis had aggressive B-cell lymphoma (BCL) treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. DTI was defined as the initial lymphoma biopsy date until the start of initial chemotherapy; patients with DTI between 0-100 days were evaluated. Short DTI was defined as DTI ≤ 14 days (DTI≤14) as previously described in prior publications (e.g. Maurer et al, JCO 2018) and confirmed via examination of functional forms via splines. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from start of treatment until progression/relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from start of treatment until death due to any cause. Results: 2565 patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma were evaluated. Median age was 62 years (IQR 51-71) and 1469 (57%) were male. 297 patients (12%) were self-reported non-White race and 314 patients (12%) were self-reported Hispanic or Latino. The majority had DLBCL, NOS subtype (N=1927, 75%), while 227 (9%) had high-grade BCL with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (HG, DH) and 90 (4%) had high-grade BCL NOS (HG, NOS). Clinical characteristics are summarized in the table. At median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 36-68), 800 patients (31%) had an event and 578 patients (23%) died. EFS at 24 months (EFS24) was 76% (95% CI: 74-77). Median DTI across all subtypes was 21 days (IQR 12-33) and 845 patients (33%) had DTI≤14. Patients with DTI≤14 were significantly younger (median age 59 years) but there was no association between DTI and gender, race, or ethnicity. Patients with DTI≤14 were more likely to have HG, DH or HG NOS subtypes, ECOG PS 2-4, advanced stage, elevated LDH, CNS involvement, B symptoms, and bulky disease ( see table). Patients with DTI≤14 were more likely to receive R-EPOCH-based or intensive therapies (41%) and less likely to receive 1L therapy on a clinical trial (3.8%) compared to DTI>14 (26% and 10.1%, respectively). Consistent with previously reported data, DTI≤14 was associated with inferior EFS (HR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.41-1.87, figure), OS (HR=1.73, 95% CI: 1.47-2.04), and EFS24 (OR=1.93, 95% CI: 1.60-2.38). The association between DTI and outcomes remained significant after stratifying for subtype (EFS HR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.46-1.94; OS HR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.50-2.10) and adjustment for IPI (EFS HR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.24-1.65; OS HR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.24-1.74). In subset analysis, DTI≤14 was significantly associated with inferior outcomes within the subtypes of HG, DH (EFS HR=2.70, 95% CI: 1.82-4.01; OS HR=2.97, 95% CI: 1.92-4.60); HG, NOS (EFS HR=2.07, 95% CI: 0.93-4.60; OS HR=2.36, 95% CI: 1.03-5.43); and DLBCL, NOS (EFS HR=1.51, 95% CI: 1.27-1.78; OS HR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.45-1.85). Analysis was limited in other subtypes due to number of events. Notably, within the subset of patients with DTI>14, there was no significant difference in EFS between subtypes for DLBCL, NOS (EFS24=80%, EFS HR=ref), HG, DH (EFS24=73%, EFS HR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.92-1.73) and HG, NOS (EFS24=83%, EFS HR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.40-1.78), logrank p=0.29; similar results were observed for OS (p=0.22). Conclusions: Patients requiring early initiation of therapy for aggressive B-cell lymphoma represent a distinct population of patients with more aggressive clinical features and inferior outcomes. In patients with longer DTI, high grade subtypes had similar outcomes to DLBCL, NOS. Efforts should be made to include patients with anticipated short DTI in clinical trials and translational studies to fully capture the spectrum of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma.

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

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