Citations

Introduction: The clinical presentation and frequency of organ involvement are quite distinct in patients with IgM amyloidosis compared to patients with non-IgM amyloidosis, with less heart involvement and more nerve, soft tissue and lung involvement in IgM patients. It has been observed that immunoglobulin light chain variable region (IGVL) gene and gene family of the plasma cell clone impact phenotypic manifestations in AL amyloidosis, particularly organ tropism. (Kourelis et al. Blood. 2017;129). Given the variability in clinical features amongst patients with IgM vs. non IgM AL amyloidosis, we hypothesized that IGVL gene usage would be different between these two groups. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed IgM and non-IgM amyloidosis seen at our institution from 01/2006 to 12/2015 were identified. IGVL gene usage was assessed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) as previously described. (Vrana et al Blood 2009;Dasari et al J of Proteome Res; Kourelis et al. Blood. 2017). Mass spectrometry data for IGVL analysis was obtained from clinically available data. LC/MS/MS was performed on available archival specimens when such data was not available clinically. Results: Patients with newly diagnosed amyloidosis who had sufficient mass spectrometry data on fat aspirate or tissue biopsy for IGVL gene usage identification were included (IgM AL, N=44 and Non-IgM AL, N=391). Clinical Features: As expected, differences were noted in baseline characteristics of patients with IgM vs. non-IgM AL amyloidosis. Patients with IgM amyloidosis were older (68 vs. 64 years, p=0.04) and more likely to have kappa as the involved light chain (34% vs. 25%, p=0.2), though the difference did not reach statistical significance. IgM amyloidosis patients had lower difference in involved and uninvolved free light chains (dFLC) (15.5 vs. 25.8 mg/dL, p=0.01) and lower NTProBNP levels (median: 1987 vs. 2655 pg/mL, p=0.02) compared with non-IgM amyloid patients. Presence of t(11;14) was less common by FISH (30% vs. 48%, p=0.1), though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Patterns of organ involvement were different, with heart involvement being less frequent in IgM patients (64% vs. 76%), while peripheral nerve (30% vs. 18%, p=0.05), soft tissue (41% vs. 21%, p=0.005) and lung involvement (7% vs. 3%, p=0.1) were more common in patients with IgM vs. non-IgM AL amyloidosis. There was no difference in liver (9% vs. 15%), kidney (50% vs. 51%) GI (23% vs. 25%) or autonomic nervous system involvement (18% vs. 14%). IGVL Gene Usage: As shown in Figure 1, IGVL usage differed across the two groups. In the lambda group, LV2-08 (14% vs. 2%, p<0.001) and LV2-14 (36% vs. 10%, p<0.001) were more common in IgM amyloid patients, while LV1-44 (0% vs. 10%, p=0.02) and LV6-57 (2% vs. 18%, p=0.004) were less common in the IgM group. There was also a trend towards less frequent involvement of LV3-01 (2% vs. 12%, p=0.07) in IgM amyloid patients. In the kappa group, KV4-01 (11% vs. 4%, p=0.04) was more common in patients with IgM amyloidosis. Correlation Between IGVL Gene usage and Clinical Features: IGVL gene usage correlated with disease characteristics and differences in the clinical presentation of patients across the two groups. LV2-14 was more commonly seen in IgM amyloid patients (above). It has been previously associated with a higher frequency of peripheral nerve involvement (Kourelis et al. Blood 2017), which was more frequent in IgM group. LV2-14 is also associated with low dFLC levels, which were noted to be lower in the IgM AL cohort. LV1-44 has been associated with higher likelihood of cardiac involvement. LV1-44 was seen less frequently in the IgM amyloid patients, who also had lower rates of cardiac involvement. LV6-57 has been historically associated with higher rates of t(11;14). It was less common in IgM AL patients, who also had lower rates of t(11;14). Conclusions: IGVL gene usage differed significantly in patients with IgM vs. non-IgM amyloidosis, correlating with differences in disease characteristics and organ involvement. This is the first study to our knowledge to report IGVL gene usage differences in IgM vs. non-IgM AL amyloidosis. Differences in IGVL gene usage may explain the distinct clinical presentation seen in IgM amyloidosis, the biology of which has so far remained poorly understood. *SS and SD contributed equally Disclosures Dasari: The Binding Site: Patents & Royalties: US Patent Rights on Mass Spectroscopy Licensing agreement with The Binding Site, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Murray:The Binding Site: Patents & Royalties: US Patent Rights on Mass Spectroscopy Licensing agreement with The Binding Site, Research Funding. Kumar:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz:Prothena: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Ionis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Background: Debate surrounds the issue of whether peripheral nerve blockade or periarticular infiltration (PAI) should be employed within a contemporary, comprehensive multimodal analgesia pathway for total hip arthroplasty. We hypothesized that patients treated with a continuous posterior lumbar plexus block (PNB) would report less pain and consume less opioid medication than those treated with PAI. Methods: This investigator-initiated, independently funded, 3-arm randomized clinical trial (RCT) performed at a single high-volume institution compared postoperative analgesia interventions for elective, unilateral primary total hip arthroplasty: (1) PNB; (2) PAI with ropivacaine, ketorolac, and epinephrine (PAI-R); and (3) PAI with liposomal bupivacaine, ketorolac, and epinephrine (PAI-L) using computerized randomization. The primary outcome was maximum pain during the morning (06:00 to 12:00) of the first postoperative day (POD) on an ascending numeric rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10. Pairwise treatment comparisons were performed using the rank-sum test, with a p value of <0.017 indicating significance (Bonferroni adjusted). A sample size of 150 provided 80% power to detect a difference of 2.0 NRS units. Results: We included 159 patients (51, 54, and 54 patients in the PNB, PAI-R, and PAI-L groups, respectively). No significant differences were found with respect to the primary end point on the morning of the first POD (median, 3.0, 4.0, and 3.0, respectively; p > 0.033 for all). Opioid consumption was low and did not differ across groups at any intervals. Median maximum pain on POD 1 was 5.0, 5.5, and 4.0, respectively, and was lower for the PAI-L group than for the PAI-R group (p = 0.006). On POD 2, maximum pain (median, 3.5, 5.0, and 3.5, respectively) was lower for the PNB group (p = 0.014) and PAI-L group (p = 0.016) compared with the PAI-R group. The PAI-L group was not significantly different from the PNB group with respect to any outcomes: postoperative opioid use including rescue intravenous opioid medication, length of stay, and hospital adverse events, and 3-month follow-up data including any complication. Conclusions: In this RCT, we found a modest improvement with respect to analgesia in patients receiving PNB compared with those receiving PAI-R, but not compared with those who had PAI-L. Secondary analyses suggested that PNB or PAI-L provides superior postoperative analgesia compared with PAI-R. For primary total hip arthroplasty, a multimodal analgesic regimen including PNB or PAI-L provides opioid-limiting analgesia. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Neurolymphomatosis (NL) is a highly rare disorder defined as infiltration of peripheral nervous system by a lymphoproliferative neoplasm, both presented as the first manifestation of the malignancy (primary NL) or as a site of disease progression or relapse (secondary NL). Due to rarity of this disorder data on clinical features, best approach and outcome are limited. Furthermore diagnosis of this disease is often uncertain and based on radiological images only. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed clinical records of all histologically confirmed-NL, diagnosed and treated at the Division of Hematology of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN between January 2002 and December 2018. Clinical features and outcome were analyzed. Responses to therapy were assessed by post-treatment radiological changes and clinical symptoms improvement. Survival analysis such as progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan Meier curves with log-rank test. Comparison between subgroups was investigated using Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Results: Over a 16-year period 40 patients with biopsy-proven NL were included in study. Primary and secondary NL were 19 (48%) and 21 (52%) respectively, with a median age of 60.5 years (range 37-83) and male sex 24/40 (60%). The predominant histology was represented by B-cell lymphomas (39/40, 97%) with a vast majority large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) 27/40 (67%) and only 1 case of T-cell lymphoma. The affected structures included brachial plexus (12/40, 35%), lumbosacral plexus (5/40, 12%), cauda equine and nerve roots (14/40, 35%), sciatic nerve (12/40, 30%), femoral nerve (4/40, 10%), cranial nerves (8/40, 20%), multiple nerves involved in 23/40 (57%). Four out of 40 cases had brain involvement and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was positive in 7/29 (24%). NL clinical manifestations included muscular weakness (33/4, 82%), sensory deficit (32/40, 80%), pain (28/40, 70%) and autonomic dysfunction (3/40, 7%). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detected neural abnormalities in 35/36 cases (97%), CT imaging identified disease in 3/8 (37%) and FDG-PET scan was positive in 22/31 (71%); electromyography showed some grade of neuropathy in 28/29 (97%). Treatment included systemic chemotherapy in 38/40 (95%) cases, containing high dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in 26/40 (65%) and rituximab in 20/40 (50%); 11/39 (28%) patients underwent consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); 4/40 received consolidative radiotherapy (RT), 1/40 was treated with RT alone; intrathecal chemotherapy was infused in 1/40 cases; one patient with solely great auricular nerve NL involvement was cured with surgery only. Treatment efficacy evaluated by imaging and clinical improvement consisted with an overall response rate (ORR) of 73% (27/37) with a 24% (9/37) of complete remission (CR); No statistical difference in rate of response was observed by different systemic treatments. Of note, patients undergoing HDC-ASCT consolidation obtained 100% of ORR (n=10) versus 61.5% (n=16) achieved by others (P=0.03). With a median follow up of 45.1 months (range 0.5-186.7) a 36 months-OS of 77% (95% CI, 60-88) was observed for the whole cohort. A trend of longer survival rate for primary NL was observed, with a 36-month OS of 95% (95% CI, 72-99) vs. 55% (95% CI, 30-77) for secondary NL (p 0.134). A strong benefit in terms of outcome was observed for patients receiving rituximab-containing regimens with a 36 months-PFS of 72% (95% CI, 55-92) vs 28% (95% CI, 12-53) (P=0.001), and a 36 months-OS of 87% (CI 95%, 60-98) vs. 65% (95% CI , 41-84) (P=0.04) (figure 1); no survival difference was observed for patients treated with systemic therapy containing HD-MTX vs. others. ASCT consolidation was associated with a trend of improved survival with a 36 months-PFS of 69% (95% CI, 35-90) vs. 47% (95% CI, 29-66) for others (P=0.09). Conclusions: With the limit of a retrospective analysis, LBCL represent the predominant histologic subtype of NL; MRI and FGD-PET appeared to be the most accurate radiological tools to detect neural disease. Systemic treatments including rituximab should be preferred, HD-MTX seems to be not so effective while ASCT consolidation may be considered in selected patients. Due to the spare number of cases treated with RT its role cannot be clarified by our study. Disclosures Nowakowski: NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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

Background: Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) with ring sideroblasts and thrombocytosis (MDS/MPN-RS-T) was formally included as a unique WHO-defined entity in the 2016, iteration of the classification of hematological neoplasms (under MDS/MPN overlap syndromes). Patients with MDS/MPN-RS-T have features of MDS-RS-single lineage dysplasia (SLD), persistent thrombocytosis (platelet count ≥450x109/L), with proliferation of large atypical megakaryocytes. Anemia, including red blood cell transfusion dependency (RBC-TD) is a major problem. While extensive studies have documented erythroid response rates (ERR) to erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA) in MDS and MDS-RS-SLD, the data in MDS/MPN-RS-T is less clear. We carried out this study to asses ERR in ESA treated patients with MDS/MPN-RS-T. Methods: After approval by the IRB, patients with 2016, WHO-defined MDS/MPN-RS-T were included in the study. The bone marrow (BM) morphology, cytogenetics and BM RS% were retrospectively reviewed. All study patients underwent next generation sequencing for 29 myeloid-relevant genes, obtained on BM mononuclear cells, at diagnosis, or at first referral, by previously described methods (Patnaik et al., BCJ 2016). Treatment details, including the type of ESA used, dose administered, side effects and reason for discontinuation were retrospectively abstracted. Erythroid responses were assessed using the 2006, international working group (IWG) MDS and the 2015, IWG MDS/MPN response criteria. Results: Forty seven patients with MDS/MPN-RS-T were identified, of which 37 (79%) patients received ESA treatment at any time point during their disease course; median age 73 years (range, 52-93), 46% male.The hemoglobin at diagnosis (HB) and baseline erythropoietin (EPO) levels were 9.1 gm/dL (range, 6.6-12.1) and 39 IU/L (range, 8-500), respectively. Ten (29%) patients were RBC-TD at baseline. None of the 37, ESA-treated patients were on concomitant cyto-reductive therapy for thrombocytosis. Twenty (54%) patients were treated with erythropoietin-a, 13 (35%) with darbepoetin, and 4 (11%) with both sequentially. Median doses were 40,000 IU weekly (range, 20,000-80,000) for erythropoietin-a and 200 mcg every 2 weeks (range, 100-500), for darbepoetin. Median treatment duration was 14 months (range, 1-173) and causes for discontinuation included; ESA failure/loss of response in 20 (54%), sustained HB rise in 1 (3%) and other causes, including adverse events in 4 (11%) patients. With regards to safety, the following events were considered potentially ESA related; treatment emergent hypertension in 2 (5%), venous thromboembolism, ischemic stroke and splenic infarction in 1 (3%) patient each, respectively. All patients with thrombotic/ischemic events had been on low dose aspirin prophylaxis. Erythroid responses by the IWG MDS and MDS/MPN response criteria were assessable in 35 (95%) patients: with 16 (46%) meeting criteria for an erythroid response, by both assessment systems. The median duration of ER was 20 months (range, 2-172). In comparison to ESA non-responders, those that responded were more likely to have baseline EPO levels ≤44 IU/L (ROC analysis; median, 28 vs 112 IU/L; p=0.0080), while there was a trend for inferior responses associated with RBC-TD (p=0.0857). Age, gender, baseline white blood cell and platelet counts, type of ESA used, BM RS %, JAK2V617F, SF3B1, DNMT3A, TET2 and ASXL1 mutational status did not impact ESA response (Table 1). On a univariate survival analysis (OS), survival was not significantly different between ESA responders vs non-responder (median OS, 76 vs 45 months; p=0.2929). After ESA failure, 7 (19%) patients received hypomethylating agents (HMA), while 5 (14%) received lenalidomide. There were no erythroid responses to HMA, while 1 of 3 (33%) assessable lenalidomide treated patients achieved a morphological complete response. Conclusion: Erythropoiesis stimulating agents are effective first line therapies for the management of anemia in patients with MDS/MPN-RS-T, with 46% achieving an erythroid response (median duration of response of 20 months). Low baseline endogenous EPO level (<44 IU/L) was the best predictor of response, with a trend towards an inferior response in the presence of RBC-TD. In the context of clonal thrombocytosis, potentially related thrombotic/ischemic events were documented in 8% of patients. Disclosures Al-Kali: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: Front-line immunochemotherapy (IC) with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is expected to cure 60-70% of newly diagnosed DLBCL. Up to one third of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients will have relapsed or refractory (r/r) disease.1 Current standard of care for these patients is salvage chemotherapy and, if chemosensitive, to be followed by high dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic cell rescue (autoHCT).2,3 Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) after frontline IC is associated with excellent long-term outcomes with overall survival (OS) similar to that of age- and sex-matched controls.4 In comparison, those achieving EFS24 following autoHCT for relapsed or refractory disease may have increased risk for late-mortality compared to the general population with advanced age and intensive salvage therapy contributing to the risk of late complications.5 We sought to better characterize EFS24 after autoHCT to determine the utility of this end-point for informed clinical decisions, patient management, and future clinical trials. Methods: Patients were prospectively enrolled onto the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/ Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Patients were followed for relapse, retreatment, and death; all events were validated by medical record review. For this analysis patients were included if they were consented within 9 months of initial diagnosis of DLBCL between 2002-2012, had received anthracycline-based IC (R-CHOP, or similar), and eventually had undergone autoHCT for r/r DLBCL. Patients with primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) were excluded. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from autoHCT until death due to any cause. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from autoHCT until progression, relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. OS from achieving EFS24 after autoHCT was compared to age- and sex-matched general US population. Results: 108 patients underwent autoHCT for relapsed DLBCL between 2002 and 2017. Median age at autoHCT of the patients was 60 years (range 20-78) and 72 (67%) were male. The most common transplant conditioning regimen was BEAM (82%). At a median follow-up after autoHCT of 85 months (range 1-171), 72 patients (67%) had an event and 64 patients (59%) had died. Kaplan-Meier estimates for EFS and OS at 24 months from the time of autoHCT were 49% (95% CI: 40-59) and 61% (95% CI: 52-71), respectively. 52 patients had a progression within 24 months of autoHCT; OS from progression was poor (median OS=2.8 months, 95% CI: 1.8-6.0; 5 year OS = 9%, 95% CI: 2-22). 48 patients achieved EFS24 after autoHCT; median OS from achieving EFS24 was 136 months (95% CI: 92-NE) and 5 year OS was 79% (95% CI: 68-93). This was inferior to the background population (Figure 1, SMR=3.64, 95% CI: 2.11-6.27, p<0.0001). Eight patients had a progression after achieving EFS24 from autoHCT. OS from progression in these 8 patients (median OS=27.3 months, 95% CI: 14.4-NE; 5 year OS = 16%, 95% CI: 3-93) was improved compared to progression within 24 months of autoHCT (p=0.072, figure B). Cause of death (COD) in EFS24 achievers was progression of lymphoma (n=6), infection (n=1), secondary malignancy related to therapy (n=3), heart disease (n=1), and unknown (n=1). Conclusions: Patients achieving EFS24 after salvage chemotherapy and autoHCT have a favorable long-term prognosis; however, overall survival remained inferior to the general population. Most common COD after achieving EFS24 was progression of lymphoma. In spite of this, EFS24 remains a valuable end-point for informed clinical decisions, patient management, and future clinical trials. Figure 1 Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Ansell:Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding.

Introduction: Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is characterized by circulating monoclonal IgM and bone marrow infiltration with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL) cells. Presently, there is limited data to guide prognosis or treatment options of WM based on the proportion of lymphocytes or plasma cells in the LPL population on the pathology. In this study, we aim to look at differing clinical features and outcomes of patients with WM based on the plasma cell (PC) percentage in the diagnostic bone marrow biopsy. Methods Patients with WM seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between January 2001 and December 2017, with a bone marrow biopsy and a corresponding serum free light chain (FLC) examination at diagnosis of WM were included. The percentage of lymphocytes and PCs in the marrow biopsy was determined based on morphology ± immunohistochemistry. On immunohistochemistry, CD138 and/or MUM-1 positivity was used to quantify PCs, whereas CD20 and/or PAX5 were used to quantify lymphocytes. Patients with ≥10% PC component in the lymphoplasmacytic (LPL) cells on bone marrow biopsy were considered to have WM with excess plasma cells (WMEPC), while those with &lt;10% PCs were considered to have lymphocytic WM (LWM). Continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon test and categorical variables were compared using Chi square test or Fisher's exact test. Time-to-next therapy (TTNT) was defined as the period from initiation of first line therapy to start of second line therapy or death due to any cause before second line therapy. Time-to-event analyses were conducted using Kaplan Meier method. Results: Of 228 evaluable patients, 147 (64%) had ≥ 10% PCs in the initial marrow biopsy. The median follow-up was 3.4 years (95% CI: 2.3-4.3 years) for LWM and 4.3 years (95% CI: 3.4-4.8 years) for WMEPC (p=0.33). The baseline characteristics of WMEPC versus LWM are depicted in Table 1. Patients with WMEPC had lower bone marrow involvement by LPL (30%) compared to LWM (60%; p&lt;0.001) at diagnosis, but the rate of symptomatic hyperviscosity was higher in WMEPC during the disease course (Table 1). The TTNT was shorter for WMEPC [2.6 years (95% CI: 1.8-4.5 years)] compared to LWM [4.5 years (95% CI 3.2-8.2)], although it did not reach statistical significance (p=0.09, Figure 1). There was a trend towards shorter OS for WMEPC [Not reached (95% CI 7.2- NR)] compared to LWM [10.7 years (95% CI 7.3 -12.1 years); p=0.28], Figure 2. Of the 228 patients, 79% (n=182) had data available for systemic therapy. The rate of PR or better with frontline therapy was higher in rates in LWM compared to WMEPC (61 % vs 42% p=0.02, Table 1). Among WMEPC cohort, patients receiving either a proteasome inhibitor (PI)-based or an immunomodulatory (IMiD)-based combination as frontline therapy (n=16) had higher rates of partial response or better (68%) compared to non-PI/non-IMiD based therapy (n=114), p=0.04. Conclusion: WM with excess plasma cells at diagnosis is associated with a trend towards shorter TTNT and OS compared to WM with &lt;10% plasma cells in the lymphoplasmacytic population at diagnosis. Our preliminary data shows higher rates of partial response or better with the use of PI/IMiD based therapy, but the small cohort size limits the strength of this finding which needs to be validated externally. Disclosures Ansell: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Gertz:Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Ionis: Honoraria. Dingli:alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Nowakowski:Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Akcea: Consultancy. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

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

Introduction. Our previous flow cytometry-based comparison of HIV(+) and HIV(-) autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) recipient immunomes at 56, 180 and 365 days post-transplant to each other and to healthy controls (HCs) showed that both sets of auto-HSCT recipient immunomes approached HCs over time, but retained significant differences. HIV(+), but not HIV(-), auto-AHCT recipients retained pro-inflammatory features consistent with chronic HIV infection. Here, we report the results of a quantitative and functional analysis of immune reconstitution in HIV(+) patients treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HSCT), in comparison with HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients and HCs. Methods. Blood samples were collected for analysis at days 56, 180 and 365 post-transplant from HIV(+) transplant recipients and at 1 time point from HCs. Whole blood analysis was performed by five-color flow cytometry across 100 immune marker combinations. Comparisons were made between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (n=17, acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphocytic leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative or reduced intensity conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0903/AMC-080 trial), HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (n=36, aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma or Hodgkin lymphoma that received myeloablative conditioning on the BMT-CTN-0803/AMC-071 trial) and 71 HCs. Unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA) examined differences in immune cell proportions, identified by flow cytometry across 100 cell subsets at each time point. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests compared median absolute counts and median proportions of cell subsets. An independent feature importance score analysis (FIS) identified contributions of immune cell populations expressing specific immune marker combinations to the differences between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients, HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HCs. Functional responsiveness of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients' T cells to stimulation with CD3- and CD28-directed antibodies, NK cells to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 and monocytes to stimulation with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was assessed in a preliminary mass cytometry on peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated at the same time points (n=2) and compared to HCs (n=2). Results. PCA showed that immunomes of HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients clustered together with each other, but away from HCs at all time points throughout the post-transplant year. FIS identified: 1) 13 cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs, and 2) 11 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) auto-HSCT recipients (all visits) and HCs; in both of these comparisons, activated CD3+/HLA-DR+ T cells had the greatest impact on the difference between HIV(+) and HC immunomes. At 1 year, both HIV(+) transplant recipient cohorts had higher absolute numbers of activated T cells, effector T cells and CD8+ T cells than HCs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p<0.0031). HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients also had lower numbers of CD4+ T cells, naïve T cells and activated NK cells compared to HCs (p<0.0031). FIS also identified 20 immune cell subsets that defined the difference between HIV(+) autologous and allogeneic HSCT recipients immunomes at 1 year, with CD8+/CD27- effector T cell subset exerting the highest impact on the difference. Preliminary functional mass cytometry analysis of 2 HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients and 2 HCs showed that: 1) IFNʏ production by CD8+ T cells was increased above that of HCs at all time points. 2) Expanded populations of CD4+/T-bet+ cytotoxic cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, and CD8+ cytotoxic T cells expressing granzyme B and perforin, persisted in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients at all time points, but not in HCs. 3) NK cells retained an ability to produce IFNʏ in response to stimulation with IL-12 and IL-18 in HIV(+) allo-SCT recipients. 4) Monocytes showed an enhanced production of TNFα in response to stimulation with LPS in HIV(+) allo-HSCT recipients compared to HCs at 1 year post-HSCT. Conclusion. Chronic HIV infection confers the pro-inflammatory immune features on the phenotypic and functional profiling of the T lymphocyte immunome of stem cell transplant recipients, irrespective of allogeneic or autologous stem cell donor source. Disclosures Devine: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Noy:Janssen: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Pharamcyclics: Research Funding; Raphael Pharma: Research Funding. Popat:Bayer: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Navarro:Atara Biotherapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Behbehani:Fluidigm corporation: Other: Travel funding. Lozanski:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Beckman Coulter: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Genentec: Research Funding. Baiocchi:Prelude: Consultancy.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Neuroimaging dogma for glioblastoma asserts that hyperintensity on T1Gd MRI reveals the bulk of the tumor, while T2/FLAIR signal indicates edema. However, it is unclear whether this edema results from immune response or increased tumor cells. Further, one significant driver of the known sex differences in glioblastoma may be differences in immune response, due to the X-linkage of many immune genes. Based on this, we hypothesized that assumptions regarding tumor cellularity in T2/FLAIR images should be tailored to the biological sex of the patient. METHODS Using a retrospective cohort of 18 primary glioblastoma patients receiving multiple image-localized biopsies (82 total) and standard MRI, we assessed: distance of biopsy from T1Gd and T2 areas; a pathologist’s score of percent tumor cell density; and an imaging-based invasion metric, D/ρ. This metric is derived from the biomathematical Proliferation-Invasion model of glioma growth, which features two parameters, net growth rate (ρ) and net invasion rate (D). Their ratio D/ρ is related to degree of invasion, and is estimated from volumetric measurements of MRI abnormalities. Additionally, 25 patient-derived xenograft models implanted in females were grown until moribund, at which point brains were excised and stained for DAPI (to show all cells) and Lamin (to highlight tumor cells). Image processing of lamin-stained sections defines contours of intensity correlating with cell density. RESULTS Outside both the T1Gd and T2 region, male patient biopsies had higher tumor cell densities than females. Males also tended to have higher invasion metrics. Although each set derived from different patients, preclinical metrics of invasion were positively correlated with clinical invasion in females but negatively correlated in males. CONCLUSION Our preliminary finding that cell distribution patterns correlate with imaging metrics differently between the sexes supports the hypothesis that the degree of tumor cell density represented on certain MRI sequences may be sex-specific.