Citations

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide guidance on the recommended management of cancer in pregnant patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The systematic review identified 450 eligible studies. Much of the evidence consisted of observational data, case series, and case reports. RECOMMENDATIONS Management of cancer during pregnancy should be grounded in a values-based informed-consent process outlining maternal and fetal risks and anticipated benefits. Diagnostic evaluation should follow the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, with timing of diagnostic studies individualized based on urgency of cancer detection, potential dangers of delay, and the balance of risks to both the pregnant patient and her embryo or fetus. Due to significant risk of harm to the developing embryo and/or fetus, systemic therapy should be deferred until the second trimester. Methotrexate, hormonal therapies, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and all cellular therapies are contraindicated during pregnancy, regardless of gestational age. For patients who wish to continue their pregnancy, delivery should be planned at or after 37 weeks, with the final chemotherapy dose scheduled 2-4 weeks before birth. Referral to psychosocial support services is essential to address emotional and practical challenges, reduce distress, and support shared decision making. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Abstract The benefit of rituximab maintenance after first-line (1L) bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains uncertain, with inconsistent results from the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial and several retrospective studies. We conducted a large retrospective study at 27 US and Canadian academic centers to examine the benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR. A total of 911 patients received 1L BR between 2010 and 2020, and 703 had an objective response and no evidence of disease progression at the 3-month post-BR landmark. Among those, 394 (56%) received rituximab maintenance and 309 (44%) did not, with largely similar baseline patient and disease characteristics. In the landmark analysis, rituximab maintenance was associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; median, 49.9 vs 29.7 months; P< .001) as well as overall survival (OS; median, 109.5 vs 74.2 months; P< .001). The EFS and OS benefits were observed across most of the subgroups. EFS and OS differences were statistically significant in those who achieved a complete response to 1L BR (n = 590; median EFS, 62.7 vs 31.1 months [P< .001]; median OS, 136.1 vs 75.3 months [P< .001]), but the analysis among those who achieved a partial response to 1L BR was limited by the small sample size. These results provide additional evidence for the survival benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR in MCL and support its use in clinical trial design and routine practice.

Abstract Introduction: Cilta-cel is a BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy that has shown remarkable efficacy in patients with RRMM. As real-world (RW) experience with cilta-cel continues to expand, and with the recent FDA guidance reducing the recommended proximity to the CAR T center from four to two weeks post-infusion, there is growing interest in identifying patients at low risk for severe early complications who may be safely managed in the outpatient setting and potentially ‘discharged’ home earlier. Methods Data were collected from 769 patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel at 15 institutions in the U.S. via the Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium.Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of patients who could be managed in the outpatient setting (low-risk group). Based on expert consensus within the Consortium, low-risk patients were defined as: grade ≤1 CRS, no ICANS, and no IEC-HS. The remaining patients were categorized as high-risk. We evaluated baseline characteristics with missingness < 20% as predictors, including age, sex, race, and ethnicity, ECOG performance status (PS) at time of lymphodepletion (LD), extramedullary disease, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) percentage, high-risk cytogenetics, bridging therapy including response, penta-refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, prior anti-BCMA therapy, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP), and baseline ferritin. The cohort was restricted to patients with complete data on all predictors (n=455) and split into a training and testing cohort (80/20 split, n=364/91). Bidirectional stepwise regression was used to build the predictive model using variables with significance of p<0.15 selected for entry. The best model was selected based on the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) and a significance level of p<0.05. Results Among the 455 patients with complete data included in the final model, 290 (64%) were categorized as low-risk and 165 (36%) as high-risk. Compared to the low-risk group, high-risk patients were more likely to have an ECOG PS ≥2 at time of LD (20% vs 9%, p<0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (47% vs 35%, p=0.009), and penta-refractory disease status (34% vs 24%, p=0.031). High-risk patients also had a higher median BMPC percentage (15% vs 5%, p<0.001), and higher baseline pre-LD CRP and ferritin. Overall response rates were high, at 95% vs 90% (p=0.047) for the low vs high risk groups, with complete response or better achieved in 73% vs 66% of patients, respectively (p=0.14). With a median follow-up of approximately 11 months, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI: 27-NA) in the low-risk group and 18.2 months (95% CI: 13.1-NA) in the high-risk group. In terms of safety, non-ICANS neurotoxicity (NINT) occurred less frequently in the low-risk group (6.6% vs 13%, p=0.015). Specifically, Parkinsonism was observed in 1.7% vs 6.1% (p=0.013), and cranial nerve palsy in 4.5% vs 5.5% (p=0.7), respectively. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was lower in the low-risk group (4.2%) compared to the high-risk group (14%; p < 0.001). The most common causes of NRM in the low- and high-risk groups were acute toxicities (0% vs 36%, including CRS, IEC-HS, and ICANS), delayed toxicities (0% vs 8%, including colitis, NINT, and Parkinsonism), infections (50% vs 48%), and other unrelated causes (50% vs 8%). The best model to predict low-risk patients that could be managed in the outpatient settingincluded BMPC percentage and ECOG PS at LD. In the training cohort, patients with a higher pre-LD BMPC percentage and an ECOG PS ³2 were less likely to be in the low-risk group(OR per 1-unit change in BMPC percentage = 0.99, 95% CI=0.98-0.99, p<0.001 and OR for ECOG PS 2-4 = 0.38, 95% CI=0.20-0.72, p=0.003). The AUC for this model was 0.663 in the training cohort and 0.659 in the testing cohort. Conclusion In this large, multi-institutional cohort of patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel, we identified clinical factors associated with lower risk for early severe toxicities, supporting outpatient administration and the potential for earlier discharge in selected patients, particularly those who are fit and have low disease burden. Our findings provide a practical framework to guide risk stratification and outpatient CAR T management strategies, particularly in light of evolving regulatory guidance and growing RW experience with cilta-cel.

Abstract Introduction: CTCLs are rare, heterogeneous non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) with significant regional variability in treatment patterns. Prospective studies characterizing CTCL management, particularly in racially and ethnically diverse populations, remains limited. The LEO-MER multi-center prospective cohort study (NCT02736357) is designed to address the persistent disparities in outcomes research by enrolling historically underrepresented groups of patients diagnosed with lymphoma across the United States (US). Here, we present a real-world analysis of CTCL patients that reflects US academic practice, evaluating treatment patterns, as well as prognostic factors influencing survival outcomes. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed CTCL were prospectively enrolled in either the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER cohort (2002-2015) or the expanded LEO cohort (2015-2020), which included 8 US academic centers. Standardized protocols were used to abstract clinical, pathologic, treatment, and outcome data from medical records. ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's/chi-square tests were used to compare patient distribution across demographic and clinical characteristics based on data distribution and sample size. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Survival analyses employed Kaplan-Meier estimation supplemented by Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: The LEO-MER cohort enrolled 223 CTCL patients (91 MER and 132 LEO). Subtypes included mycosis fungoides (MF, n=155, 69.5%), Sézary syndrome (SS, n=22, 9.9%), primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (n=17, 7.6%), subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma (n=11, 4.9%), cutaneous CD4+ small/medium T-cell lymphoproliferative-disorder (n=9, 4%), and other rarer CTCL subtypes (n=9, 4%). Among the MF/SS cohort, median age was 64 years (Range: 18-89 years), 58.2% (n=103) were male and race/ethnicity distribution included White (n=123, 69.5%), Black (n=29; 16.4%) and others/unknown (n=25; 14.1%). Stage distribution included 62.7% with early-stage (ES) MF (IA-IIA, n=111), 37.2% with advanced-stage (AS) MF (IIB-IVB, n=66). To complete diagnostic workup, T-cell receptor (TCR) testing was performed in 52.6% of skin biopsies (n=92) and 62.5% of blood samples (n=110), with clonal detection rates of 75% (69/92) in skin and 51.8% (57/110) in blood. Paired TCR matching between skin and blood samples was performed in 31.6% (n=56) of cases, demonstrating 53.6% (30/56) concordance. Blood flow cytometry data were reported in 80.1% (89/111) and 84.4% (56/66) of ES and AS MF cases, with T-cell population being detected in 7.2% (8/111) and 62.1% (41/66) of ES and AS cases. Nodal biopsies were obtained in 23.4% (n=41) of patients and clonality assessment was reported in 18.6% (33/177) of these cases. The MF/SS cohort's lifetime treatment exposure data (n=160) revealed topical skin-directed therapies alone (n=49, 31.8%) as the most common approach followed by lifetime exposure to topical skin-directed and systemic therapies (n=45, 29.2%) followed by multimodal exposure of topical skin-directed, radiation and systemic treatments (n=30, 19.5%). Only 5.6% of patients were enrolled in a clinical trial. First-line (1L) systemic regimens were predominantly a) immunomodulatory agents (n=47, 29.3%); including oral retinoid (n=20), extracorporeal photopheresis (n=18), interferon (n=9) followed by b) chemotherapy (n=30, 18.7%) and c) targeted therapies (n=17, 10.6%) including Brentuximab Vedotin (n=6), Romidepsin (n=5), Mogamulizumab (n=3), Vorinostat (n=2) and Pralatrexate (n=1). Multivariable analysis predicting 1L systemic treatment initiation demonstrated a significant association with presence of N2/N3 stage (N2/N3 vs N0/N1: Odds Ratio (OR): 5.45) and elevated LDH (OR: 5.30). At median follow-up of 91.1 months (mon), median OS was 122.3 mon (95% confidence interval 67.2-159.2 mon). In subset analyses, Black race (p=0.001) and SS (p=0.0001) were associated with worse OS outcomes. Conclusion: We present initial data from our prospective LEO-MER cohort, a large US-based multicenter consortia. Our findings demonstrate variability in both diagnostic staging and treatment approaches for MF/SS patients. The cohort demonstrated worse outcomes with high-risk disease and Black race/ethnicity. These findings warrant further study on the impact of underlying social determinant factors, given the variability noted in this population.

Abstract Background Nodal peripheral T-cell lymphomas (nPTCLs) are a challenging group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that frequently recur after or are refractory to first line (1L) treatment. Chemotherapy options in the relapsed or refractory (R/R) setting are limited. The incorporation of non-cytotoxic agents including antibody drug conjugates, immune checkpoint inhibitors, epigenetic modifiers, and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors offers new therapeutic potential and possibly better outcomes. We report on outcomes for patients (pts) with R/R nPTCL enrolled in the multi-center LEO-MER prospective cohort study (NCT02736357) who received second line (2L) therapy. Methods Six hundred and three adult pts with newly diagnosed nPTCL were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER observational cohort (2002-2015) or the expanded LEO cohort (2015-2020). Secondary overall survival (sOS) was calculated from date of 2L treatment initiation to date of death or last follow-up. Secondary event-free survival (sEFS) was calculated from date of 2Ltreatment initiation to disease progression, initiation of 3rd line therapy, or death from any cause. sEFS and sOS were evaluated using Cox model and Kaplan-Meier estimator. Log-rank test was used to test the significance of difference between groups. Pts with concomitant B-cell lymphomas were excluded from this analysis. Results Thus far, 169 pts with nPTCL initiating 2L therapy were evaluated. Of these, 75 (44.4%) had PTCL-NOS, 63 (37.3%) had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL, inclusive of nodal T-follicular helper cell lymphoma), 20 (11.8%) had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), and 11 (6.5%) had ALK-positive ALCL. At 2L treatment initiation, the median age was 64 with 86.1% of pts having advanced stage disease. Of the 108 pts with available international prognostic index (IPI) scoring, 46.3% had an IPI of ≥3. Thirty-four (20.1%) pts had received a consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in the 1L. A total of 86 pts (50.1%) had primary refractory disease (partial response, stable or progressive disease as best response to 1L therapy), 45 (26.6%) experienced early relapsing disease within 6 months of 1L therapy, and 38 (22.5%) had relapsed disease >6 months from 1L therapy. After a median follow-up of 7.1 years (yrs), median sOS was 1.52 yrs, and sEFS was 3.2 months (mos). There was no difference in sOS or sEFS regardless of timing of relapse. In keeping with other studies, ALK-positive ALCL pts had the best 5-year OS (70.1%) compared to other subgroups (ALK-negative ALCL 45.0%, AITL 30.4%; PTCL-NOS 21.3%). Lymphoma was the leading cause of death following 2L therapy, with a 2-year cumulative incidence of 49.2%. Eighty pts (47.3%) received only cytotoxic chemotherapy as second line (2L) therapy; ICE (41 (51.3%)) and gemcitabine-containing regimens were most common (14 (17.5%)). Seventy-five pts (44.4%) were treated with non-cytotoxic agents given as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. The most common non-cytotoxic therapies were brentuximab vedotin (33 (44.0%)), romidepsin (17 (22.7%)) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (9 (12.0%)). Fourteen pts (8.3%) underwent palliative interventions involving radiation, steroids, or cyclosporine alone. Intent to proceed to transplant in the 2L was known in 158 pts (101 (63.9%) not intended, 57 (36.1% intended)). Following 2L treatment, 18 (10.7%) pts proceeded to consolidative ASCT and 10 (5.9%) to allogeneic transplant. Only 21 (12.9%) were treated on a clinical trial. Pts who received a non-cytotoxic agent had superior outcomes compared to pts receiving only chemotherapy; the median sOS was 30.4 mos (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.3, 53.52 mos) vs 11.7 mos ((95% CI 7.95,19.58); p=0.04; HR 0.67) and the median sEFS was 4.83 mos (95% CI 3.38, 10.09) vs 2.33 mos ((95% CI 1.71,3.02); p=0.02; HR=0.65). Conclusions We report here one of the largest prospective cohorts in R/R nPTCL. The LEO-MER cohort, despite its association with academic centers, shows poor outcomes regardless of refractory or relapsed disease, frequent inability to proceed to intended consolidative transplant, and low clinical trial participation in 2L, which corroborates findings from other registries (Jain 2025, Stuver 2019). Outcomes improved for pts treated with non-cytotoxic agents. Updated data including additional pts and subgroup analyses will be reported at the meeting.

Abstract Background: Despite advances in LBCL treatment, 35–45% of patients relapse or have refractory disease highlighting an unmet clinical need. Clinical trials are essential to advancing lymphoma treatment, yet participation remains low – especially among certain populations. We hypothesized that participation in clinical trials as part of first-line therapy is associated with improved survival outcomes and conducted this retrospective study in a multi-center cohort. Methods: The LEO cohort prospectively enrolled newly diagnosed patients with LBCL between 2015 and 2020 at 8 academic medical centers in the United States. LBCL histology's included T-cell/histiocyte rich LBCL, Primary mediastinal LBCL, high grade B-cell lymphoma and DLBCL NOS. Pathology was reviewed and classified by a LEO pathologist. Clinical and treatment data (including trial participation) were abstracted from medical records. The primary outcome endpoint is overall survival (OS) defines as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause or last follow up. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between OS and therapeutic trial participation. Univariable models assessed each baseline covariate, with and without interaction with trial participation. The multivariable model adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, diagnosis to treatment interval [DTI], and IPI, including an interaction between IPI and trial participation which was justified per minimal Akaike information criteria. All models clustered on institution. Results: Among the 2636 patients with LBCL, the median age was 63 (range 18 – 99), 57% were male, 75% non-Hispanic white (NHW), 12% Hispanic (H) and 7.3% African American (AA), 62% had Stage III/IV disease, and 214 (8.0%) participated in a clinical trial as part of first line therapy. Overall, between ages 18 – 80, clinical trial participation increased with age (55 % in ages 18-30 vs 11% in ages 71-80) but dropped significantly for patients > 80 (3.4%). There were no significant differences in the rate of trial participation by sex (male 8.6 % vs female 7.5%; p=0.35), race/ethnicity (NHW 8.9% vs H 5.5% vs AA 6.3%; p=0.061), body mass index (underweight [<18.5] 4.5% vs normal [18.5-24.9] 7.7% vs overweight [25-29] 8.3% vs obese (>30) 8.5; p = 0.75) or Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (Metro[1-3] 8.5% vs non-metro Urban [4-6] 7.6% vs non-metro Rural [7-9] 5.4 %; p=0.49). Patients with advanced disease more commonly participated in a trial. Most patients received systemic treatment (98%), with 94% of patients receiving an anti-CD20 antibody and 91% of patients receiving anthracycline-based therapy. Importantly, there was no difference in anthracycline use in trial participants vs nonparticipants (92 vs 91%; p=0.53). Patients with high IPI scores [3-5] were more likely to participate on trials compared to those with low scores [1-2] (8% vs 5.9% respectively, p= 0.012). Patients who participated in clinical trials had significantly longer median DTI (26 days vs 21 days; p <0.0001) and had a significantly lower number of comorbidities compared to non-participants (mean 0.55 vs. 0.69; p=0.032). Among patients with low IPI (0–2), 5-year OS was 89% trial participants (CTP) compared to 82% for non-participants (CTNP). Among patients with high IPI (3–5), 5-year OS was 78% for CTP vs 60%for CTNP. The multivariable Cox model demonstrated a significant interaction between trial participation and IPI, with trial participation with low IPI having a non-significant hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 with 95% CI (0.57,1.32), while trial participation with high IPI had a significant HR of 0.57 (0.44, 0.74). Additionally, increased age, male sex, black race, and lower DTI were associated with increased hazard. Conclusion: Patients at high risk of poor outcomes such as those with advanced age (80+), higher comorbidities burden, and those needing more urgent therapy (shorter DTI) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In this multi-institutional cohort of patients with LBCL treated at academic centers, frontline trial participants had outcomes that were equivalent or better than those receiving standard care. These finding underscore the value of clinical trial participation even in the frontline setting and support trial designs that expand inclusion- allowing participation of patients who are older, medically complex or in need urgent therapy.

Abstract Introduction: THRLBCL is a rare disease accounting for less than 10% of all diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) subtypes. THRLBCL was associated with poor outcomes in the pre-rituximab era, with limited contemporaneous data. Optimal frontline treatment remains unclear with some studies advocating for intensive regimens. The goal of this international study is to analyze the survival and treatment-related outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed THRLBCL treated with rituximab-containing chemotherapy and to compare with a DLBCL, not otherwise specified (NOS) cohort. Methods: THRLBCL and DLBCL patients prospectively enrolled in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) (NCT02736357) (7/2015 to 5/2020), Molecular Epidemiology Resource (1/2010 to 6/2015), and Czech Lymphoma Study Group project (NiHiL) (NCT03199066) (2/2010 to 11/2023) were analyzed. Diagnosis was made in dedicated hematopathology centers in both registries. We excluded patients with prior nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma, central nervous system involvement, and not treated with rituximab-containing therapy. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier.Univariate associations were derived via Cox model and multivariate models were constructed by forward selection of significant variables with P≤0.05. Propensity score matching (1:5, caliper 0.2) between THRLBCL and DLBCL NOS patients was performed using IPI score components and treatment as covariates. Results: We identified 158 patients (LEO: 67 and NiHiL: 91) with THRLBCL. Among them, 140 patients received rituximab-containing regimens and were included in this analysis. Median age was 58 years (range, 19-89) with 57% aged ≤60 years. Most patients were male (n= 88; 63%) and had ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-1 (n= 111; 79%), stage III-IV (n= 111; 79%), elevated LDH (n= 92; 66%), and B symptoms (n= 84; 60%). Fifty (36%) patients had ≥2 extranodal (EN) sites, mostly liver (n= 39; 28%) and lung (n= 16; 11%), bone marrow (BM) involvement was observed in 26% (n= 37). Bulky disease (≥7.5cm) was present in 50 (36%) and IPI score ≥3 in 68 (48%) patients. The median diagnosis-to-treatment interval was 23 days (IQ range, 13-38.5). Frequent regimens were R-CHOP (n= 106; 75.7%), followed by intensive regimens such as R-MegaCHOP/ESHAP, R-HyperCVAD/MA, and R-CODOX-M/IVAC (n= 15; 10.7%), and R-CHOEP/EPOCH-R (n= 10; 7.14%). With a median follow-up of 3.92 years, the 4-year EFS & OS were 71% and 80%, respectively. Lymphoma was the main cause of death (n= 15; 11%) among 30 events. No difference in 4-year EFS (70% vs. 76%; P= 0.55) & OS (80% vs 82%; P= 0.96) were observed between R-CHOP and intensive regimens. Factors associated with shorter EFS and OS in univariate analysis for THRLBCL were ECOG PS 2-4: (HR= 3.3; P<.001 & HR= 5.97, P<.001, respectively); ≥2 EN sites (HR= 1.85, P= 0.043 & HR= 2.54, P= 0.014, respectively); B symptoms (HR= 2.35, P= 0.014 & HR= 2.84, P= 0.023) and IPI score (HR= 1.5, P= 0.002 & HR= 2.16, P<.001). Stage III-IV and BM involvement were associated with shorter OS only (HR= 7.36, P= 0.05 & HR= 2.18, P= 0.036, respectively). Among them, only ECOG PS 2-4 (OS: HR= 3.6, P= 0.003) and B symptoms (EFS: HR= 2.3, P= 0.046) were independent predictors of survival in multivariate analysis. Finally, we compared baseline characteristics and survival between THRLBCL (n= 140) and DLBCL NOS (n= 6099; LEO/MER: 2069 & NiHiL: 4030) treated with rituximab-containing regimens. Patients with THRLBCL were younger (≤60 years: 57% vs. 38%; P<.001), more frequently had ECOG PS 0-1 (79% vs 76%; P= 0.012), stage III-IV (79% vs 63%; P<.001), B symptoms (60% vs 38%; P<.001), and liver involvement (28% vs 7%; P<.001), compared to DLBCL NOS. Subtype was not associated with survival (OS HR= 0.79, P= 0.262 & EFS HR= 0.93, P= 0.662) when adjusted for IPI score. With a median follow-up of 4.89 years in the DLBCL NOS cohort, we observed similar 4-year EFS (71% vs 67%; P= 0.197) & OS between histologies (80% vs 77%; P= 0.125). These results were confirmed in propensity matching for EFS (HR= 0.98, P= 0.897) and OS (HR= 1.07, P= 0.732). Conclusions: In this large international analysis of patients with newly diagnosed THRLBCL contemporaneously treated, we observed similar survival rates compared to DLBCL NOS treated with R-CHOP and intensive regimens. ECOG PS and the presence of B symptoms were independent factors associated with survival.