Abstract Background: Sex differences in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) outcomes have been described. Immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) have emerged as a serious clinical problem in the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Risk factors for IRAEs and their association with response to therapy remain controversial. Sex differences in innate and adaptive immune responses have been observed but the association of these differences with IRAEs remains unclear. Therefore, we studied sex differences in IRAEs and their association with response to therapy. Methods: All patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with anti-PD1 and anti-PDL1 therapy at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Florida from 2015 to 2018 were reviewed. Patients receiving treatment at an outside facility with history autoimmune disorders or radiation-induced pneumonitis were excluded. Chi-square test was used to estimate differences in categorical data. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time-to-event analysis. Results: A total of 231 patients were identified; 120 (52%) were women and 111 (48%) were men. Baseline characteristics and ICI distribution were similar among groups. Women were more likely to experience IRAEs compared to men (48% vs. 31%, p<0.008). Among patients with IRAEs, women were more likely to be prescribed systemic steroids (63% vs. 41%, p<0.02). On the other hand, no significant differences were observed in the administration of intravenous steroids. Women were more likely to develop pneumonitis (23% vs. 12%, p<0.03) and arthralgias (17% vs. 3%, p<0.04). However, dermatologic toxicities (35% vs. 9%, p<0.002) were more commonly seen in men. In 17% of women the ICI was discontinued due to toxicity (men 7%). Besides sex, no other clinical characteristic was associated with increased IRAEs. Women with IRAEs were more likely to have a radiographic response compared with women without IRAEs (78% vs. 23%, p<0.0001), although this was not observed in men (37% vs. 26%, p>0.22). Better PFS was observed in women with IRAEs (10 months vs. 3.3 months, p<0.0006) compared to women without IRAEs. Conclusions: Women with metastatic NSCLC are more likely to experience IRAEs compared to men. We also observed sex differences in the frequency of certain IRAEs. In addition, an association between IRAEs and response to therapy was observed in women. Larger studies are needed to investigate the mechanisms underlying these associations. Citation Format: Narjust Duma, Abdel-Ghani Azzouqa, Siddhartha Yadav, Kahterine Hoversten, Clay Reed, Andrea Sitek, Elizabeth Enninga, Jonas Paludo, Lisa Kottschade, Aaron Mansfield, Rami Manochakian, Roxana Dronca, Alex Adjei. Sex differences in tolerability and response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2018 Nov 2-5; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl):Abstract nr A120.
Predictors of short-term survival in Waldenström Macroglobulinemia
8550 Background: Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare lymphoplasmacytic malignancy characterized by the presence of a recurrent point mutation in the MYD88 gene (MYD88L265P) in 80-95% of cases. Patients with MYD88WT genotype comprise a small subset that responds poorly to ibrutinib and other Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We examined the characteristics and outcome of WM patients with MYD88WT genotype predominantly treated with non-BTK inhibitor based therapies. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of WM seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, between 1996 and 2018 were included. Their characteristics and outcomes were assessed from the time of active disease. Marrow MYD88 genotyping was assessed with an allele specific PCR assay (analytic sensitivity 1%). Categorical and continuous variables were compared using Chi square and Wilcoxon tests, respectively. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan Meier test. Results: Of 986 patients with active WM, MYD88 genotype data were available in 331 (34 %) patients; 72 (22%) and 260 (78%) patients harbored MYD88WT and MYD88L265P genotypes, respectively. The median follow-up was 5.8 years (95% CI: 5.0-6.5 years) from active WM; 6 years MYD88WT vs 5.4 years for MYD88L265P cohort. Median age was 63 years and 66 years in the MYD88WT and MYD88L265P cohorts, respectively (p = 0.07) with 46% and 53% patients being ≥65 years of age, respectively (p = 0.36). Pre-treatment marrow lymphoplasmacytic (LPL) infiltrate (median 40% for MYD88WT vs 60% for MYD88L265P; p = 0.001) and beta-2 microglobulin (median 3 µg/mL for MYD88WT vs 3.9 µg/mL for MYD88L265P; p = 0.02) were lower in the MYD88WT compared to the MYD88L265P cohort; other laboratory parameters at active disease were comparable. Per IPSSWM prognostic criteria, MYD88WT had fewer patients in the high risk group (18% for MYD88WT vs 42% MYD88L265P; p = 0.03). Patients with MYD88WT had higher likelihood of histological transformation [18% for MYD88WT vs 4% for MYD88L265P; odds ratio 5.8 (95% CI: 2.5-13.5; p < 0.0001)]. Among patients with treatment data available, only 35 (11%) patients received ibrutinib. The 5-year overall survival (OS) from active disease was comparable (85% in MYD88WT vs 82% in MYD88L265P cohort; p = 0.7). Conclusions: MYD88WT genotype in WM is associated with lower marrow LPL infiltration, lower likelihood of high-risk IPSSWM categorization and a higher likelihood of histological transformation in comparison to MYD88L265P mutant subpopulation. MYD88 genotype does not affect the OS from active disease in predominantly non-BTK inhibitor treated patients.
Quality of life (QOL), financial burden, and perception of care in patients enrolled on clinical trials (CTs).
e19112 Background: We sought to study the longitudinal QOL, financial burden and perception of care (PoC) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) or lymphoma (LYM) enrolled on CTs vs. those receiving standard care (Non-CT). Methods: QOL was evaluated using the FACT-G questionnaire (baseline, 1, 2, 3, 6 & 12 months). Financial burden was evaluated using 10 questions adapted from the MEPS survey and PoC was evaluated using 6 questions adapted from the CAHPS survey (baseline, 3, 6 & 12 months). Results: 35 (28%) of 123 enrolled patients were treated on CTs. Demographics, QOL and financial burden are shown in the Table. Baseline QOL scores were similar in CT vs non-CT groups. Age, gender and self-reported performance status were significantly associated with baseline QOL, while lines of therapy & cancer type were not. There were no significant differences in change in QOL vs. baseline in patients treated on CTs vs. non-CTs at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months from baseline, including the total FACT-G score and the subdomains of functional, physical, emotional and social well-being. Within each group, there was a decline in QOL over the first 3 months, specifically physical WB, which gradually returned to baseline. Baseline answers to financial burden questions were similar, except patients on CTs reported less need for taking extended time-off from work (22% vs. 46%, p = 0.02). The only statistically significant difference in individual Qs over 1 year was ‘worry about having to pay large medical bills’ at the 6-month timepoint (CT: 0%, non-CT: 52%, p = 0.01). Using a composite score from 4 MEPS questions, financial burden over time was lower in the CT group, though the differences were not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in PoC at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months in the two groups based on answers to each of the six questions adapted from the CAHPS survey. Conclusions: Over 1 year, patients on CTs experienced a similar QOL and perceived their care to be similar as non-CT patients. Financial burden was lower in the CT group, though differences were not statistically significant. [Table: see text]
Impact of type of salvage therapy (ST) and response to bridging therapy (BT) on CAR-T therapy outcomes for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).
e15020 Background: Durable responses were seen in registration trials for CAR-T in NHL across poor prognostic groups including early relapse post stem cell transplant (ASCT). Multi-center reports of real-world practice noted patients who received BT prior to CAR-T had decreased survival. The impact of last ST and response to BT on clinical outcome are examined here. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on 47 patients who received axicabtagene ciloleucel from June 2016 – September 2019 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. ST was defined as last therapy prior to leukapheresis and grouped into categories – non-ASCT (chemotherapy, and immunotherapy), and ASCT. BT was defined as therapy given between leukapheresis and CAR-T. Response to therapy was evaluated using 2014 Lugano criteria. Event free survival (EFS) was defined as time from CAR-T infusion to progression, next treatment, or death. Results: The ST distribution was 77% non-ASCT [chemo 66% (31), and immunotherapy 11% (5)], and 23% (11) ASCT. EFS was significantly prolonged for the ASCT (median not reached) vs non-ASCT (median 3.8 months, p = 0.03) despite no difference in median prior lines of therapy. This may reflect more aggressive disease in the non-ASCT arm, as time from start of ST to leukapheresis was shorter (median non-ASCT 2.2 months vs. ASCT 4.4 months, p = 0.0008). Patients received BT if there were concerns for symptomatic progression during CAR-T manufacturing that would reduce the likelihood to receive CAR-T. Sixty-two percent (29) patients received BT (11 chemo, and 18 immunotherapy). The EFS did not differ between the type of BT. However, patients who progressed after BT had worse EFS than those who achieved stable disease or partial response (median 2.8 vs 8.7 months, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Patients who received CAR-T as the next treatment after ASCT had better EFS than those after other types of ST. While patients who received BT have worse survival than those who didn’t, having some control of lymphoma progression with BT was associated with better EFS than those who continued to have progressive disease.
Association of lymphocyte to monocyte ratio with clinical response and survival in patients with relapsed, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR-T.
3028 Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy induces complete remission (CR) in 30-40% of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, for patients who do not achieve CR as their first response, predictors for achieving CR as best response can guide management between careful observation or early intervention. Increased absolute lymphocyte count to absolute monocyte count ratio (ALC/AMC) predicts better response rates and survival in NHL patients receiving chemotherapy and/or autologous stem cell transplant. We evaluated the prognostic impact of ALC/AMC in CAR-T therapy for NHL. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients who received CAR-T for NHL from June 2016-August 2019. ALC/AMC was assessed at the start of lymphodepletion (LD) chemotherapy. The receiver operator curve (ROC) was used to determine the best cutoff for ALC/AMC in predicting CR at 3 months. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined from time of CAR-T infusion to relapse or death, whichever occurred first. Overall survival (OS) was defined from time of infusion to death of any cause. Results: Forty-seven patients received axicabtagene ciloleucel, with a median follow-up of 14 months. By ROC, ALC/AMC > 0.8 before LD chemotherapy was predictive of achieving CR at 3 months. Baseline characteristics were similar between the high (n = 30) and low (n = 17) ALC/AMC groups. Patients with an ALC/AMC > 0.8 at the time of LD chemotherapy were more likely to achieve CR at 3 months (46% vs. 12%, p = 0.01), 6 months (52% vs. 0%, p < 0.0005), and 12 months (42% vs. 0%, p = 0.01). Correspondingly, the EFS and OS were significantly shorter in patients with ALC/AMC≤0.8 vs. those > 0.8 (median EFS: 2 vs. 13 months, P < 0.0001) and (median OS: 15 months vs. not reached, P = 0.03), respectively. Association between ALC/AMC ratio and EFS and OS remained consistent in multivariate Cox models after adjusting for other prognostic variables, including abnormal lactate dehydrogenase and increased ferritin level at infusion day. Conclusions: ALC/AMC > 0.8 before lymphodepletion chemotherapy is a strong predictor for complete remission as well as improved event-free and overall survival for axicabtagene ciloleucel in NHL.
Chemo-immunotherapy combination after PD-1 inhibitor failure improves clinical outcomes in metastatic melanoma patients
Management of PD-1 blockade resistance in metastatic melanoma (MM) remains challenging. Immunotherapy or chemotherapy alone provides limited benefit in this setting. Chemo-immunotherapy (CIT) has demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety profiles in lung cancer. Our pre-clinical study showed that in MM patients who have failed PD-1 blockade, the addition of chemotherapy increases CX3CR1+ therapy-responsive CD8+ T-cells with enhanced anti-tumor activity, resulting in improved clinical response. Here, we examined the clinical outcomes of CIT in MM patients after PD-1 blockade failure and the treatment-related changes in CX3CR1+ therapy-responsive CD8+ T-cells. We reviewed MM patients seen between January 2012 and June 2018 who failed anti-PD-1-based therapy and received subsequent CIT, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or chemotherapy alone. Overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), event-free survival (EFS), and toxicities were assessed. Among 60 patients, 33 received CIT upon disease progression on PD-1 blockade. At a median follow-up of 3.9 years, the CIT group had a median OS of 3.5 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7–NR] vs. 1.8 years (95% CI 0.9–2; P = 0.002) for those who received subsequent ICI (n = 9) or chemotherapy alone (n = 18), with ORR of 59% vs. 15% (P = 0.0003), respectively. The median EFS was 7.6 months (95% CI 6–10) following CIT vs. 3.4 months (95% CI 2.8–4.1; P = 0.0005) following ICI or chemotherapy alone. Therapy-responsive CX3CR1+CD8+ T-cells showed dynamic increase with successful CIT. CIT showed favorable clinical outcomes and acceptable safety profile in PD-1 blockade-resistant patients. CX3CR1+CD8+ therapy-responsive T-cells can be potentially used for monitoring disease response to CIT.
Time to first treatment is an independent prognostic factor for multiple myeloma (MM).
e19523 Background: Previous studies have shown a disparity in outcomes of MM between clinical trials and real-world practice. This could be partly due to clinical trial exclusion of patients who need urgent treatment due to high burden of disease or significant illness. In this study, we aim to analyze the impact of time to initiation of systemic therapy for MM on overall survival (OS). Methods: We included MM patients reported to National Cancer Data Base (2004-2014). We excluded 2,860 patients with suspected smoldering MM due to initial treatment beyond 120 days. Relative risk of delayed time to systemic therapy was assessed by logistic regression model. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox multivariate analysis were used to evaluate the association between time to therapy and OS. Results: A total of 53, 519 MM patients were included. Median time to systemic therapy in our cohort was 18 days (range 0-120). Of the entire cohort, 24% patients received systemic therapy for MM < 7 days from diagnosis, and 32% received it after 30 days. Factors associated with time to systemic therapy > 30 days were Black race (OR 1.12, CI 1.07-1.16), female sex (OR 1.10, CI 1.06-1.14), lower Charlson comorbidity score (OR 1.36, CI 1.28-1.45), and academic facility (OR 1.18, CI 1.13-1.24). The median OS for patients who initiated therapy > 30 days after diagnosis was longer than those who received it within 7 days (37 vs. 29 month, p < 0.001). Similarly, on multivariate analysis, patients who received treatment > 30 days after diagnosis were found to have a lower mortality as compared to those who initiated treatment < 7 days (HR 0.81, CI 0.79-0.83; Table). Conclusions: In our study, time to initiation of systemic therapy was an independent prognostic factor in MM. This could be related to the high-risk nature of disease of patients treated within a short duration of diagnosis. These findings have implications for future clinical trial design, which should allow for a pragmatic approach toward enrollment of these high-risk patients to improve external validity. [Table: see text]
Patient Experience of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-T Cell Therapy Vs. Stem Cell Transplant: Longitudinal Patient Reported Adverse Events, Cognition and Quality of Life
Introduction: With the expanding use of CAR-T cell therapy, which is associated with serious adverse effects (AEs), there is a need to characterize the patient's experience over time to guide patient/provider education, and help optimize symptom management. This study reports on longitudinal evaluation of patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden of CAR-T cell therapy compared with established forms of cellular therapy i.e autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT) and allogeneic SCT (alloSCT). Methods: Patients with hematologic malignancies were prospectively recruited in three cohorts: CAR-T, autoSCT and alloSCT. The primary endpoint was change in QOL from baseline, using the FACT-G questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported AEs (PRO-AEs) using 7 items from the PRO-CTCAE and assessment of cognition/memory using the NeuroQOLv2 questionnaire. PRO-CTCAE data was graded using a composite score (combining frequency, severity, and interference) and rates, using a method adjusting for pre-existing baseline symptoms, were compared using Fisher's exact test. We also evaluated the time profile of PRO-AEs using the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) approach, a longitudinal approach to AE analysis (Thanarajasingam Lancet Onc 2016). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, week 2 and monthly thereafter. Results: From 07/2018 to 06/2019, 93 patients were recruited (CAR-T: 20; autoSCT: 37; alloSCT: 36). At data cut-off, week 2 and months 1, 2 and 3 data were available in 74, 62, 46 and 35 patients, respectively. There was no difference in patient age across the 3 groups (median age 63, range 23-77; p=0.26). Baseline QOL by FACT-G total score (mean=83.4, SD=14.7; p=0.77), side effect bother by FACT-G GP5 (66/93 [71%] a little bit or less; p=0.72), activities and function (70/93 [75%] fairly normal activities or no limitations; p=0.68) and cognition by NeuroQOL t-score (mean=52.2, SD=8.13; p=0.39) were similar across 3 groups at baseline. The CAR-T group experienced significantly less worsening in QOL (FACT-G) than both autoSCT and alloSCT groups (Fig. 1a). Worsening in overall QOL nadired at week 2, after which QOL gradually returned to baseline in all groups. When comparing changes from baseline in overall QOL, statistically significant differences between groups were evident at week 2 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p<0.001; vs alloSCT p<0.001), month 1 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p=0.02; vs alloSCT p=0.003), month 2 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p=0.02; vs alloSCT p=0.001) and month 3 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p=NS; vs alloSCT p=0.03). Results for physical (Fig. 1b) and functional well-being (WB) were similar, with significantly less QOL worsening at week 2 in CAR-T vs autoSCT and alloSCT groups. The most common PRO-AEs (Table 1) in the CAR-T group were decreased appetite (59%), diarrhea (53%) and fatigue (44%). There was no statistically significant difference in the PRO-AEs between CAR-T and autoSCT groups. However, patients undergoing alloSCT had significantly higher proportion of PRO-AEs vs the CAR-T group, except for neuropathy and sad feelings. AutoSCT and alloSCT groups had significant worsening of FACT-G side effect bother (GP5) at week 2, which was significantly different from that of the CAR-T group, following which the side effect bother gradually returned to baseline. (Fig. 1c) This was the first application of ToxT to PRO-CTCAE data (graphs not shown). Bar charts of maximum grade frequency and stream plots of mean grade over time demonstrate that mouth sores, fatigue, diarrhea and decreased appetite peak at week 2 and improve by month 3, and are of lesser severity in the CAR-T vs autoSCT and alloSCT groups. The trajectory of maximum grade across all PRO-AEs was similar by group as overall side effect burden by FACT-G GP5. Heatmap visualization demonstrated significant intra-patient variability and allowed inspection of data completeness. No difference in cognition and memory was observed across the three groups over the first three months. (Fig. 1d) Conclusion: This study is the first to our knowledge to provide comprehensive PRO data comparing QOL, patient-reported AEs and cognition in CAR-T cell therapy vs. auto- and alloSCT, and the first application of ToxT to PRO-CTCAE data. Short-term QOL, including physical and functional WB domains was better in the CAR-T group vs. SCT groups. These data can serve as a guide for patient education and symptom management in CAR-T cell therapy. Co-senior authors: SKK & ACD Disclosures Paludo: Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding; Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding. Gertz:Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Bennani:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.
Baseline Hypoalbuminemia Does Not Appear to be an Adverse Prognostic Factor in Patients with Relapse/Refractory B-Cell Lymphomas Treated with Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (axi-cel)
BACKGROUND: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that is approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma and is associated with high response rates and durable remissions. Recent data show that axi-cel is effective across various adverse prognostic features, namely cell of origin, disease bulkiness, and extranodal disease, among others. Hypoalbuminemia is a known adverse prognostic factor in lymphomas. It is unknown if axi-cel overcomes the adverse prognostic feature of hypoalbuminemia in R/R large B-cell or transformed follicular lymphoma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated with axi-cel across three Mayo Clinic campuses (Rochester, Jacksonville, and Phoenix) from 06/01/2018 until 04/01/2019. The primary objective of this analysis was to assess the impact of hypoalbuminemia (defined at day 0, prior to infusion) on outcome after axi-cel therapy. RESULTS: A total of 50 (male=37, 74%) patients (pts), median age of 53 (26-67) years received axi-cel. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (2-8) (Table 1). Two pts had no available serum albumin levels at time of axi-cel infusion. Seven (15%) of 48 pts had serum albumin levels lower than 3.5 g/dL (median= 3.3 g/dL (range 2.6-3.4)) and the median follow up of survivors was 7.6 (1.9-14.3) months. The best overall response rate (ORR) and complete remission (CR) rates in these pts were 57% and 57%, respectively. One (14%) patient had stable disease and 2 (29%) had disease progression. The median overall survival (OS) for pts with hypoalbuminemia was not reached. On the other hand, 41 (85%) pts had a normal serum albumin level (median=4.0 (range 3.5-5.1) g/dL) and the median follow up for survivors was 6.3 months. The best objective response rate (ORR) and complete remission (CR) rates in these pts were 82% and 44%, respectively. The median OS for pts with normal serum albumin was 14 (95%CI=6.3-29.6) months. There was no significant difference at 6-months and 1-year OS between pts with hypoalbuminemia vs. those with normal baseline serum albumin levels [6-month=100% vs. 79%(95%CI=64-93%); 1-year (100% vs. 54% (95%CI=26-82%), p=0.17] (Figure 1). All grades cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was diagnosed in all 7 pts with hypoalbuminemia (100%) and in 38 of 41 (92%) pts without hypoalbuminemia. There was no difference in the median duration of CRS between pts with or without hypoalbuminemia [6 (range 1-11) days vs 5 (range 1-19) days, p=0.89]. Neurotoxicity (all grades) was observed in 5 (71%) pts with hypoalbuminemia compared 26 (63%) with normal albumin levels. There was no statistically significant difference in median duration of neurotoxicity between pts with hypoalbuminemia and those with normal baseline albumin levels [9 (range 1-10) days vs. 3 (range 0-25) days, p= 0.72]. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoalbuminemia does not have a significant impact on the outcomes of axi-cel therapy, including the incidence of CRS or neurotoxicity. These results need to be validated in a large collaborative multicenter study. Further investigation is needed to assess the prognostic impact of severe hypoalbuminemia (<3g/dL) on axi-cel therapy. Disclosures Ansell: Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Bennani:Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Paludo:Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Tun:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Mundi-pharma: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.