Citations

Abstract Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon hematological malignancy with an estimated incidence of 1 per 100,000 persons per year in the United States and represents only about 5% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Several studies have shown that treatment at academic centers and a higher hospital case volume are associated with improved outcomes for uncommon hematological malignancies, probably due to increased provider expertise and access to novel therapies. Treatment of MCL can be complex given the heterogenous nature of the disease and a frequent need for autologous stem cell transplantation in eligible patients. However, the impact of treatment at an academic center and facility patient volume on the survival of patients with MCL has not been well studied in large cohorts. In this study, we utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to investigate the impact of treatment at an academic center and treatment facility volume on the overall survival (OS) of patients with MCL. Methods: The NCDB was used to identify adult patients (≥ 18 years) with newly diagnosed MCL from 2004 through 2017. For facility patient volume analysis, patients were divided into groups based on the average number of new MCL patients seen annually: Tercile 1 [T1] (1-3 patients/year), Tercile 2 [T2] (4-5 patients/year) and Tercile 3 [T3] (≥6 patients/year). Treating centers were divided into Academic and Non-academic using the NCDB definitions. Academic centers were defined as centers that accessions more than 500 newly diagnosed cancer cases per year, participate in postgraduate medical education in at least four program areas including internal medicine and surgery and participates in cancer-related clinical trials. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox hazards proportional model. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25. Results: We identified 22,752 patients with MCL during the study period. 9,484 (42%) patients were treated at academic centers and 13,070 (57%) were treated at non-academic centers. In terms of facility patient volume 10,948 patients (48%) were in the T1 group, 4,637 (20%) were in the T2 group and 7,166 (31%) were in the T3 group. No significant differences were found in baseline demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, comorbidity scores), socioeconomical variables (insurance type, median income, area of residence) and disease-related factors (B-symptoms, Ann Arbor stage) between patients treated academic vs nonacademic centers, or between patients in T1 vs T2 vs T3 groups. Notably, compared to lower volume facilities, T3 facilities were more likely to be academic centers (T3: 81% vs T2: 42% vs T1: 16%, p<0.001) . After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, the median overall survival (OS) was 5.6 years for the entire cohort. The median OS was inferior for patients treated at lower volume facilities (4.1 years for T1, 5.1 years for T2 and 9.0 years for T3, p<0.001) (Figure 1A). Similarly, the median OS was shorter for patients treated at non-academic centers vs academic centers (4.3 years vs 7.5 years respectively, p<0.001) (Figure 1B). In a multivariate analysis, treatment at a lower patient volume facility (Hazard ratio [HR] Q1= 1.26 [95%CI = 1.18-1.34]) and treatment at a non-academic center (HR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.01-1.12) were both independent prognostic factors of inferior OS, after adjusting for demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, area of residence) and socioeconomic variables (income and insurance status). Conclusion: Patients with MCL treated at academic and higher volume facilities had a higher OS compared to patients treated at non-academic and lower volume facilities.. Additional research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms behind these differences. Patients with MCL may benefit from an early referral to academic and high-volume centers. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Kyowa: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Nowakowski: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy. Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Intravascular lymphoma (IVL) is an extra nodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tropism for vascular endothelium. It is characterized by growth of large cells within the lumen of small to medium sized blood vessels. Central nervous system (CNS) and skin are predominantly involved. This report represents a retrospective single-institution review of IVL. Methods: We identified patients (pts) with IVL evaluated at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between January 2003 and December 2018. Demographic, clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and therapeutic data were extracted. Statistical analysis of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS)] was performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Total number of pts was 55; 22% (12/55) had CNS-only IVL, 14.5% (8/55) had CNS and non-CNS IVL, and 63.6% (35/55) had non-CNS IVL. Eighty seven percent (47/54) pts were B cell type, 11% (6/54) were T cell type, one pt had NK cell type IVL and another was unknown. Four pts were diagnosed by autopsy. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (range, 40-85). Sixty-four percent were males. ECOG performance status was <2 in 66%. The median follow-up time from diagnosis was 63 months [CI 95%, 9-NR], and 47% (26/55) were alive. The most common diagnostic biopsy sites were bone marrow (BM) 45% (25/55), skin 25% (14/55), and brain 29% (16/55). Twenty-nine patients had a PET scan. Seventy nine percent (23/29) had abnormal PET findings, with mean SUV of 8.6 (range 2.5-19.1). Of the 35 pts with non-CNS IVL, 76% (16/21) had abnormal PET; furthermore, the diagnosis was made with biopsies of the following sites: bone marrow 54% (19/35), skin 40% (14/35), lung 14% (5/35), liver 5.7% (2/35), spleen 2.8% (1/35), and omentum 2.8% (1/35). Forty-six percent (13/28) received CNS prophylaxis and ten percent (3/55) had relapse in CNS. Two out of the three pts who had CNS relapse had received CNS prophylaxis. The median time to CNS relapse in non-CNS IVL was 9 months. The most common first-line regimen was high-dose methotrexate+ rituximab containing regimen 62% (10/16) in IVL with CNS involvement and RCHOP (60%) (17/28) in non-CNS IVL. Seventeen percent of (8/48) pts received autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and 63% (5/8) pts were transplanted in first complete remission (CR1), and 3 pts after the first relapse. Median OS (mOS) for the whole cohort was 57 months, [CI 95%, 9-NR], and median PFS was 7 months [CI 95%, 2-NR]. There was no significant difference in mOS between groups; CNS-only IVL- 9 months (CI 95%, 1-NR), non-CNS IVL -62 months (CI 95%, 20-NR) vs combined CNS and non-CNS IVL- 4 months (CI 95%, 3-NR). mOS for those who received ASCT in CR1 was not reached (CI 95%, 10-NR) vs 51 months in non-transplant group (CI 95%, 3-NR) p=0.24. In pts with non-CNS IVL, there was no significant difference in mOS between CNS prophylaxis subgroup (NR: CI 95%, 57-NR) vs no-CNS prophylaxis subgroup (20 months: CI 95%, 0-NR), p=0.12. In those with CNS IVL mOS for early diagnosis (0-30 days from symptom onset to diagnosis was NR (CI 95%, 3-NR) vs mOS for late diagnosis (>30 days {31-14,440})-5months (CI 95% 1-NR), p=0.29]. Conclusion: 1. BM was most frequently involved in our patients. We suggest that BM biopsy should be part of diagnostic testing when IVL is suspected. 2. Most cases are of B-cell linage, consistent with reported literature. All non-B cell cases were in non-CNS locations. 3. PET scans were abnormal in more than 70% of cases indicating that this imaging modality is vital in the diagnosis due to odd location and small size of lesions. 4.Overall prognosis in the literature was poor with most patients surviving <1 year. Our cohort has mOS of 57 months. The reason(s) for better survival in our cohort could not be definitively determined. 5. CNS involvement had an overall trend towards poor prognosis; however, those diagnosed early had better outcomes; this did not reach statistical significance due to small sample size. 6. mOS was not reached for those transplanted CR1. There was a trend towards a better survival associated with CNS prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis in non-CNS IVL. 7. We suggest that CNS-centric therapeutic approach and intensive consolidation with ASCT should be considered in managing IVL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Tun: Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding; Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Several therapies are recommended by NCCN/ESMO guidelines for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In the single-arm, Phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085), the chemotherapy-free regimen tafasitamab + lenalidomide (LEN) demonstrated efficacy for this patient population. In the absence of randomized clinical trial data, RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), an observational, retrospective cohort study, compared patient outcomes from L-MIND with matched patient populations treated with NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies for ASCT-ineligible patients with R/R DLBCL. Methods Data were retrospectively collected between 1 April and 13 November 2020 from academic and public hospitals, as well as private practices in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. To ensure consistency with L-MIND I/E criteria, patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL and who had received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy) were enrolled. For the main analysis, patients from the L-MIND tafasitamab + LEN cohort were matched with patients from the RE-MIND2 observational cohort using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest neighbor matching, balanced for six baseline characteristics: age (<70 vs ≥70 years), refractoriness to last line of therapy (yes vs no), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs 2/3), history of primary refractoriness (yes vs no), prior ASCT (yes vs no), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 vs ≥2). A sensitivity analysis was performed using an inverse probability of treatment weighting method calculating the average effect of the treatment on the treated, to generate balanced cohorts based on nine baseline characteristics: age, refractoriness to last line of therapy, number of previous lines of therapy, history of primary refractoriness, prior ASCT, Ann Arbor Stage (I/II vs III/IV), elevated LDH (yes vs no), neutropenia (yes vs no), and anemia (yes vs no). Additional sensitivity analyses accounting for missing baseline characteristics using multiple imputation technique were performed. Data are presented for tafasitamab + LEN versus polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (pola-BR), rituximab + LEN (R2), and CD19 CAR-T therapies (CAR-T). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate, progression-free survival and duration of response. Results Of 3,454 patients enrolled from 200 sites, 106, 106, and 149 patients were treated with pola-BR, R2, and CAR-T, respectively. For the comparative analysis, matched patient pairs were created using 1:1 nearest neighbor matching with a caliper. Matched pairs consisted of: tafasitamab + LEN vs pola-BR, n=24 pairs; vs R2, n=33 pairs; and vs CAR-T, n=37 pairs. A significant OS benefit was associated with tafasitamab + LEN compared to pola-BR (HR: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.96; p=0.038) and R2 (HR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; p=0.014) (Figure 1A-B). There was no significant difference in OS benefit between tafasitamab + LEN and CAR-T (HR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.47-1.91; p=0.891) (Figure 1C). ORR was 62.5% (15/24) for tafasitamab + LEN vs 58.3% (14/24) for pola-BR (p=1.000), 63.6% (21/33) vs 30.3% (10/33) for R2 (p=0.013), and 59.5% (22/37) vs 75.7% (28/37) for CAR-T (p=0.214). Improved outcomes were also observed with tafasitamab + LEN for other secondary endpoints (Table 1). Results are consistent with those obtained in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions The results of this retrospective cohort analysis suggest that the novel tafasitamab + LEN combination may significantly improve health outcomes, with a prolonged survival benefit for ASCT-ineligible R/R DLBCL patients, relative to NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies. Tafasitamab + LEN improved survival outcomes compared with pola-BR and R2 in closely matched patient populations. Comparable outcomes were observed for tafasitamab + LEN vs CAR-T. Although based on limited patient numbers, these data may be clinically relevant in the context of emerging therapies for R/R DLBCL. While this study design does not replace randomized data, it remains more rigorous than inter-trial comparison. The limitations of comparing clinical trial and matched retrospective real-world data will be discussed. Funding: MorphoSys AG. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Joffe: AstraZeneca. Epizyme: Consultancy. Fleury: Abbvie, Astrazeneca, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Kite-Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Other: conference and advisory role. Peters: AbbVie, Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Greil: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Marks: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Meeting attendance; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy. Kim: AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Zinzani: BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ImmuneDesign: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Trotman: Beigene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; PCYC Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Sabatelli: Incyte: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Huang: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Waltl: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Winderlich: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ambarkhane: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Kurukulasuriya: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Cordoba: Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADCTherapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hess: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Salles: Miltneiy: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velosbio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Debiopharm: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is frequently curable after frontline therapy, however, relapses can occur after achievement of a PET-negative complete remission (CR). Early detection of relapse may be associated with improved outcomes, particularly given the development of more active therapies for relapsed, refractory DLBCL. Controversy exists regarding the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging which is associated with patient (pt) anxiety, radiation exposure, false-positive results, and cost, without clear overall survival benefit in retrospective studies (Thompson JCO 2014). A retrospective study found that serial minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring during DLBCL surveillance could identify pts at risk of relapse before clinical evidence of disease (Roschewski Lancet Oncol 2015). In this multicenter prospective study, we assessed whether a next-generation immunosequencing (IS) MRD assay could be used for early detection of molecular relapse in DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were enrolled across five cancer centers. In pts who achieved a PET-negative CR, serial peripheral blood samples were obtained every 3 months (mos) and CT scans every 6 mos for 2 years (yrs) post-treatment. The IS MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci and translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH was used. MRD positive was defined as any detectable rearrangement and MRD undetectable as no evidence of rearrangement. Results: 500 pts were enrolled and 400 were evaluable (pre-treatment tumor pathology available, completed frontline treatment, and achieved PET-negative CR at end-of-treatment). Baseline characteristics were median age of 62 yrs (range 19-95), male sex 58%, advanced stage 61%, and poor-risk by R-IPI 42%. Histologies included DLBCL, NOS (88%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (6%), HGBCL (5%), T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma (3%), and other (1%). Pts received regimens including RCHOP x 6 cycles (37%), REPOCH x 6 cycles (20%), clinical trial (15%), combined modality therapy (RCHOP+RT) (9%), and other RCHOP variations (19%). Among the 400 evaluable pts, 44 relapses have occurred as of July 1, 2021. In 45% of pts (20/44), clinical relapse was detected using surveillance imaging alone (typically CT CAP with IV contrast) in an otherwise asymptomatic pt with a normal physical exam and laboratory evaluation . In 10% of pts (4/44), relapse was detected by patient-reported clinical symptoms alone. In 45% of pts (20/44), relapse was detected by imaging, clinical symptoms, and/or evaluation by an oncologist. With a median follow-up of 34 months, the 2-year PFS was 88.9% (85.8, 92.1). Advanced age, advanced stage, and poor-risk R-IPI were associated with inferior PFS. Of the 44 relapses, tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 39 pts (4 failed quality control (QC), 1 failed calibration) and 38 pts had ≥1 sample available within 90 days of relapse. Of 356 patients in ongoing CR, tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 279 patients (29 failed QC, 33 failed calibration, and 15 are pending sequencing). The patient-level prospective MRD results are shown in Figure 1. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the IS MRD assay was 63% (24/38), 78% (218/279), 28% (24/85), and 94% (218/232), respectively. Plasma MRD detection had improved sensitivity and specificity compared with circulating cells. Among the 24 relapsed patients with a positive MRD result at or before relapse, the median anticipation of the test was 3 months (range 0 to 24 months). Conclusion: Overall outcomes are excellent for DLBCL and HGBCL pts who achieve PET-negative CR. In this multicenter prospective analysis with standardized follow up, a substantial proportion (45%) of clinical relapses are detected radiographically in asymptomatic pts, supporting the value of CT surveillance imaging in DLBCL, particularly for pts with advanced stage or high-risk disease. MRD assessment using the IS MRD assay had suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the post-treatment surveillance setting in DLBCL. Further study of the clinical context and its correlation with test performance is ongoing. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: advisory board , Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Abbvie Pharmaceticals, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Westin: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding. Schuster: TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lossos: Lymphoma Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; NCI: Research Funding; University of Miami: Current Employment; NIH grants: Research Funding; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jacob: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment. Mullins: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment. Zelenetz: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; Janssen: Honoraria; LFR: Other; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; MethylGene: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria.

Abstract Background Patients (pts) with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) progressing after anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T (CART) cell therapy have poor prognosis and may benefit from new therapy options through clinical trials. However, in a single center report, only 12% of such pts were treated in trials (Chow et al. Am J Hematol, 2019). Identifying the reasons for this low enrollment is needed to design future studies for this population. Here, we evaluated the eligibility criteria for recent landmark trials for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell NHL to learn what eligibility barriers are present. Methods Pts with aggressive B-cell NHL who received FDA-approved CART cell therapy at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Arizona, Florida) since 2018 and progressed after CART cell therapy were identified. The potential eligibility for the following key trials was evaluated: a) polatuzumab + bendamustine + rituximab, b) tafasitamab + lenalidomide, c) selinexor and d) loncastuximab. The eligibility for each trial was retrospectively assessed at the time of disease progression after CART cell therapy based on hemoglobin (Hb), absolute neutrophils count (ANC), platelet count (Plt), renal and liver function tests, ECOG performance status (PS), and central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Results Seventy-five pts had disease progression to axicabtagene ciloleucel (N=73, 97%) or tisagenlecleucel (N=2, 3%) and are included in this analysis. Median time to progression after CART was 2.1 months (IQR: 1.0 - 3.1). Thirteen (17%) pts were treated in clinical trials after progression following CART cell therapy, while 46 (61%) were treated off trials, and 16 (22%) pts never received any treatment after progression. At a median follow-up of 13.6 months (IQR: 9.1 - 26.7) from CART progression, the median overall survival (mOS) from CART progression was 5.8 months (95% CI 3.5 - 10.1) and 53 (71%) pts died. Thirty-eight pts (51%) did not meet eligibility criteria for any of the 4 recent landmark trials. Hematologic impairment was the most common barrier to inclusion of these patients in clinical trials: Hb < 9 g/dL n=23 (31%) or Hb < 10 g/dL n=36 (48%), ANC < 1.0 x 10 9/L n=19 (25%) or ANC < 1.5 x 10 9/L n=32 (43%), and Plt < 75 x 10 9/L n=30 (40%) or Plt < 90 x 10 9/L n=34 (45%). Renal (n=11, 15%) or liver dysfunction (n=5, 7%), CNS involvement (n=8, 11%) and ECOG PS > 2 (n=3, 4%) were less common reasons leading to exclusion from trials. Post CART trial ineligible pts had significantly shorter time to progression (median 1.7 months, IQR: 1.0 - 2.6 vs. 3.0 months IQR: 1.9 - 3.4, p < 0.01) and inferior overall response to CART (45% vs 67%, p = 0.06) compared to pts who met trial eligibility post CART. Baseline Hb (median Hb 9.5 g/dL, IQR: 8.5 - 10.5 vs. 10.9 g/dL, IQR: 9.7 - 12.2, p < 0.01) and Plt (median Plt 106 x 10 9/L IQR: 54 - 165 vs. 201 x 10 9/L IQR: 141 - 243, p < 0.01) were also significantly lower in pts ineligible for trials post CART. There were no significant differences between pts eligible or ineligible for trials with regards to age (median 59 vs. 60 years), number of prior therapies (median 3 vs. 3), prior autologous stem cell transplant (41% vs. 37%), bridging therapy (65% vs. 63%), baseline ANC (median 4,1 vs. 3,0 x10 9/L), or high-grade (grade ≥ 2) cytokine release syndrome (19% vs. 21%) or neurotoxicity (32%, vs. 42%), respectively. Survival after CART progression was significantly shorter (mOS 2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.6 - 5.1) for the 38 pts ineligible for trials compared to pts eligible for trials (mOS 10.6 months, 95% CI: 8.9 - NA), (p < 0.01). In the 59 pts who received therapy post CART progression, the mOS of pts treated on (n = 13) or off (n = 46) trials was 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.2 - NA) vs. 6.6 months (4.9 - 10.7), respectively (p = 0.047). Conclusion Approximately half of the pts (51%) with aggressive B-cell NHL progressing after CART cell therapy would have be excluded from landmark clinical trials. The current hematologic exclusion criteria are a major barrier to enrollment in clinical trials, which would exclude many pts who have disease progression within 3 months of CART cell therapy (ie, primary refractory disease), in whom cytopenia as a toxicity from therapy is prevalent. Given the known delayed hematologic recovery after CART cell therapy and the unmet need of pts progressing to CART cell therapy, the hematologic exclusion criteria should be adjusted to increase trial participation of this population, especially of those with primary refractory disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin: Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that fails to achieve a complete response (CR) or relapses early after standard immunochemotherapy (IC, e.g., R-CHOP or similar) is referred to as primary refractory DLBCL and has a poor prognosis. The clinical course with regards to frontline IC is heterogenous, and different definitions have been used in literature, e.g., progressive or refractory during therapy (narrow definition), or not achieving complete remission at the end of IC, or relapsing within 6 or 12 months after completing IC (broad definition). A small proportion of patients may still have chemosensitive disease and be able to achieve durable disease control with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). However, it is challenging to identify such patients, with clinical and molecular predictors highly needed. In this study, we examined the association of time to refractory status with survival outcomes in patients with primary refractory disease. Methods Adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL between 2002 and 2015 and seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester were identified from the prospective Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort study of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. The current study included patients with primary refractory disease, which was defined as no response to frontline IC (primary progression), partial response (PR) at end of treatment (EOT PR), or relapse with 12 months after achieving CR at EOT (early relapse). Clinical characteristics, treatment and response data, and follow-up data were abstracted from MER and collected by medical record review if needed. Clinical characteristics between groups were compared using Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from confirmation of refractory disease to the time of death from any cause and was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Out of 949 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, 122 (12.8%) had primary refractory disease, 36 with primary progression, 36 with EOT PR, and 50 with early relapse. The baseline clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1. No significant differences in age, gender, ECOG performance status, number of extranodal sites, stage, International Prognostic Index, or cell of origin were found between the 3 groups. The proportion of MYC2 and BCL2/BCL6 rearrangements or Myc/Bcl2 double expressor was small and not different among the 3 groups. Salvage therapies were mainly platinum based high-dose chemotherapy (e.g., R-ICE, R-DHAP, or similar) for systemic disease, MTX-based therapy for CNS relapse, or radiotherapy or resection for localized disease (Table 1). The response to salvage chemotherapy was significantly different between the 3 groups. The CR/PR rate was 8.6%/28.6% for patients with primary progression, 16.7%/46.7% for patients with EOT PR, and 35.6%/33.3% for patients with early relapse (P<0.01, Table 1). At a median follow-up time (of living patients) of 113 months, 93 patients had died. The 2-year OS was 13.9% for patients with primary progression, which was significantly worse compared to that of patients with EOT PR (2-year OS 41.7%) or early relapse (2-year OS 44%), (P=0.001)(Figure 1A). In patients with early relapse, the 2-year OS was not significantly different among those who relapsed with 3 months, between 3-6 months, or between 6-12 months (Figure 1B). Conclusion Our data suggest that broadly defined primary refractory DLBCL has heterogenous survival outcomes. DLBCL patients with primary progressive disease represent an ultra-high risk group that has particularly poor survival outcomes with current standard salvage regimens. Novel therapies such CAR T-cell therapy or targeted agents should be studied in this patient population. In contrast, patient who only achieve PR at EOT and those who relapse within 1 year of achieving CR had better OS. A fraction of these patients may still have chemosensitive disease and benefit from salvage chemotherapy and ASCT. The survival difference in the two groups also has important implications for clinical trial design. The definition of primary refractory DLBCL in clinical trials should be carefully and clearly defined. When evaluating novel therapies in single arm trials, the benchmark for efficacy (i.e., historical outcomes) may differ according to the population included in the trial (e.g., time to refractory status). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Bennani: Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Up to 40% of newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) will relapse after frontline rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP), with subsequent poor prognosis. Identification of patients (pts) at high risk of relapse early in the treatment can allow for development of risk adapted therapies to improve outcomes. Positron Emission Tomography scan after 2 cycles of therapy (PET2) has been evaluated as a predictor of relapse but study treatments were heterogenous and results were conflicting. A substudy of CALGB 50303 trial did not find association of PET2 response by Deauville Score (DS) with survival in RCHOP and DA-EPOCH-R treated pts. In the UK National Cancer Research Institute Prospective Study, DS of 5 on PET2 predicted worse progression free survival but not overall survival (OS) in RCHOP-21 and RCHOP-14 treated pts. Here we report impact of PET2 response on outcomes in two large independent, prospective cohorts of newly diagnosed DLBCL treated homogenously with two RCHOP-based regimens of similar efficacy. Methods: Discovery was done in adult pts with DLBCL enrolled into a single arm phase 2 trial of lenalidomide plus standard RCHOP (R2CHOP) (MC078E, NCT00670358). The validation cohort comprised of adult pts with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with standard RCHOP prospectively enrolled into the Mayo component of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER). Both MC078E and MER cohorts included patients who received at least 3-6 cycles of therapy and had a PET2. Pts who progressed on PET2 were excluded. End of treatment (EOT) PET was done 3-12 weeks after last cycle of therapy. The revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson, et al 2007) was used to assess PET in MC078E. In MER, revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson et al 2007) or Lugano classification was used, depending on era of diagnosis. Positive PET was defined as FDG uptake above background (Cheson 2007) or DS 4 or 5 (Lugano 2014). Study endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and OS by PET2 status. Results: Out of 118 pts treated on MC078E, 102 had PET2 (MC078E). The median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range 19-87), 61 (60%) were male, 89 (87%) had advanced stage disease, 46 (45%) had international prognostic index (IPI) of 3-5. 58 (57%) were PET2 Negative (PET2-ve) and 44 (43%) were PET2 Positive (PET2+ve). At EOT PET, 83 (81%) had -ve PET and 15 (15%) had +ve PET. Out of 44 PET2+ve pts, 15 remained +ve at EOT PET. Out of 58 PET2-ve pts, 56 had EOT PET available and all were -ve. Out of 866 DLBCL pts enrolled into MER between August 2005 and June 2015, 621 were treated with RCHOP for 3-6 cycles and 272 had available PET2 (MER). The median age was 65 years (range 55-73), 152 (56%) were male, 174 (64%) had advanced stage, 103 (38%) had IPI 3-5. 186 (68%) were PET2-ve and 86 (32%) were PET2+ve. Out of 235 with EOT PET available, 182 (77%) had -ve EOT PET and 25 (11%) had +ve EOT PET. PET2+ve pts had higher odds of +ve EOT PET (OR: 17.4 (CI 95 8.3-40.0), p<0.001) and progression on EOT PET (OR: 4.3 (CI 95 1.9-10.2), p<0.001) in MER cohort. This analysis was not possible on MC078E as all PET2-ve had -ve EOT PET. In MC078E, 2-year EFS and OS were 69.5% (CI 95 61.1-79.1) and 88.1% (CI 95 82-94.7). In MER, 2-year EFS and OS were 71.6% (CI 95 67.7-76.8) and 82.3% (CI 95 79.3-85.3). Compared to PET2-ve, PET2+ve pts had significantly inferior EFS in both MC078E (HR 4.0, CI 95 2.1-7.88, p<0.0001, figure 1a) and MER (HR 2.9, CI 95 1.9-4.1, p<0.0001, figure 1c). Compared to PET2-ve , PET2+ve pts had a trend towards lower OS in MC078E (HR 2.0, CI 95 0.9-4.9, p=0.1, figure 1b) and a significantly lower OS in MER (HR 2.3, CI 95: 1.5-3.4, p<0.0001, figure 1d). In subgroup analysis of MC078E, PET2+ve pts had lower EFS and a trend towards lower OS in all subgroups except IPI 0-2 (Table 1). In MER, PET2+ve pts had lower EFS and OS in all the subgroups except stage I-II and IPI 0-2 (Table 1). Conclusions: Positive PET2 was associated with increased risk of disease progression and death in newly diagnosed DLBCL. Results of our study provide robust evidence of importance of PET2 as an early predictor DLBCL pts at high risk of progression in two independent prospective cohorts. PET2-guided risk-adapted strategies using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies may potentially improve outcomes, should be explored in clinical trials and results of our study serve as a benchmark for such studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials of novel salvage therapies (ST) have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); yet studies comparing novel ST with conventional salvage chemotherapy are lacking. In a single center cohort, we demonstrated that bendamustine/brentuximab (BBV) had higher overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates in ASCT-eligible R/R cHL (Desai et al JCO, 2021). Herein we report comparative outcomes of novel and conventional ST in R/R cHL who undergo ASCT, in a large multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Consecutive R/R cHL pts who underwent ASCT at 12 institutions across United States were included. Demographics and clinical variables at relapse including age, sex, B symptoms, stage, bulky disease (BD, single mass > 6 cm) extra nodal disease (END), primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER, within 1 year) were recorded by electronic health records review. Study objectives were ORR, CR to first ST, post-ASCT PFS and OS by final ST. Time to event endpoints were defined from date of ASCT. Results: From 12 participating institutions, 853 pts of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT were eligible for this study. Median age was 33 (14-72) years, 457 (54%) were male, 446 (52%) had BD, 257 (30%) had advanced stage, 271 (32%) had END, 369 (43%) had B symptoms, 142 (17%) had PRD and 307 (36%) had ER. All 853 received at least 1 ST, 245 received 2 ST, 71 received 3 ST and 26 received 4 ST. Seven groups of ST were identified: 1. Conventional platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) group including ICE, DHAP and ESHAP 2. BBV 3. Brentuximab Vedotin and nivolumab (BV/Nivo) 4. BV alone (BV) 5. gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (Gem) 6. checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and 7. other miscellaneous agents (Misc). 1st ST was as follows: 553 had PBC; 69 had BBV; 48 had BV/Nivo; 65 had BV; 49 had Gem; 4 had CPI and 63 had Misc. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics by type of 1 st ST (data not shown). BBV had significantly higher ORR (92% vs 79%, p<0.001) and CR rate (80% vs 49%, p <0.001) compared to PBC. BV/Nivo had significantly higher CR rate (67% vs 49%, p <0.001) and a trend towards higher ORR (86% vs 79%, p = 0.1) compared to PBC. BV had significantly lower ORR (62% vs 79%, p <0.001) and CR rate (34% vs 49%, p <0.001) compared to PBC. There was no difference in ORR and CR rate of PBC, Gem, CPI and Misc agents. Final ST prior to ASCT was PBC in 451, BBV in 76, BV/Nivo in 48, BV in 87, CPI in 24, Gem in 90 and Misc in 64. Table 1 lists K-M estimates of 2-year survival probabilities for different Final ST groups. Median follow up was 3 (range 0.1-13) years. BV/Nivo group had significantly higher proportion of patients with PRD and BD than PBC, no other differences in baseline characteristics were identified amongst ST groups (data not shown). BV/Nivo (HR: 0.1 (CI 95:0.02-0.4), p<0.01) and CPI (HR: 0.12 (CI 95:0.03-0.5), p<0.01) had significantly higher PFS than PBC. There was no significant difference in PFS between other ST groups (Figure 1a). Type of ST was not significantly associated with difference in OS (Figure 1b). 536 pts underwent ASCT in CR, 273 underwent ASCT in partial response (PR) and 31 underwent ASCT with progressive disease (PD). Pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.6 (CI 95:1.3-2.6), p<0.001) and PD (HR: 4.1 (CI 95: 2.5-6.8), p<0.001) predicted significantly lower PFS compared to CR (Figure 2a). OS was also significantly lower in pts with pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.7 (CI 95: 1.2-1.6), p<0.001) and PD (HR 5.3 (CI 95: 2.8-10), p<0.001) (Figure 2b). Higher number of pre-ASCT ST predicted lower PFS (HR 1.3 (CI 95: 1.1-1.6), p<0.001) and OS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-1.8), p<0.001). In pts with pre-ASCT CR, all 36 who had pre-ASCT CR after BV/Nivo were alive and relapse free for follow up of 0.1-5 yrs. BV/Nivo was associated with significantly higher PFS (HR 0.1 (CI 95: 0.01-0.7), p <0.05) but not OS compared to PBC in this subgroup. Increasing number of pre-ASCT ST predicted worse PFS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-2.0), p<0.01) and OS (HR 2.2 (CI 95: 1.4-3.4), p<0.001) in this subgroup as well. Conclusions: BV/Nivo has a higher CR rate and better post-ASCT PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy and can lead to durable remissions in pts with pre-ASCT CR. BBV had a higher response rate and similar post-ASCT survival to conventional chemotherapy. BV had lower response rates compared to chemotherapy. Novel ST such as BV/Nivo and BBV may be preferable to conventional chemotherapy in R/R cHL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Spinner: Notable Labs: Honoraria. Bachanova: FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dorritie: SITC presentation: Honoraria; Genmab: Research Funding; University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Hillman Cancer Center: Current Employment; Janssen: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Juno/BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; OncLive/Institutional Perspectives on Cancer presentation: Honoraria. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diefenbach: Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; IMab: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; AbbVie: Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Advani: Astellas/Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty Seven: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genetech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Vaccinations have been hypothesized to play a role in lymphoma etiology, but there are few studies, mixed results, and limited data on lymphoma subtypes. Herein, we investigate the association of vaccinations with risk of major lymphoma subtypes. Methods: We studied 2,461 lymphoma cases and 2,253 controls enrolled from 2002 to 2014. Participants self-reported history of vaccinations against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, yellow fever, and influenza. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate OR and 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusting for potential confounders. Results: After multivariable adjustment, vaccination against influenza was inversely associated with lymphoma (OR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66–1.02), which was stronger for last vaccination 1+ years before enrollment (OR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56–0.91) and for >5 influenza vaccinations (OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46–0.68). Ever vaccination against hepatitis A (OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66–1.00) but not hepatitis B (OR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81–1.18) was associated with lymphoma risk, although more recent vaccinations were inversely associated with lymphoma risk for both hepatitis A (<6 years before enrollment, OR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40–0.77) and hepatitis B (<9 years before enrollment, OR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55–0.93). Ever vaccination against yellow fever was inversely associated with risk (OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55–0.96), and this did not vary by time since last vaccination. Although there was no overall statistical evidence for heterogeneity of vaccination history by lymphoma subtype, the only statistically significant inverse associations were observed for influenza and yellow fever vaccinations with diffuse large B-cell and follicular lymphoma. Conclusions: Selected vaccinations were inversely associated with lymphoma risk, with time since last vaccination relevant for some of these vaccines. Impact: Vaccinations against hepatitis A, hepatitis B, yellow fever, and influenza are unlikely to increase lymphoma risk.

AbstractBecause there have been a dvances in frontline treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) over the last 2 decades, we sought to characterize the changes in frontline treatment patterns and their association with outcomes. Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from September 2002 through June 2015 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study, and clinical characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes were compared between patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2009 (Era 1) compared with 2010 to 2015 (Era 2). Patient age, sex, and simplified MCL International Prognostic Index (sMIPI) score were similar between the 2 groups. In patients age 65 years or younger, there was less use of rituximab plus hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (R-Hyper-CVAD) (16.1% vs 8.8%) but more use of rituximab plus maximum-strength cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-maxi-CHOP) alternating with rituximab plus high-dose cytarabine (R-HiDAC), also known as the Nordic regimen, and R-CHOP alternating with rituximab plus dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin (R-DHAP) (1.1% vs 26.4%) and less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens (64.5% vs 35.2%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 12.1%) in Era 2 (P < .001). These changes were associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; 5-year EFS, 34.3% vs 50.0%; P = .010) and overall survival (OS; 5-year OS, 68.8% vs 81.6%; P = .017) in Era 2. In patients older than age 65 years, there was less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like therapy (39.0% vs 14.3%) and nonstandard systemic therapy (36.6% vs 13.0%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 49.4%). These changes were associated with a trend for improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.4% vs 37.5%; P = .051) in Era 2. The shift from R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens to R-bendamustine was associated with improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.0% vs 44.6%; P = .008) in Era 2. Results from this prospective cohort study provide critical real-world evidence for improved outcomes with evolving frontline patterns of care in patients with MCL.