Citations

8055 Background: mTOR inhibition with intravenous temsirolimus (Wyeth Pharmaceuticals) has been associated with responses in mantle cell lymphoma (J Clin Oncol 23;5347, 2005) as well as other lymphomas (Blood 108 (11) 2483; 2006). This phase II study tested the oral mTOR inhibitor everolimus (RAD001, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) in three simultaneous two-stage phase II lymphoma studies - aggressive (group 1), indolent (group 2), or uncommon (group 3). The goals were to learn the toxicity profile and to assess the anti-tumor response. Planned interim analysis for groups 1 and 3 have been completed and are the subject of this report. Methods: Patients (pts) received 10 mg PO daily for each 28 day cycle (up to 12) and restaged after 2, 6, and 12 cycles. The primary endpoint is the confirmed response rate, including CR, CRu or PR. 12 pts were enrolled in stage 1 of each study. At least 1 success in 12 is required to proceed to stage 2, to a total of 37 pts. Overall, the treatment will be considered promising if 4 or more successes are observed in all 37 pts in each group. Results: The median age of the 12 pts in group 1 was 68.5 yrs (range: 53–80), with a median of 3 (range, 1–15) prior therapies. Four pts had a prior stem cell transplant (SCT). Pts completed a median of 7 (range, 1–12) cycles of therapy. 6 confirmed responses have been achieved (1 CR, 5 PR), meeting the overall criteria for promising results in this study. Common grade 3 adverse events (AEs) include thrombocytopenia (3 pts) and anemia (2 pts). For group 3, the median age was 49 yrs (range, 27–78), with a median of 7 (range, 1–13) prior therapies and 6 pts had a prior SCT. Pts have completed a median of 6.5 cycles (range, 1–11). 5 confirmed responses have been achieved (5 PR), meeting the criteria for this regimen to be considered promising. Of these 5 patients, 3 had HD, 1 T-cell NHL, and 1 had macroglobulinemia. Common grade 3 AEs include anemia (3 pts) and thrombocytopenia (2 pts). No grade 4 AEs were reported. Conclusions: Oral everolimus has activity in a spectrum of lymphomas with acceptable toxicity. The responses observed in both group 1 and group 3 met the criteria to continue accrual. These results provide the rationale for additional studies with this novel class of agents and to integrate mTOR inhibitors into salvage treatment regimens. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8052 Background: Lenalidomide (Revlimid), an immunomodulatory drug of the IMiDs class, is approved in the US for treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes associated with a deletion 5q[31] cytogenetic abnormality. Lenalidomide also has activity in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL with measurable disease after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg lenalidomide orally once daily on Days 1–21 every 28 days and continued therapy for 52 weeks as tolerated or until disease progression. Response and progression were evaluated using the IWLRC methodology. Results: As of enrollment cut-off, 50 patients were enrolled and 49 received drug. Forty-one patients were evaluable for response. The median age was 65 (46–84) and 18 were female. Histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL] (n=21), follicular center lymphoma grade 3 [FL] (n=3), mantle cell lymphoma [MCL] (n=14) and transformed [TSF] (n=3). Median time from diagnosis to lenalidomide was 3.2 (0.4–32) years and median number of prior treatment regimens was 3 (1–7). Fourteen patients (34%) exhibited an objective response (5 complete responses unconfirmed (CRu) and 9 partial responses (PR)), 12 had stable disease (SD) for a tumor control rate (TCR) of 63% and 15 progressive disease (PD). Responses were seen in each of the aggressive histologic subtypes studied: DLBCL (5/21), MCL (6/14), FL (2/3), and TSF (1/3). Five of 11 patients (45%) with a prior stem cell transplant responded. Progression free survival although ongoing is currently > 239 (>191 - >373) days in patients experiencing CRu and > 160 (>54 - >251) days in patients with PR. Most common Grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (8.2%) and thrombocytopenia (8.2%) while most common Grade 3 adverse events were neutropenia (22%), leukopenia (14%) and thrombocytopenia (12%). Conclusion: Lenalidomide oral monotherapy is active with manageable side effects in relapsed/refractory aggressive NHL. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8038 Background: P21 is a downstream effector protein of p53 that induces cell cycle arrest by inhibiting cyclin/cyclin dependent kinase (cdK) complexes. In this prospective correlative study, we investigated the prognostic significance of p21, p53, Bcl-6, and Bcl-2 in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the context of E4494, a randomized trial comparing conventional CHOP to rituximab(R)-CHOP induction, and maintenance R (MR) to observation for responding patients. Methods: Protein expression was quantified by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of 198 DLBCL paraffin-embedded biopsy specimens and scored by an expert panel of hematopathologists. Results: No differences in the distribution of patient characteristics were detected between p21+ and p21- cases and between p53+ and p53- cases as well as across treatment arms. Among all study patients, there were no differences in clinical outcomes between p21+ and p21- cases. However, when analyzed by induction arm (removing the effect of MR), R-CHOP patients had marginally better FFS (p=0.06) if p21+; among CHOP-treated patients, p21 status had no effect on outcome. For R-CHOP patients but NOT CHOP patients, p21+ was an independent, favorable prognostic factor after adjusting for Bcl-6, IPI and Bcl-2 in multivariate analysis (FFS relative risk 0.3; p=0.003; OS relative risk 0.4; p=0.02). P21+ patients treated with R-CHOP had higher %FFS at 5 years compared to p21+ patients treated with CHOP (61 ± 7% vs. 24 ± 7%; p=0.007) but p21- R-CHOP and CHOP patients had similar FFS (37 ± 7% vs. 35 ± 7%; p=0.64). P53 staining (+ scored as either >20% or 50%) did not predict for FFS or OS in uni- or multivariate analyses. The p53+/p21- phenotype, a possible surrogate for mutated p53, was not prognostic. Further, no significant correlation was seen between p53 and p21 expression by IHC. Conclusions: These data suggest that p21 expression by IHC predicts for favorable outcome in older DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP but not in those treated with CHOP. Furthermore, p21+ identifies patients who benefit from the addition of rituximab to CHOP. Complex interactions between p53, p21, and Bcl-6, as well as other unknown pathways, may account for this treatment-related effect and should be further investigated. [Table: see text]

8011 Background: Maintenance therapy is generally not used in treatment of DLBCL. However, older pts are a unique group in which to study this approach, due to poorer outcome. Methods: As part of intergroup trial E4494/C9793, 415 pts >= 60 years (yr) of age with DLBCL who responded to induction therapy with CHOP or R-CHOP were randomized to MR (rituximab, 375 mg/m2 weekly {wk} X 4 every 6 months for 2 yr) starting 4 wk after the last chemotherapy (n=207) or observation (OBS, n=208) in a prospective 2 × 2 randomized trial design (J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3121). Impact of MR on failure-free survival (FFS) was the primary objective, and impact on time to failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were secondary objectives. All p-values are two-sided. Results: Results are presented for 352 centrally reviewed evaluable pts, with a median follow-up after maintenance randomization of 5.5 yr. All results were similar for the intent-to-treat population. Baseline characteristics and response to induction therapy are balanced among the CHOP/R-CHOP pts. At 6 yr, FFS was 46% for those pt who received MR and 36% for the OBS cohort (p=0.005, hazard rate {HR} 0.64); 6-yr OS was 62% for MR and 64% for OBS (p=0.83, HR 0.96). Outcome was also examined in the four treatment subgroups. The 6-yr FFS were: CHOP+MR 44%, CHOP+OBS 35%, R-CHOP+MR 47%, and R- CHOP+OBS 40%. No differences in 6-yr OS were observed according to maintenance randomization following CHOP (57% MR vs 55% OBS) or R-CHOP (67% MR and 72% OBS). Median TTF after maintenance randomization following CHOP+MR was 5.2 yr vs 1.6 yr for CHOP-OBS (p=0.0004), and following R-CHOP+MR was 5.6 yr vs 5.4 yr with R-CHOP-OBS (p=0.50). Proportionately more of the treatment failures occurred within 2 yr after CHOP+OBS (85%) compared to CHOP+MR (61%), p=0.01. In contrast, the proportion of failures within 2 yr was similar for R- CHOP+OBS (47%) and R-CHOP+MR (53%), p=NS. Conclusions: MR after CHOP, but not after R-CHOP, significantly prolongs TTF, but fails to prolong OS, possibly due to a delayed pattern of relapse and/or the efficacy of rituximab in the salvage setting. As 6-yr FFS declined to <50% among R-CHOP responders, with or without MR, there is a need for more effective treatment strategies in older DLBCL pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8004 Background: To determine optimal induction and the role of maintenance, the E1496 study randomized patients (pts) to induction CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone) versus CF (cyclophosphamide 1 G/m2 d1, fludarabine 20 mg/m2 d1–5 every 28 d) for 2 cycles beyond best response (maximum 8). Responding and stable pts were secondarily randomized to MR (375 mg/m2 weekly × 4 every 6 months for 2 years [yr]) or observation (OBS). Methods: Due to early deaths the CF arm was closed to accrual with 115 pts randomized to CF and 119 pts to CVP (thereafter all pts were assigned to CVP prior to maintenance randomization). The results presented here compare the outcome of CF patients with the subset of E1496 pts randomized to CVP (CVPR). Results: Median follow-up on pts randomized to induction is 6.5 yr. Toxic deaths occurred in 8 (7%) CF pts during induction and 4 additional deaths (1 OBS, 3 MR) occurred among the 69 (6%) CF pts randomized to MR or OBS. Causes of death were infection (9), liver failure (2), CNS gliosis (1). CF pts received a median of 5 cycles compared to 7 cycles for CVPR. The CR rate was 51% vs 22% (p=0.00001) and the PR rate was 35% vs 55% for CF vs. CVPR, respectively. Four-yr PFS for CF vs. CVPR was 49% vs 45% (p=0.19) and OS was 66% vs. 81% (p=0.12), respectively. Of 45 CF deaths, 23 (51%) occurred without lymphoma progression compared to 5 (13%) of 38 CVPR deaths (p=0.0004). More than 90% of CF patients randomized to maintenance achieved protocol-defined minimal residual disease compared with 64% CVPR pts. Maintenance therapy had no impact on 2 yr PFS for the 67 evaluable randomized CF pts, which was 74% for MR vs. 73% for OBS (p=0.19). In contrast, 2 yr PFS was 73% for MR and 42% for OBS in randomized CVPR pts (p=0.004). Survival at 2 yr for MR vs OBS was: CF 79% vs 91% (p=0.19) compared with CVP 98% vs 93% (p=0.21). Conclusions: Induction with CF results in higher CR and miminal residual disease rates than CVP. However, gains in remission quality with CF (in the dose and schedule used here) were offset by early and late deaths in the absence of progressive lymphoma. In E1496, the benefit of MR was influenced by the induction chemotherapy. [Table: see text]

Background: DLBCL has traditionally been classified by cell of origin (COO) subcategories based on tumor gene expression profiles which include Activated B-Cell (ABC) and Germinal Center B-Cell (GCB). Recently, using tumor samples from patients treated with RCHOP, new classification models have focused on DNA alterations. However, a comprehensive integrative approach using a large transcriptomic data set across both newly diagnosed (nd) and relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL is yet to be accomplished. A robust clustering of this type will allow for identification of biologically driven DLBCL patient subgroups and may predict patient outcome and inform treatment approaches. Methods: RNAseq was performed on a total of 882 DLBCL tumor FFPE biopsies from 2 ndDLBCL cohorts (cohort 1 and 2) and 2 r/r DLBCL cohorts (cohorts 3 and 4). Cohort 1 (N=267) was commercially sourced and served as the discovery cohort. Cohort 2 (N=340) was from the Mayo/Iowa Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and served as the replication cohort. Cohort 3 (N=189) was from the CC-122-ST-001 and CC-122-DLBCL-001 clinical trials (NCT01421524 and NCT02031419), and cohort 4 (N=86) was from r/r patients from the MER. Clustering input consisted of gene expression data, gene set variation analysis (GSVA) scores computed from the hallmark gene sets of MSigDB gene sets, as well as immune cell abundance estimates from a DLBCL-specific deconvolution method. An integrative clustering method iClusterPlus was applied to the input data to identify patient subgroups. A multinomial generalized linear model classifier was trained on the discovery dataset and applied to cohorts 2, 3, and 4 to assess patterns of gene expression and clinical features among the subgroups. Results: Integrative clustering identified 8 subgroups of ndDLBCL patients (DLBCL1-8; D1-D8) in cohort 1. Classifiers trained on cohort 1 were applied to cohort 2 and the same 8 clusters were identified. Among RCHOP treated patients in cohort 2, subgroups D4 (p&lt;0.01) and D8 (p&lt;0.0001) had significantly worse survival outcomes than the rest of the population. D4 comprised 21% of the MER ndDLBCL replication cohort (cohort 2) with a median event-free survival (mEFS) of 38.2 months and a median overall survival (mOS) of 80.3 months. D8 comprised 5% of the cohort with a mEFS of 7.5 months and a mOS of 12.1 months. The remaining 6 subgroups were standard risk, with mEFS ranging from 82.1 months to not reached, and none reaching mOS. The subgroups were not uniquely defined by previously known molecular classification methods such as COO or double hit signature (DHITsig), nor by clinical risk factors such as age or international prognostic index (IPI). Within D4, 92% of patients were ABC, representing a high risk subset of ABC patients. The mEFS in D4 ABCs was 38.2 months, while mEFS of non-D4 ABCs was not reached (p&lt;0.005). Transcriptomic analysis revealed a lower abundance of immune infiltration. D4 was associated with high IPI, with 49% of D4 having IPI&gt;2, compared to 33% of non-D4 with IPI&gt;2 (p&lt;0.05). D8 represented a high-risk subset which was 73% GCB. The mEFS of D8 GCBs was 5.4 months, while mEFS of non-D8 GCBs was not reached (p&lt;0.0001). Transcriptomic analysis revealed low expression of immune response and cytokine signaling pathways, consistent with the low abundance of immune cells in D8. This subgroup consisted of 63% DHITsig positive patients. Although only 20% of all DHITsig positive patients were in D8, these D8 DHITsig patients showed significantly worse survival than non-D8 DHITsig patients (mEFS 11.3 months vs. not reached, p&lt;0.0001). In the r/r DLBCL setting, D1-D8 were all present, with an increased prevalence of D4 and D8 in Cohort 3 (30% and 17%, respectively) and Cohort 4 (30% and 14%) compared to the newly diagnosed setting. Mutational data for these cohorts has been collected and is being interpreted in the context of the discovered subgroups. Conclusion: A novel integrative clustering of transformed gene expression data revealed 8 biologically homogeneous groups, two of which had inferior outcomes when treated with RCHOP therapy. Furthermore, these two subgroups were more prevalent in r/r DLBCL. This classification allows for the transcriptomic identification of high-risk patients underserved by RCHOP therapy. *Ortiz, Wenzl and Stokes contributed equally **Gandhi and Novak contributed equally Disclosures Ortiz: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stokes:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Towfic:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hagner:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Ratushny:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. McConnell:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Danziger:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stong:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lata:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kamalakaran:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mavrommatis:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trotter:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ansell:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Nowakowski:Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gandhi:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Novak:Celgene Coorperation: Research Funding.

Background With lymphoma survival rates increasing and a growing population of long-term survivors, the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in this patient population is of increasing importance. Anthracyclines are critical in the management of many lymphoma subtypes. However, there is a risk of developing anthracycline-induced CVD. Here, we estimate the cumulative incidence of CVD in adult lymphoma survivors and investigate risk factors associated with post diagnosis CVD. Methods Participants were from the Mayo component of the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). From 2002-2015, the MER offered enrollment to all patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma who are US residents and age &gt;18 years. Participants completed a risk factor questionnaire, and clinical and treatment data were abstracted from medical records. Patients were contacted every 6 months for the first 3 years after diagnosis and annually thereafter to assess disease status, re-treatment and new onset morbidity including CVD. CVD events, including congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary artery disease (CAD), valvular heart disease (VHD), and arrhythmia were identified and validated against medical records. CHF was validated with the Cardiovascular Health Study Criteria and/or the Framingham Criteria. CAD, arrhythmia, and VHD were validated using clinical definitions. We calculated the cumulative incidence of CVD, with death modeled as a competing risk. The association of risk factors and treatments with risk of CVD was estimated using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from Cox regression with a competing risk of death. Risk factors included age, sex, diabetes, smoking, body mass index (BMI), and treatment with anthracyclines or radiation therapy. Results The study consisted of 3,063 lymphoma patients after excluding those with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and CVD prior to lymphoma diagnosis. The median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range 18-95), and 56% were males. At a median follow-up was 6.9 years (range 0.8-17.1), 640 patients (21%) had died without CVD and 485 patients self-reported CVD post lymphoma diagnosis, of which 280 (57.7%) were validated. Cardiovascular events included 86 CHF, 78 CAD, 40 VHD, and 164 arrhythmias. The cumulative incidence of CVD (Figure 1) at 5 and 10 years was 6.0% (95% 5.2%-7.0%) and 10.7% (95% CI 9.5%-12.1%), respectively. In multivariable analysis, increasing age (HR=3.93 per 5 years, p&lt;0.001), male sex (HR=1.33, p=0.03), former smoker (HR=1.04, p=0.77), current smoker (HR=1.96, p&lt;0.001), BMI&gt;30 kg/m2 (HR=1.50, p=0.01), and anthracycline treatment (HR=1.49. p&lt;0.001) were all significantly associated with risk of overall CVD, while there was no association with diabetes (HR=0.92, p=0.70) or radiation therapy (HR=1.05, p=0.78) in the multivariable model. Anthracycline use was significantly associated with increased risk of CHF (HR=2.64, p&lt;0.001) and arrhythmia (HR=1.51, p&lt;0.01), but not VHD (HR=0.83, p=0.56) or CAD (HR=1.23, p=0.31) after adjustment for the cardiac risk factors. The number of anthracycline cycles ranged from 0 to 12. 63.2% of individuals that received anthracyclines received 6 cycles. The 5-year cumulative incidence of CVD for 0, 1-5, 6, and &gt;6 anthracycline cycles was 5%, 6.9%, 7.4%, and 7.7%, respectively. Adjusting for cardiac risk factors, the number of anthracycline cycles was significantly associated with increased risk of CVD (1-5 cycles HR=1.34, p=0.11; 6 cycles HR=1.51, p&lt;0.01; &gt;6 cycles HR=2.04, p=0.03). Furthermore, the number of anthracycline cycles was associated with CHF (1-5 cycles HR=2.82, p&lt;0.001; 6 cycles HR=2.46, p&lt;0.001; &gt;6 cycles HR=5.33, p&lt;0.001) and arrhythmia (1-5 cycles HR=1.31, p=0.27; 6 cycles HR=1.60, p&lt;0.01; &gt;6 cycles HR=1.65, p=0.27). Conclusions In the modern treatment era, the risk of new onset CVD in patients with lymphoma without a history of CVD is approximately 1% per year after diagnosis. Arrhythmia and CHF were the most commonly occurring CVD events in this cohort. Both traditional CVD risk factors and treatment with anthracyclines was associated with an increased risk of developing CVD, and anthracyclines were a risk factor for arrhythmia and CHF in particular. Prevention of CVD in lymphoma patients will need to address both treatment and traditional lifestyle factors. Figure 1 Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Nowakowski:Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Disease progression (PD) after frontline IC therapy for DLBCL is a clinically significant event and only 20-40% of patients achieve durable remissions with salvage chemotherapy. Patients who experience early PD or have disease refractory to IC have especially poor outcomes. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy has emerged as a novel effective therapy for selected cases of relapsed or refractory (r/r) DLBCL, although its availability is limited by cost and logistic challenges. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools would be useful for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies vs those who are more likely to be successfully managed by conventional therapies, but few have been developed for r/r DLBCL. Methods: Model building was performed in patients with PD after IC from 13 frontline, multicenter, randomized DLBCL clinical trials from the SEAL Consortium. All patients received rituximab and an anthracycline-based combination IC and were followed systematically; however therapy received, clinical, and laboratory data at progression were not available. OS was defined as time from first progression until death from any cause. Associations between variables and OS were evaluated using Cox models; splines were used to model functional forms. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish LYFO cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time-dependent concordance indices (c-stat), Brier scores, and calibration with metrics evaluated at two years from progression. Results: Model Development (SEAL): 1125 of 5112 patients had PD after IC. Median time to PD (TTP) was 11.8 months (IQR 6.6-23.5); median age at PD was 68 years (IQR 60-73). At a median follow-up of 21 months from PD (IQR 7-43), 732 patients (65%) had died and 24 month overall survival after PD (OS24) was 35% (95% CI: 32-38). TTP was strongly associated with post PD OS (spline p-value&lt;0.0001) with OS24 ranging from 18% in patients with TTP &lt;6 months compared to 69% in patients with TTP &gt; 36 months (Figure A). Additionally, age at PD (spline p-value&lt;0.0001) was associated with post PD OS. A model consisting of age at PD including patients 40-80 years and TTP ranging 0-60 months was created (n=1011, Figure B) due to sparse data outside these intervals. C-stat was 0.67, and the model was well calibrated (predicted OS24 = 34% vs. actual OS24 = 34%). External Validation (MER): The model was validated in 290 patients with DLBCL who initiated 2nd line therapy after PD to IC. Median age at PD was younger than the SEAL cohort at 62 years (IQR 57-70). Patients with biopsy proven indolent histology at relapse were excluded. Median TTP was 8.2 months (IQR 5.1-17.0). At a median follow-up of 87 months from PD, 201 patients (69%) had died. OS24 was 47% (95% CI: 41-53). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.65), but underestimated OS24 (predicted =33% vs. 47% actual, Figure C). External Validation (LYFO): The model was validated in 599 patients with DLBCL and PD after frontline IC. Median age at PD was 67 years (IQR 60-73). Median TTP was 10.1 months (IQR 6.0-19.4). At a median follow-up of 82 months from PD, 435 patients (73%) had died. OS24 was 38% (95% CI: 34-42). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.67) when applied to the LYFO cohort, but again underestimated OS24 (predicted =32% vs. 38% actual, Figure D). Case vignettes: A 74 year old patient who progressed 9 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 20%. A 58 year old patient who progressed 32 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 65% Conclusions: TTP to following IC is strongly associated with post-progression survival in DLBCL. We developed a model from the largest frontline clinical trial dataset in DLBCL and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the r/r setting. The model allows better understanding of expected outcomes in r/r DLBCL and can aid design and interpretation of trial results in this setting. The model underestimated the actual survival probability when applied to non-trial validation cohorts. Recalibration of the model for transplant eligible patients and development of smartphone based point-of-care application of the model is ongoing. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schmitz:Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Farooq:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Flowers:Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding. Frederiksen:Alexion: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Cunningham:Eli Lilly: Research Funding; 4SC: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding. Jørgensen:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poeschel:Amgen: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Abbvie: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Merli:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses; Janssen: Honoraria. Haioun:novartis: Honoraria; celgene: Honoraria; roche: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; takeda: Consultancy; janssen cilag: Consultancy; amgen: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria. Tilly:roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; servier: Honoraria; merck: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Salles:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.

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

Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive lymphoid malignancy in adults. Though standard immunochemotherapy regimens can result in clinical remission and cure in a majority of patients, approximately 30% of patients are primary refractory or eventually relapse, and their prognosis is very poor. Recent progress by large scale genomic and transcriptomic profiling of DLBCL patients has resulted in a deep understanding of disease drivers in newly diagnosed DLBCL (ndDLBCL). However, previous genomic studies of relapsed and/or refractory DLBCL (rrDLBCL) are limited by small sample sizes and much less is known about the genomic landscape or the changes in clonal populations that occur within a patient undergoing R-CHOP therapy. Analysis of a large cohort of rrDLBCL is needed to uncover the importance of known drivers, define clonal shifts that occur in relapsing patients, and discover novel mutations that impact resistance to therapy. Methods: DNA sequencing (whole exome or genome sequencing) was performed on tumor and matching germline samples from two rrDLBCL patient cohorts (N=143). The first rrDLBCL cohort consisted of 68 formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumor samples with matched germline obtained from the Mayo/Iowa Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER); including 18 diagnostic/relapse paired samples. The second cohort consisted of 75 FFPE samples from 2 rrDLBCL clinical trials CC-122-ST-001 and CC-122-DLBCL-001 (NCT01421524 and NCT02031419). In addition, a ndDLBCL cohort (n=364) consisting of MER front line samples were also analyzed. CNV and SV calling was performed with Sclust and Manta, respectively. Mutational drivers were identified with cDriver. Cosmic mutational signatures were calculated for all samples. Results: For comparison of overall mutation rates between the ndDLBCL and rrDLBCL we analyzed the frequency of mutations in known driver genes [n=211, Chapuy et al, 2018; Schmitz et al, 2018; Reddy et al 2017]. Of these, the top 5 most mutated genes found in the relapse cohort were KMT2D (34.3%), IGLL5 (25.9%), CREBBP (22.4%), TP53 (21.0%), and HIST1H1E (19.6%) all of which were previously reported as mutated genes in rrDLBCL [Morin et al. 2016; Park et al. 2016;Greenawalt et al. 2017]. None of these frequencies changed significantly from the MER ndDLBCL cohort. However, frequencies of 2 genes NCOR1 and ACTB were increased significantly from 3.3% to 13.3% (p= 5.85 x 10-05) and 0.5% to 6.3% (p=2.56 x 10-04), respectively, in the rrDLBCL cohorts. Analysis of the previously reported driver mutations in 18 paired samples revealed a significant increase in the mean variant allele frequency (VAF) from diagnosis to relapse of mutations in BCL2 and BIRC6 from 18.5% to 28.8%(p=0.016) and 4.3% to 13.7%(p=0.011), respectively. In our analysis of novel drivers in rrDLBCL cohorts, 59 significant driver mutations (FDR 0.1) were identified, 23 were novel driver mutations while the remaining 36 have been previously reported as drivers of newly diagnosed DLBCL. These include novel mutations in genes such as IL4R (8.8%), CDK5R1 (6.7%), LAPTM5 (3.7%) and others whose function in lymphoma are unknown. In a secondary analysis, we performed mutational signature analysis for rrDLBCL and identified groups of patients with COSMIC mutational signatures that are associated with aging, defects in homologous end joining resulting in large insertions/deletions, and with defective mismatch repair often found in microsatellite unstable tumors. Together with the high prevalence of TP53 mutations, these results indicate genetic instability as a hallmark of relapse/refractory DLBCL. Analysis of CNV and SV will also be reported. Conclusion: Here we report to our knowledge the largest genomic dataset in relapsed and /or refractory DLBCL using tumor biopsies. Previously identified mutated genes in rrDLBCL were confirmed and novel drivers identified. Paired samples analysis reveals clonal shifts which occur during treatment and at time of relapse. Whether the novel driver mutations appeared as a function of selection of a rare clone over the course of therapy or a therapy induced mutation will be the focus of ongoing work. Novel variants including SNV, CNV and SV can potentially lead to new insights and deepen our understanding of the mechanisms of resistance in DLBCL. * Wenzl, Ortiz and Stong contributed equally **Novak and Gandhi contributed equally Disclosures Ortiz: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stong:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Huang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Maurer:Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Towfic:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hagner:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Nikbakht:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Stokes:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lata:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kamalakaran:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mavrommatis:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Trotter:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ansell:Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski:Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding. Novak:Celgene Coorperation: Research Funding. Gandhi:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties.