Citations

Abstract Introduction Primary testicular lymphoma (PTL) and testicular involvement of systemic lymphoma (secondary testicular lymphoma, STL) are uncommon. Most testicular lymphomas are aggressive B-cell lymphomas and portend a high risk of extranodal relapse, including CNS relapse. As such, when testicular lymphoma is identified, the management strategy is often changed to include CNS prophylaxis. It is, therefore, essential to evaluate testicular involvement in diagnosis and staging. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) is a standard imaging modality to stage aggressive lymphoma. Physiologic testicular FDG activity can be challenging to distinguish from involvement by lymphoma given a wide range of normal. An imaging threshold for testicular PET uptake would be clinically relevant and would help guide management. We compare testicular FDG avidity in testicular lymphoma with physiologic testicular FDG avidity. Methods Records of patients (pts) diagnosed with PTL or STL from 2002-2018 enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource were reviewed, yielding 36 pts with testicular lymphoma. Physiologic testicular avidity by FDG PET/CT was determined from analysis of 70 randomly selected patients who received FDG PET/CT from 2013-2018 prior to treatment for non-lymphoma indications including pulmonary nodule, lung carcinoma, head & neck squamous cell carcinoma, gastrointestinal carcinomas, and metastatic melanoma, without known hematologic malignancy, testicular pathology, or history of testicular infection/surgery by medical chart review. Imaging parameters compared in this analysis were SUVmax and SUVmean. All FDG PET/CT exams were reviewed centrally by a nuclear medicine radiologist and a radiology resident. Results Of the 36 pts with testicular lymphoma, 19 had an orchiectomy prior to FDG PET/CT and 7 pts did not have a staging FDG PET/CT scan. Of the 10 pts with intact testes at the time of staging FDG PET/CT, 1 pt with low-grade lymphoma was excluded. 9 pts with aggressive lymphomas were included in this analysis: 7 pts with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and 1 pt each with Burkitt lymphoma and peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified. Testicular lymphoma was diagnosed by orchiectomy in 3 pts, and by percutaneous biopsy in 3 pts. 3 pts did not have tissue sampling of testes or scrotal contents, but had an overtly FDG-avid testicle highly suggestive of lymphomatous involvement. These 3 pts had biopsy-proven lymphoma in parotid, bone marrow, and stomach, respectively, with mean testicular SUVmax 6.8 among the 3 pts. The median age in this analysis cohort was 62 years (range 35-88). Of the 7 analyzed DLBCL pts, 6 were non-germinal center B-cell, and 1 was germinal center B-cell. The 70 control pts had a median age of 55 years (range 18-90). In known testicular lymphoma cases and control pts, SUVmax and SUVmean were assessed from the most FDG-avid testicle. Median SUVmax for the testicular lymphoma cases was 13.3 (range 5.5-29.9), compared to a median of 3.8 (range 2.1-5.5) for controls (Wilcoxon p <0.0001). Median SUVmean for testicular lymphoma was 9.2 (range 3.3-18.6), compared to a median of 3.1 (range 1.8-4.8) for controls (Wilcoxon p <0.0001) (Figure). Based on this dataset, an SUVmax cutoff of 5.0 has a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 66.3-100) and a specificity of 98.6% (98% CI 92.3-99.9) for the detection of testicular involvement by an aggressive lymphoma. Conclusions FDG PET/CT shows significantly greater FDG avidity for testicular aggressive lymphomas as compared with physiologic testicular FDG uptake in this single institution study with centralized radiology review of cases and controls. Testicular FDG avidity greater than an SUVmax 5.0 in staging aggressive lymphoma is highly suggestive for testicular involvement, warranting follow-up clinical exam and ultrasound, at a minimum. In addition, testicles with SUVmax <5.0 in a patient with known lymphoma but no symptoms or signs of testicular involvement should be considered negative for the purposes of staging and treatment planning. A pragmatic limitation of this study is that most patients with testicular involvement of lymphoma underwent orchiectomy prior to FDG PET/CT scan, which decreased our sample size. Larger, pooled studies would be helpful to validate these clinically relevant findings. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Witzig: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Outcomes of multidisciplinary and molecular tumor boards have been reported. Lymphoma specific tumor board outcomes have not been reported in the molecular era. In addition, the utility of multi-site, interactive tumor boards using videoconference technology are not widely reported. We prospectively followed the outcomes of a multidisciplinary multi-site lymphoma tumor board in the molecular era and during a change in the revision of the World Health Organization Classification in first published in 2016. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board is a component of the international Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN). The format includes the clinical case presentation, presentation of radiology and hematopathology findings by the appropriate specialist, proposed treatment options, review of the literature pertinent to the case, and discussion followed by recommendations. Requirement for presentation includes having a diagnosis of lymphoma with pathology reviewed at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (MCR). Pathology and radiology material, when relevant to the case, are required to be reviewed at MCR and presented by MCR pathologists/radiologists. Patients must be presented prospectively, and have active clinical issues or questions to be addressed. Four cases are presented per 60-minute meeting. 309 consecutive highly selected cases with a diagnosis of lymphoma were presented at the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board from 2014 to 2018. The pathology material was independently reviewed by the presenting hematopathologists and radiology material by the presenting radiologist. Participants are office based and included multiple members of the health care team which also incudes pharmacists, clinical research associates affiliated with lymphoma research, and physicians in training. Recommendations were prospectively tracked for changes in radiology interpretation, pathologic diagnosis, and treatment approaches. Actual follow-up of all patients after the meeting was not allowed in the MCCN. Participation in the meeting can be either via in-room attendance at MCR, video conference at a participating MCCN site, or via non-participatory live-stream online. Results: 309 cases were presented were presented from 2014-2018. 258 cases were from MCR, and 51 were not physically seen at MCR. 16 cases were presented at a subsequent meeting for further recommendations in the course of their disease after the initial presentation. 54% of patients presented had changes in some aspect of their care as a result of the meeting. Changes in radiologic interpretation occurred in 5 (1.6%) patients. The pathologic diagnosis changed in 27 (8.7%). Additional testing was recommended in 44 (14%). Clinical management changes were recommended in 90 (29%) cases. These included alterations in treatment approach in 43 (14%), change from undecided to pursuit of treatment 10 (3%), change from undecided regarding treatment approach to further diagnostic testing 4 (1.3%), change from observation to treatment 9 (3%), change from treatment to observation 4 (1.3%), and treatment to further tests in 2 (0.6%) Site in room average attendance (internal/external) was 16.8/8.6. Non-participatory live-stream attendance was not possible to track. In an annual electronic evaluation of this activity, 93% of the responders reported an improvement in knowledge and competence, and 100% recommended no changes to the format of the conference. Enhancements over time have included Continuous Medical Education credit, an in room microscope, and real-time radiology images. Selected cases will now be on line on an international web site. Conclusion: In this highly selected group of lymphoma cases from multiple sites over a 4-year period, 54% of the (167/309) case presentations resulted in changes to some aspect of care as a direct result of this tumor board. A multidisciplinary lymphoma tumor board approach was of value, efficacious, and meaningfully impacted lymphoma patients while substantially enhancing interdisciplinary interactions. Disclosures Ansell: Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Limited data exist regarding histological transformation in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM). In this study, we present the disease characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for histological transformation in WM. Methods: Patients with WM seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between January 1996 and December 2017 were included. Patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the setting of WM were considered to have transformation. Univariate analysis for comparing baseline characteristics of transformed versus non-transformed WM was performed using Wilcoxon, Fisher's exact and Chi square tests, as appropriate. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis. Cox proportional hazard method was used to assess the impact on time-to-transformation. All time-to-event analyses were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 1014 patients with WM, 42 patients (4.1%) developed histological transformation. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 9.5 years (95% CI: 8.8-10.5 years). The cumulative probability of transformation was 2.3% at 5 years, 5.3% at 10 years and 8.5% at 15 years from diagnosis of WM, respectively. There was no difference in the 5-year cumulative probability of transformation in patients with WM diagnosed between 1996-2000 (2.1%), 2001-2005 (2.9%), 2006-2010 (2.7%) and 2011-2015 (3.8%), p=0.61.The disease characteristics, laboratory parameters and histology at transformation are outlined in Table 1. In patients with DLBCL histology (n=39), Revised-International Prognostic Index was calculable in 28 patients, with 50% (n=14), 46% (n=13) and 4% (n=1) of DLBCL belonging to poor, good and very good risk groups, respectively. For DLBCL histology, 18 patients were classifiable using Hans algorithm into germinal center B-cell (GCB) type (n=3, 17%) and non-GCB type histology (n=15, 83%). The median lines of therapy received prior to transformation for the entire cohort was 2 (range 0-9), with 5 (11%) patients not having received any therapy for WM before transformation. Number of lines of alkylator-based therapy used prior to transformation [median 1 line (range 0-4)] was comparable to that used in patients in whom WM did not occur [median 1, (range 0-6); p=0.78]. The median time-to-transformation from diagnosis of WM was 4.8 years (95% CI: 2.6- 6.8 years). Overall survival (OS) from transformed disease was 3.2 years (95% CI 1.1-3.9 years). The 10-year OS of patients with WM who transformed was lower (46%) compared to patients without transformation (60%) with a trend towards statistical significance (p=0.08), Figure 1. The MYD88L265P mutation status was available in 333 patients in the entire cohort (22/42 pts in the transformed cohort and 311/972 in the non-transformed cohort. Of the 22 patients in the transformed WM cohort, 13 (59%) exhibited MYD88WT genotype and 9 (41%) exhibited MYD88L265P genotype. The risk of transformation was higher in patients with MYD88WT status [Odds ratio 6.3 (95% CI: 2.6-15.5); p<0.0001]. Additionally, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was higher at diagnosis of WM in patients who transformed, Table 2. On multivariate analysis, MYD88WT status remained an independent predictor of disease transformation [p=0.003; odds ratio 10 (95% CI: 2.1-48)]. On univariate Cox proportional hazard analysis for identifying predictors of time-to-transformation, only MYD88WT mutational status was associated with shorter time-to-transformation with a 5-year transformation rate of 15.5 % for MYD88WT versus 2.6 % with MYDL265P mutated patients [risk ratio 6.2 (95% CI: 2.5-16.4); p<0.0001]. Treatment-related details in the transformed cases were available for 37 (90%) patients; R-CHOP was the most common (41%) frontline therapy for transformation; 33% patients underwent autologous stem cell transplantation for transformed disease during their disease course. Conclusion: Histological transformation is an uncommon event in WM but confers poorer survival. MYD88WT genotype is independently associated with histological transformation a shorter time-to- transformation in patients with WM. Disclosures Ansell: Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Gertz:Apellis: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; janssen: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy. Dingli:Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Kumar:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kapoor:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction. Vitreoretinal lymphoma (VRL) is a rare ocular malignancy. Diagnosis and optimal treatment remain a challenge for clinicians. We present clinical characteristics and outcome of a cohort of 69 patients affected by vitreoretinal diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) lymphoma treated at Mayo Clinic over a 28-year period. Methods. We accessed the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Data Base to identify all patients > 18 years old with VRL diagnosed between 01/01/1990 and 01/31/2018. Only patients with DLBCL, confirmed at pathological review, were included. Clinical characteristics, therapies, response, relapse patterns and follow up status were collected and analyzed in the cohort and in the different subgroups: primary (PVRL, localized only in eye at diagnosis) vs concurrent (CVRL) vs secondary VRL (SVRL). Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's signed-rank test were used for analysis. Failure-free survival (FFS), overall survival (OS), central nervous system (CNS) and eye relapse-free survival were analyzed according to Kaplan Meier method. Differences between subgroups were compared with log-rank test. Since the group of SVRL can be affected by a survivorship selection bias, it was investigated separately for the outcome analysis. Results. A total of 69 patients with vitreoretinal DLBCL were included. At diagnosis, 33 (48%) were PVRL, 18 (26%) CVRL (eye plus CNS (N=17) or systemic (N=1) disease) and 18 (26%) had SVRL (9 primary CNS lymphomas, 9 systemic at diagnosis, among which 4 were primary testicular lymphomas). Unilateral intraocular involvement was observed in 16 (23%) cases. Clinical characteristics are reported in Table I. At diagnosis, patients received a systemic treatment in 35 (50%, including high-dose systemic MTX (HD-MTX, N 14, 20%), MTR (HD-MTX, Temozolomide and Rituximab) (N 7, 10%) and CHOP (Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine and Prednisone) with or without Rituximab (N 10, 15%)), combined systemic plus intraocular treatment in 15 (22%), local radiotherapy in 10 (14%) and intraocular therapy (intraocular injections of rituximab or MTX or steroids or a combination of these) in 9 (13%) cases. Systemic Rituximab, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and therapeutic vitrectomy/enucleation were performed in 36 (53%), 20 (29%) and 5 (7%) patients, respectively. The median number of treatments was 2 (range 0-10). Among PVRL and CVRL (N=51), median FFS, CNS relapse-free survival, eye relapse-free survival and OS were: 1.8 y, 4.9 y, 3.8 y and 4.1 y, respectively (Fig 1). Among PVRL they were: 2.6 y, not reached (NR), 5.2 y and 9.3 y, respectively. No CNS relapse occurred beyond 4 years in the PVRL subgroup. The median OS for patients diagnosed between 1990 and 1999, in contrast to 2000 and 2018 was 1.5 y vs 9.4 y respectively (p= 0.0002). OS was significantly higher in PVRL, as compared to CVRL (p= 0.04). Previous immunosuppression and poor performance status were predictive of worse outcome (p=0.04), while ASCT correlated with higher OS (p= 0.009). In PVRL, a combined systemic + intraocular therapy was associated with higher FFS (p=0.002) and CNS-relapse free survival (p= 0.003), but no difference in OS was observed. Among 18 SVRL, at a median follow-up of 1.1 y after vitreoretinal relapse, median FFS and OS were 0.3 y and 1.3 y, respectively. Systemic toxicities included 8 (11.6%) acute renal failures, 8 (11.6%) infections, and 3 (4.3%) hemorrhages. Intraocular toxicities included cataract in 11, vitreal detachment in 3 , ocular hypertension in 5, retinal vessel occlusion in 3 and keratitis in 2 cases. Of 69 patients, 39 (56.5%) died secondary to lymphoma (N=21, 53.8%), infectious toxicity (N=2, 5.2%), unrelated (N=3, 7.7%) or unknown (N=13, 33.3%) causes. Conclusions. VR DLBCL is a rare disease, which can occur as primary, concurrent with systemic, or in relapsed disease. OS over the decades has significantly improved. In PVRL, no late CNS relapses were observed, while late intraocular relapses can occur. A combined approach with intraocular + systemic HD-MTX based treatment at diagnosis was associated with a higher FFS and CNS-relapse free survival in PVRL and is recommended in bilateral involvement, even though no differences in OS were observed. Treatment consolidation with ASCT can be considered in cases with concurrent systemic disease. Further studies are needed to confirm these results and to better define the role of new drugs in treatment of this uncommon malignancy. Disclosures Witzig: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Diffuse large B cell lymphoma post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (DLBCL-PTLD) represents a fatal complication after a solid organ transplant (SOT). Approximately 50% of DLBCL-PTLD can be related to Epstein Barr Virus (EBV) infection. However, the EBV status is not taken into account in the DLBCL-PTLD categorization, although increasing evidence suggests its critical role in biological, clinical and prognostic aspects of the disease. In this single center retrospective study, we compared clinical and histological features, as well as outcomes of DLBCL-PTLDs by EBV status. Methods This study focused on patients with SOT who were diagnosed with DLBCL-PTLD at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). Patients were identified through the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Data base and the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), between 1989 and 2017. The histology was re-reviewed (RLK) and classified according to the WHO Classification or Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues 2017. Cell of origin (COO) was performed by Hans algorithm. EBV RNA in situ hybridization (EBER) was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association of clinical factors in overall survival (OS). Results 148 DLBCL-PTLD were identified. The median age at SOT and at the time of PTLD diagnosis were 50 years (range: 15-71) and 56 years (range: 18-82), respectively. The median time to PTLD diagnosis from SOT was 38 months (range: 1-499). The types of SOT included renal (44%), liver (36%), cardiac (9%), renal/pancreas (5%), pancreas (8%), lung (7%) and multiorgan (4%). 62% were stage III-IV, 30% had elevated LDH and 67% had an IPI >1. 88% of patients presented with extranodal disease, and 16% had involvement of the grafted organ. Eighty-three (56%) cases were EBV positive. The COO information was available on 35 cases. The non-GCB subtype was identified in 24 cases and GCB subtype in 11 cases. The initial treatment was as follows: reduction in immunosuppression (12%), immunosuppression reduction with rituximab (26%), rituximab alone (5%), chemotherapy with or without rituximab (35%). Patients with EBV positive PTLD were more likely to have grafted organ involvement (20% vs. 8%, p=0.047) and late PTLD (occurring after 12 months from SOT - 60% vs. 8%, p<0.001) than patients with EBV negative PTLD. There was no association between EBV status and age, sex, stage, LDH, and extranodal site involvement. At a median follow-up of 80 months (range 9-269), 83 patients (56%) had died. The 5-year survival rate from PTLD diagnosis was 56% (95% CI: 48-65%). The median OS was 85 months (95% CI: 37-148). There was no difference in OS in patients with EBV positive PTLD (median OS=84.7 months, HR=1.21, 95% CI: 0.77-1.92) versus patients with EBV negative DLBCL-PTLD (median OS=85.4 months, p=0.41). Conclusion Our study assessed the impact of EBV status on the presentation and clinical outcome of DLBCL-PTLD in a 148-patient single-institution cohort. 56% of cases were EBV positive. EBV positivity was associated with grafted organ involvement and late PTLD diagnosis. Patients with EBV-negative and EBV-positive disease had similar survival from PTLD diagnosis. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), is typically responsive to initial chemoimmunotherapy, but relapse is expected. Single-agent rituximab is FDA approved and frequently administered for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) low-grade or follicular CD20-positive B-cell NHL. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent with preclinical and clinical antilymphoma activity alone and in combination with rituximab. We compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) to rituximab (plus placebo) in patients with R/R iNHL. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs rituximab/placebo (control) in patients with FL grade 1-3a or MZL who were previously treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy with documented relapsed or refractory disease but not refractory to rituximab (refractory was defined as < partial response to rituximab or rituximab-chemotherapy OR disease progression < 6 months after last rituximab dose). Patients were stratified by prior rituximab treatment (yes vs no), time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2 vs > 2 years), and histology (FL vs MZL), and then randomized 1:1 to R2 or control for up to 1 year. R2 patients received oral lenalidomide 20 mg/day (d), d1-21/28 for 12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-5. Control patients received rituximab and placebo on the same schedule. Dose modifications were pre-specified in the protocol to manage toxicities. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG criteria without PET as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC; central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DOR), time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 358 patients were randomized (n = 178 R2; n = 180 control), median age was 63 years (range, 26 - 88), 34% FLIPI score ≥ 3, and histologies of 82% FL/18% MZL. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 1 (range, 1 - 12); 84% received prior rituximab and 51% had prior antilymphoma therapy within 2 years of enrollment. At median follow-up of 28.3 months, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS with HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 - 0.62; P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Median PFS was 39.4 months for R2 vs 14.1 months for control. IRC-assessed ORR for R2 was 78% vs 53% for control (P < 0.0001). CR was 34% for R2 vs 18% for control (P = 0.001). Median DOR was 36.6 and 21.7 months for R2 and control arms, respectively. TTNLT was improved for R2 vs control with HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 - 0.78; P = 0.0007). OS data were not mature with 16 deaths reported in the R2 arm vs 26 deaths in control (HR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.33 - 1.13]). Selected all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest more common in the R2 vs control arm (≥ 10% difference) were infections (63% vs 49%), cutaneous reactions (32% vs 12%), constipation (26% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 4%), and tumor flare reaction (11% vs 1%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 69% R2 and 32% control patients. More frequent grade 3/4 TEAEs in the R2 vs control arm were primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 13%) and leukopenia (7% vs 2%). Grade 5 TEAEs were reported in 2 patients in each arm. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide occurred in 9% of patients vs 5% for rituximab + placebo. Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in > 1 patient (n = 5). Seventy-one percent of R2 patients completed all 12 cycles of planned treatment vs 61% of control. Disease progression was the leading reason for discontinuation of lenalidomide/placebo (n = 21 R2, n = 54 control). Conclusions: R2 demonstrated superior efficacy over rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary endpoint of progression-free survival as well as secondary endpoints of ORR, CR, DOR, and TTNLT in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL. At this early analysis, fewer deaths have been observed in the R2 arm. Despite additional hematologic toxicity, greater efficacy of the R2 regimen (and fewer early progressions) allowed more patients to complete the planned therapy and delayed the need for subsequent treatment. R2 represents an important new treatment option in patients with previously treated FL/MZL, with meaningful advantages over single-agent rituximab. Disclosures Leonard: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria. Izutsu:Otsuka: Honoraria; Bristol- Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Nihon Medi-Physics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundhi: Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience International: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Symbio: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Meiji Seika: Honoraria; Shionogi: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei: Honoraria. Fowler:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital (Peking University Cancer Hospital): Employment. Scheliga:INCA - Instituto Nacional Do Cancer, Brazil: Employment. Pinto:Servier: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Moreira:Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto FG, EPE, Porto, Portugal: Employment. Liu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kalambakas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction. The peripheral blood absolute lymphocyte (ALC)/monocyte (AMC) ratio (ALC/AMC), as a surrogate of host immunity (i.e. ALC) and tumor microenvironment (i.e. AMC), is a predictive biomarker for clinical outcomes in diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) patients. An ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 has been shown to be predictive of better survival both at baseline and during each therapy cycle in patients treated with R-CHOP [Porrata et al, 2014]. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug, effective in DLBCL patients, with various mechanisms of actions on the tumor microenvironment and the host immune response. In this study we analyze the prognostic value of ALC/AMC ratio in a cohort of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients treated with Lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, R2-CHOP) in a phase II trial (MC078E trial, [Nowakowski et al, 2015]). Methods. All patients with de-novo DLBCL enrolled in the phase II trial MC078E and treated at diagnosis with R2-CHOP regimen were included in the analysis. We investigated the ALC/AMC ratio at baseline and each R2-CHOP cycle as predictor of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The ALC/AMC ratio was obtained by dividing the ALC by the AMC from the automated white blood cell differential obtained from the complete blood cell count on day 0 of each treatment cycle (range from day -3 to day 0 of each course). Patients were then divided in 4 groups on the basis of pattern of ALC/AMC ratio during treatment: group A: patients with ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 throughout all cycles; group B: patients with ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 at baseline, but then obtained an ALC/AMC < 1.1 during treatment; group C: patients with ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 at baseline, but then gained an ALC/AMC ≥ 1.1 during treatment; group D: patients with ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 throughout all cycles. PFS and OS were analyzed in the different groups. We separately conducted the same analysis in a matched control cohort of 94 DLBCL patients from the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Database treated with standard R-CHOP. Results. A total of 63 patients with de-novo DLBCL treated with R2CHOP regimen at diagnosis were included in the analysis. Clinical characteristics were: median age 67 years (22-87), male sex 61.9%, III-IV advance stage 87.3%, elevated LDH serum levels 66.7%, intermediate-high/high International Prognostic index (IPI) score in 54% cases. No differences in 3y-PFS and 3y-OS in patients with ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 vs ALC/AMC < 1.1 at baseline and at each R2-CHOP course have been observed. In a landmark analysis from day 0 of the last cycle, 3y-PFS in group A vs B vs C vs D was: 71.4% vs 67.1% vs 66.7% vs 85.7%, respectively (p 0.80); 3y-OS in group A vs B vs C vs D was: 85.7% vs 86.5% vs 66.7% vs 100%, respectively (p 0.74). No differences in both 3y-PFS and 3y-OS were observed comparing group A vs B, in group C vs D, and in group A vs D. Unlike what was observed in the R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients, in a univariate analysis ALC/AMC < 1.1 during all cycles of R2CHOP was not a predictor for inferior outcomes (Figure 1.a). In the matched cohort of patients treated with standard R-CHOP, ALC/AMC < 1.1 at baseline and at each course demonstrated to be predictive of worse outcome (p <0.01),survival was significantly different in the 4 groups identified according to ALC/AMC ratio during treatment and ALC/AMC < 1.1 maintained during all cycles of R2CHOP was predictive of worse PFS and OS (Figure 1.b). Conclusions. Lenalidomide in combination with standard R-CHOP (R2-CHOP), in previously untreated DLBCL patients, appears to overcome the negative prognostic value of ALC/AMC ratio observed in patients treated with R-CHOP alone. This could reflect the additional effect of lenalidomide to standard therapy on tumor microenvironment and on host immunity response. Figure 1: Landmark Analysis for Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival by ALC/AMC groups within R2CHOP (1.A) and R-CHOP (1.B). Group A: ALC/AMC >=1.1 for all cycles; Group B: ALC/AMC >=1.1 at baseline and obtained <1.1 during treatment; Group C: ALC/AMC <1.1 at baseline and obtained >=1.1 during treatment; Group D: ALC/AMC <1.1 for all cycles. Disclosures Witzig: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The addition of Rituximab to chemotherapy has significantly improved the outcome of patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients treated with immunochemotherapy for DLBCL who achieve EFS24 (event-free for 2 years after diagnosis) have an overall survival equivalent to that of the age- and sex-matched general population. Relapses after achieving EFS24 have been considered to be unusual but have been understudied. We sought to define the rate, clinical characteristics, treatment pattern, and outcomes of such relapses. Methods: 1448 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL from March 2002 to June 2015 were included. Patients were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE, treated per physician choice (predominantly R-CHOP immunochemotherapy) and followed prospectively. An event was defined as progression or relapse, unplanned re-treatment after initial therapy, or death from any cause. Cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality after achieving EFS24 were analyzed as competing events using Gray's test in the EZR software. Post-relapse survival was defined as time from relapse to death from any cause and analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method in SPSS (V22). Results: Among the 1448 patients, 1260 (87%) had DLBCL alone at diagnosis, and 188 (13%) had concurrent indolent lymphoma (follicular lymphoma 115, marginal zone lymphoma 18, chronic lymphocytic leukemia 14, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma 4, unspecified 37) at diagnosis. After a median follow-up of 83.9 months, 896 patients achieved EFS24. For all 896 patients who achieved EFS24, the cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was 5.7%, 9.3% and 13.2%, respectively, at 2, 5 and 10 years after achieving EFS24. Patients with concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis had a higher CIR compared to those with DLBCL alone at diagnosis (10.2 vs 4.8% at 2 years, 15.7 vs 8.0% at 5 years, 28.8 vs 9.7% at 10 years, P<0.001; Figure 1). There were a total of 84 patients who relapsed after achieving EFS24. The median age at initial diagnosis was 66 years (range 35-92), and 48 (57%) were male. At diagnosis, 11 (13%) had ECOG PS >1, 37 (50%) had LDH elevation, 62 (74%) were stage III-IV, 14 (17%) had more than 1 extranodal site, and 26 (31%) were poor risk by R-IPI score. There were 58 patients with DLBCL alone at diagnosis who relapsed after achieving EFS24, and 38 (75%) relapsed with DLBCL, 13 (25%) relapsed with indolent lymphoma (predominantly follicular lymphoma), and pathology was unknown in 7 patients. In contrast, there were 26 patients with concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis who relapsed after achieving EFS24, and 9 (41%) relapsed with DLBCL, 13 (59%) relapsed with indolent lymphoma, and pathology was unknown in 4 patients. In the 47 patients who relapsed with DLBCL after achieving EFS24, 45% received intensive salvage chemotherapy, 19% received regular intensity chemotherapy, 9% received CNS directed chemotherapy, and 36% went on to receive autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). In the 26 patients who relapsed with indolent lymphoma after achieving EFS24, 27% were initially observed, 54% received regular intensity chemotherapy, 4% received intensive salvage chemotherapy, and 19% received ASCT after subsequent progression. The median post-relapse survival (PRS) for all patients with a relapse after achieving EFS24 was 38.0 months (95% CI 27.5-48.5). The median PRS for patients who relapsed with DLBCL and indolent lymphoma after achieving EFS24 were 29.9 (19.9-39.9) and 89.9 (NR-NR) months, respectively (P=0.002; Figure 2). Conclusions: Relapses after achieving EFS24 in patients with DLBCL were uncommon in the rituximab era. Patient with DLBCL alone at diagnosis can relapse with either DLBCL or indolent lymphoma (3:1 ratio). Patients with concurrent DLBCL and indolent lymphoma at diagnosis had a significantly higher CIR, and relapses with DLBCL and indolent lymphoma were similar (2:3 ratio). Even with high intensity salvage chemotherapy and consolidative ASCT, patients who relapsed with DLBCL had a significantly worse survival compared to those who relapsed with indolent lymphoma. Late relapses with DLBCL remain clinically challenging, with a median survival of 2.5 years after relapse. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding.

Abstract Background An association has been identified between the diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) and prognostic clinical factors and outcomes in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Maurer et al, JCO 2018). This association can result in inadvertent selection bias in clinical trials to exclude patients with aggressive disease due to the inability to delay treatment long enough to fulfill enrollment criteria, compromising the validity of clinical trial study results to the general population. A similar concern exists in the relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL setting regarding patient selection bias against patients with aggressive disease requiring immediate treatment following relapse or progression. Here we examine the time from progression after immunochemotherapy (IC) to the initiation of first salvage chemotherapy and its association with outcome. Patients and Methods: Newly diagnosed patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), now a subcohort of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study, and followed for progression/relapse, retreatment, and death. This analysis includes patients with their first r/r DLBCL following frontline IC who initiated aggressive salvage chemotherapy as identified and included in a previous publication (Farooq et al, BJH 2017). The progression-to-treatment interval (PTI) was defined as the time in days from date of progression from IC to initiation of salvage therapy. The date of progression was defined as either a) the date biopsy was obtained for patients who had a biopsy to confirm progressive disease or b) the date of the scan or clinical examination indicating progression in patients who did not have a biopsy performed. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from initiation of first salvage therapy to progression or relapse, initiation of new anti-lymphoma therapy, or death due to any cause; overall survival (OS) was defined as time from initiation of salvage therapy until death due to any cause. Results: 162 patients with r/r DLBCL enrolled in the MER from 2002-2012 who initiated aggressive salvage chemotherapy with intent to transplant and had confirmed dates for both progression after IC and start of salvage therapy were evaluated. Median age at first progression for these patients was 64 years (range 36-76) and 104 (64%) were male. Median time from diagnosis to first progression on IC was 6.7 months (IQR: 4.6-12.7). Initial salvage therapy was R-ICE (80%), R-DHAP (8%), rituximab, oxaliplatin, cytosine arabinoside, and dexamethasone (ROAD) (6%), and other (7%). At a median follow-up of 49 months from initiation of salvage therapy (IQR: 33-74), 116 patients had died (72%). Median PTI was 6 days (IQR: 2-13). 110 patients (68%) had biopsy confirmation of disease prior to initiating salvage therapy; median PTI was 2 days (IQR: 1-7) for patients who had biopsy confirmation vs. 7 days (IQR: 3-16) in patients without biopsy confirmation, Wilcoxon p=<0.0001. There was no difference in OS from initial salvage therapy between patients who did not have biopsy confirmation (HR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.74-1.60, p=0.68) compared to patients with biopsy confirmation. Patients with short PTI (0-6 days) had significantly worse overall survival from initiation of salvage therapy (median OS = 7.6 months, HR=2.10 (95% CI: 1.43-3.08) compared to patients who initiated therapy 7 or more days from progression (median OS = 29.7 months), logrank p<0.0001. This association remained consistent (HR=2.20, 95% CI: 1.48-3.26, p<0.0001) after adjusting for age and biopsy confirmation of progression. Short PTI was also associated with inferior response rate to initial salvage therapy (51% vs. 65%, p=0.058), lower rate of proceeding to transplant after initial salvage therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0063), lower rate of being event-free 24 months from initial salvage therapy (16% vs 33%, p=0.011) and lower rate of ever proceeding to transplant (44% vs. 59%, p=0.057). Conclusions: A short progression-to-treatment interval is strongly associated with inability to proceed to transplant and inferior overall survival in r/r DLBCL. These results have implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials in the relapsed/refractory setting. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board.

Abstract Background: As our healthcare system faces increasing complexity, it is important for all healthcare providers to practice at the full scope of their training. However, there are limited current options for subspecialty training in hematology for advanced practice providers (APPs), a group of health care providers including both nurse practitioners and physician assistants. We are unaware of any existing postgraduate fellowship for APPs focused on education in both malignant and nonmalignant hematologic disorders. We hope that by creation of the first such fellowship, we can better prepare APP graduates with the subspecialty-specific knowledge required to become highly skilled and competent clinicians in hematology. Methods: Using surveyhero.com, we conducted a web-based needs assessment survey which was distributed to 68 APPs currently working in the hematology and blood & marrow transplant (BMT) teams at three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, Scottsdale, and Jacksonville). This survey included questions regarding hematology-specific education the respondents had received in their APP schools, as a way to assess participant's perceptions about the readiness to practice in hematology after completion of APP education, and to identify the learning/training needs that are most important for APPs to practice in hematology. Results: Of 68 APPs, 49 (72%; 34 NPs,15 PAs) completed the survey. 57% of respondents were new APP graduates when hired and 35% had no prior work experience in hematology/BMT. All APPs held a Master's or higher degree (doctorate 31%). Thirty-nine (80%) reported <5% of their APP school curriculum was hematology-focused. The majority (92%) felt that the level of subspecialty training they received in APP schools did not adequately prepare them with the full confidence to practice in hematology. Forty-four (90%) APPs believed subspecialty training could help them to become more competent providers for patients with hematologic disorders. Forty-seven (96%) APPs agreed that being confident and knowledgeable in their practice positively impacted their job satisfaction, and most APPs (84%) felt structured hematology training would attract them to stay within the specialty. The educational subjects that APPs identified as most important included variety of malignant and benign hematologic disorders as well as hematopathology, bone marrow transplant, palliative care, transfusion medicine, infectious disease and pharmacology related to hematology practice. The top three effective learning strategies reported by the APP respondents were active learning from direct patient care, cased based teaching, and educational experience during hospital rounds. Conclusions and Discussions: This needs-based assessment educational project revealed to us the significant gaps in subspecialty training of APP education in hematology and confirmed the necessity of this fellowship. The findings of the survey helped us to optimize the fellowship curriculum in order to meet the learning needs of future APP trainees. Development of the subspecialty fellowship program is a step forward in the future training of APPs. We believe our fellowship has the potential to serve as the postgraduate training model for other institutions nationwide. Disclosures Lacy: Celgene: Research Funding.