Citations

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<0.0001) with OS24 ranging from 18% in patients with TTP <6 months compared to 69% in patients with TTP > 36 months (Figure A). Additionally, age at PD (spline p-value<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 <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 <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 <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.

Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most frequent indolent lymphoma. While immunochemotherapy (IC) treated FL patients who achieve event-free status at 24 months after diagnosis (EFS24) have the subsequent life expectancy of the general population, those who fail to achieve EFS24 have aggressive disease with poor outcomes. Similarly, in FL patients initially observed or treated with rituximab monotherapy, EFS at 12 months (EFS12) is a strong predictor of subsequent outcome. Thus, an unmet patient need is to predict at diagnosis those at greatest risk of early failure in order to identify better treatments. The lymphoma microenvironment may be a key determinant of early failure. Therefore, we aimed to improve risk stratification of newly diagnosed FL patients by using a discovery and validation study design to identify microenvironment determinants of early failure and then integrate them into the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI). Patients and Methods: We evaluated 496 patients with FL grade 1-3A who were prospectively enrolled into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort from 2002-2012. In the discovery set of patients (N=166), we stained tissue microarrays for CD4, CD8, FOXP3, CD32b, CD14, CD68, CD70, SIRPa, TIM3, PD-1 and PDL1. Immunohistochemical staining was determined both within and between malignant follicles. Stains were scored to the nearest decile as the percentages of cells positive. Scores for each stain were dichotomized as 0% vs >0% except for CD32b (<20% vs ≥20%), CD70 (<10% vs ≥10%), and SIRPa (<30% vs ≥30%). EFS was defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, retreatment, or death. Early failure was defined as failing to achieve EFS24 for patients treated with IC at diagnosis and failing to achieve EFS12 for patients who were observed or received other treatments. Risk of early failure was estimated using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression models. Markers at P≤0.15 were brought forward for validation in a separate set of patients from the MER cohort (N=330), with P<0.005 being declared statistically significant after a Bonferroni correction (0.05/10 tests). In the combined dataset, we also used Cox regression to assess associations with continuous EFS and overall survival (OS). Mass cytometry (CyTOF) was then performed on a subset of patients (N=51) to comprehensively characterize the phenotype of intratumoral immune cells associated with outcome. Results: In the discovery set, CD4, CD8, FOXP3, PD-1, and SIRPα were associated with risk of early failure at P≤0.15 and were subsequently evaluated in the validation set. Only CD4 expression inside the follicle validated. Specifically, lack of CD4 expression inside the follicle was associated with higher risk of early failure in the discovery (OR=1.77, P=0.15) and validation (OR=2.59, P=0.001) sets, with a pooled OR=2.29 (95% CI 1.47-3.58; P<0.001). CyTOF analysis characterized the favorable CD4+ T-cell population associated with achieving EFS12/24 as activated effector memory T cells lacking exhaustion markers (Figure 1A). Adjustment of CD4 expression for FLIPI in the combined dataset did not weaken this association (OR=2.38, 95% CI 1.51-3.79), and lack of CD4 expression was prognostic within each FLIPI group 0-1 (OR=2.65; p=0.036), 2 (OR=2.07; P=0.064) and 3-5 (OR=2.51; P=0.015). We next established a bio-clinical risk model (termed BioFLIPI) that combined CD4 intrafollicular expression and FLIPI into a 1-4 scale, where any expression of intrafollicular CD4 moved a patient up one FLIPI risk group, adding a fourth (high) risk group for FLIPI 3-5 and any CD4 inside expression. The BioFLIPI score was strongly associated with risk of early failure: compared to a BioFLIPI score of 1 (24% of patients), patients with a score of 2 (35% of patients; OR=2.17, 95% CI 1.08-4.69), 3 (31% of patients; OR=3.53, 95% CI 1.78-7.54), and 4 (10% of patients; OR=8.92, 95% CI 4.00-21.1) had increasing risk of early failure. The c-statistic for BioFLIPI was 0.665, which was higher than that for FLIPI alone (0.636). BioFLIPI was also strongly predictive of continuous EFS [Figure 1B], OS [Figure 1C], and for EFS and EFS24 when restricted to IC-treated patients [Figure 1D]. Conclusion: Integration of CD4 expression inside the follicle at diagnosis with FLIPI improves identification of FL patients at risk for early failure. Disclosures Novak: Celgene Coorperation: Research Funding. Nowakowski:Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after total abdominal colectomy with ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis for Crohn’s colitis and risk factors for requirement of a permanent ileostomy remain poorly understood, particularly in the biologic era. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine long-term ostomy-free survival after ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis for Crohn’s colitis and potential risk factors for requirement of an ileostomy. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a single-institution IBD tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients diagnosed with Crohn’s disease and undergoing ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis between 2006 and 2018 were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Long-term ostomy-free survival and hazard ratios of potential predictors of ileostomy requirement were the primary outcomes measured. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients (56% female) underwent ileosigmoid or ileorectal anastomosis for Crohn’s disease. The majority of surgical procedures were completed in 2 or 3 stages (53%). The indication for total abdominal colectomy was predominantly medically refractory disease (77%), with dysplasia the second leading indication (13%). At an overall mean follow-up of 3 years, 16 patients had undergone either proctectomy or diversion with the rectum in situ. This resulted in ostomy-free survival estimates at 5 and 10 years of 78% (95% CI, 68-90) and 58% (95% CI, 35–94). A positive distal microscopic margin was the only risk factor for later requirement of a permanent ileostomy (HR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.7–17.2). LIMITATIONS: This study is limited because it is a retrospective study at a tertiary referral center. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term ostomy-free survival can be achieved in the majority of patients who undergo restoration of intestinal continuity after total abdominal colectomy for Crohn’s colitis. A positive distal microscopic margin was independently associated with long-term anastomotic failure, and it should be accounted for when risk stratifying patients for postoperative prophylactic medical therapy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B111. ¿QUÉ FACTORES ESTÁN ASOCIADOS CON LA EVENTUAL NECESIDAD DE UNA ILEOSTOMÍA DESPUÉS DE UNA COLECTOMÍA ABDOMINAL TOTAL Y UNA ANASTOMOSIS ILEOSIGMOIDEA O ILEORRECTAL PARA LA COLITIS DE CROHN EN LA ERA BIOLÓGICA? ANTECEDENTES: Los resultados después de la colectomía abdominal total con anastomosis ileosigmoidea o ileorrectal para la colitis de Crohn y los factores de riesgo para el requerimiento de una ileostomía permanente siguen siendo poco conocidos, particularmente en la era biológica. OBJETIVO: Determinar la supervivencia a largo plazo sin ostomía después de una anastomosis ileosigmoidea o ileorrectal para la colitis de Crohn y los factores de riesgo potenciales para la necesidad de una ileostomía. DISEÑO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. AJUSTE: Centro de referencia de tercel nivel para enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal de una sola institución. PACIENTES: Pacientes diagnosticados con enfermedad de Crohn y sometidos a anastomosis ileosigmoidea o ileorrectal entre 2006 y 2018 MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL: Supervivencia a largo plazo sin ostomías y cocientes de riesgo de predictores potenciales de requerimiento de ileostomía RESULTADOS: 109 pacientes (56% mujeres) se sometieron a anastomosis ileosigmoidea o ileorrectal por enfermedad de Crohn. La mayoría de los procedimientos quirúrgicos se completaron en 2 o 3 etapas (53%). La indicación de colectomía abdominal total fue predominantemente enfermedad médicamente refractaria (77%), con displasia la segunda indicación principal (13%). En un seguimiento medio general de 3 años, 16 pacientes se habían sometido a una proctectomía o a una derivación con el recto in situ. Esto dio como resultado estimaciones de supervivencia sin ostomía a los 5 y 10 años de 78% (intervalo de confianza del 95%: 68–90) y 58% (intervalo de confianza del 95%: 35–94), respectivamente. Un margen microscópico distal positivo fue el único factor de riesgo para el requerimiento posterior de una ileostomía permanente (razón de riesgo: 5.4; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 1.7–17.2). LIMITACIONES: Estudio retrospectivo en un centro de referencia de tercer nivel. CONCLUSIONES: La supervivencia a largo plazo sin ostomía se puede lograr en la mayoría de los pacientes que se someten a la restauración de la continuidad intestinal después de la colectomía abdominal total por colitis de Crohn. Un margen microscópico distal positivo se asoció de forma independiente con la insuficiencia anastomótica a largo plazo, y debe tenerse en cuenta cuando se trata de pacientes con estratificación de riesgo para el tratamiento médico profiláctico postoperatorio. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B111.

95 Background: The incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients (pts) with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) treated with PD-1 antibodies (ICI) is reported at 28 - 36%. However, clinically relevant information on irAE onset, duration, or impact on ability to continue therapy in HL is lacking. Additionally, these incidence rates reflect CTCAE definition and grading, and not ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines irAE-specific criteria (Brahmer et al, JCO 2018). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the rate and severity of irAEs in HL pts using ASCO criteria, to characterize irAE time profile and to assess their impact on continued therapy. Methods: HL pts who received a PD-1 inhibitor for the treatment of HL at Mayo Clinic Rochester between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2018 were identified. We conducted a detailed, longitudinal retrospective chart review with definition and grading of irAEs in accordance with ASCO guidelines. Results: Fifty-one pts were identified (35% women, median age at ICI initiation 35 years [range: 19-87]). Median duration of follow up from ICI start was 30 months (range: 1-70). Thirty-one pts (61%) had any irAE. Most common irAEs were inflammatory/bullous dermatoses (23.5%/5.9% any grade/grade3-4; median onset/duration of 81/57 days[d]), followed by thyroiditis (22%/0%; 86/84 d), colitis (14%/8%; 82/106 d), pneumonitis (14%/10%; 241/182 d), and hepatitis (14%/4%; 71/35 d). Fifteen pts (29%) required treatment with steroids. Among the total cohort, ICI was held for an irAE 28 times (50% of 56 total irAEs). Median treatment cycles held was 2.5 and ICI was permanently discontinued due to irAE in 18%. The most common irAE leading to treatment discontinuation was pneumonitis, followed by neuritis (5.9%/3.9%; 179/374 d), colitis, and rash. Conclusions: The rate of irAEs of 61% in this cohort as defined by ASCO consensus criteria was higher than reported in trials. Most irAEs were characterized by delayed onset of several months and prolonged duration, particularly pneumonitis and neuritis. Treatment discontinuation due to irAEs was infrequent overall. Further studies are needed to determine whether the development or duration of irAEs is predictive of treatment outcomes in HL.

SummaryNon‐endemic Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is a rare germinal centre B‐cell‐derived malignancy with the genetic hallmark of MYC gene translocation and with rapid tumour growth as a distinct clinical feature. To investigate treatment outcomes, loss of lifetime and relapse risk in adult BL patients treated with intensive immunochemotherapy, retrospective clinic‐based and population‐based lymphoma registries from six countries were used to identify 264 real‐world patients. The median age was 47 years and the majority had advanced‐stage disease and elevated LDH. Treatment protocols were R‐CODOX‐M/IVAC (47%), R‐hyper‐CVAD (16%), DA‐EPOCH‐R (11%), R‐BFM/GMALL (25%) and other (2%) leading to an overall response rate of 89%. The two‐year overall survival and event‐free survival were 84% and 80% respectively. For patients in complete remission/unconfirmed, the two‐year relapse risk was 6% but diminished to 0·6% for patients reaching 12 months of post‐remission event‐free survival (pEFS12). The loss of lifetime for pEFS12 patients was 0·4 (95% CI: −0·7 to 2) months. In conclusion, real‐world outcomes of adult BL are excellent following intensive immunochemotherapy. For pEFS12 patients, the relapse risk was low and life expectancy similar to that of a general population, which is important information for developing meaningful follow‐up strategies with increased focus on survivorship and less focus on routine disease surveillance.

Background: The authors compared long-term health care use and cost in women undergoing immediate autologous breast reconstruction and implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: This study was conducted using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which contains deidentified retrospective administrative claims data, including medical claims and eligibility information from a large U.S. health insurance plan. Women who underwent autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction between January of 2004 and December of 2014 were included. The authors compared 2-year use rates and predicted costs of care. Comparisons were tested using the t test. Results: Overall, 12,296 women with immediate breast reconstruction were identified; 4257 with autologous (35 percent) and 8039 with implant-based (65 percent) breast reconstruction. The proportion of autologous breast reconstruction decreased from 47.2 percent in 2004 to 32.7 percent in 2014. The mean predicted reconstruction cost of autologous reconstruction was higher than that of implant-based reconstruction in both unilateral and bilateral surgery. Similar results for mean predicted 2-year cost of care were seen in bilateral procedures. However, in unilateral procedures, the 2-year total costs were higher for implant-based than for autologous reconstruction. Two-year health care use rates were higher for implant-based reconstruction than for autologous reconstruction for both unilateral and bilateral procedures. Women undergoing unilateral implant-based reconstruction had higher rates of hospital admissions (30.3 versus 23.1 per 100; p < 0.01) and office visits (2445.1 versus 2283.6 per 100; p < 0.01) than those who underwent autologous reconstruction. Emergency room visit rates were similar between the two methods. Bilateral procedures yielded similar results. Conclusion: Although implant-based breast reconstruction is a less expensive index operation than autologous breast reconstruction, it was associated with higher health care use, resulting in similar total cost of care over 2 years.