Citations

Background: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. ZUMA-1 is the multicenter, single-arm, registrational Phase 1/2 study of axi-cel in pts with refractory LBCL. In a 2-year analysis of ZUMA-1 (median follow-up, 27.1 months; N=101), axi-cel demonstrated objective response, complete response (CR), and ongoing response rates of 83%, 58%, and 39%, respectively (Locke et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Here, we present additional survival follow up and recovery of normal, polyclonal B cells from ongoing responders in ZUMA-1. Methods: Eligible pts with refractory large B cell lymphoma (diffuse large B cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma, transformed follicular lymphoma) underwent leukapheresis at enrollment and subsequently received low-dose conditioning chemotherapy (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide) followed by a target dose of 2 × 106 anti-CD19 CAR T cells/kg (Neelapu et al. NEJM. 2017; NCT02348216). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), and the first response assessment was 4 weeks post infusion. Response assessments were performed per protocol up to 24 months or disease progression, whichever occurred first. For pts in ongoing response beyond Month 24, response assessments continued per institutional standard-of-care (SOC). Blood levels of CAR T cells were quantified using polymerase chain reaction and B cells were characterized using flow cytometry in pts with ongoing responses and evaluable samples. Results: A total of 111 pts were enrolled, and axi-cel was administered to 101 pts. As previously reported in the ZUMA-1 2-year analysis, among pts who received axi-cel, the median time from axi-cel infusion to both objective response and CR was 1.0 month (range, 1 - 12 months; Locke et al. Lancet Oncol 2019). When the entire enrolled population (N = 111) was included on an intent-to-treat basis, the median manufacturing time was 17 days (range, 14 - 51; n = 110 as manufacturing was not feasible for 1 pt). Additionally, among the 111 pts, the median time from enrollment/leukapheresis to objective response and CR was 1.7 months (range, 0.7 - 12.9) and 1.9 months (range, 0.7 - 13.3), respectively. Responses have been durable, and with a minimum of 3 years of follow-up (median, 39.1 months), the median overall survival (OS) was 25.8 months, and the 3-year OS rate was 47%. Importantly, no axi-cel-related secondary malignancies have been reported. As previously reported, pts in ongoing response after 2 years had significantly greater peak CAR T cell expansion in blood 7 - 14 days after axi-cel infusion than did those with relapse (P = 0.014) or no response (P = 0.0003; Locke et al. Lancet Oncol 2019). Blood samples from 22 pts in ongoing response (per institutional SOC) at ≥ 3 years were available for analysis of CAR T cells and evaluation of B cell recovery. All evaluable pts had detectable B cells in blood at 3 years post axi-cel. Notably, 91% of pts in ongoing response at 3-year follow-up demonstrated recovery of polyclonal B cells measured by presence of both kappa and lambda light chains on non-malignant CD19+CD20+ B cells. The median kappa-lambda ratio of 1.6 and relative levels of key B cell subsets, including memory and naive B cell immunophenotypes, suggested reconstitution of B cell repertoire, consistent with published data from healthy individuals (Deneys et al. J Immunol Methods 2001; Scott et al. J Clin Pathol 2018). Additionally, 15/22 (68%) had both minimal levels of detectable CAR gene-marked cells and detectable polyclonal B cells in blood. Altogether, these findings support the hypothesis that persistence of functional CAR T cells is not necessary for durable remissions of LBCL. Overall survival and translational findings with ≥ 4 years of follow-up will be presented. Conclusions: Axi-cel produced rapid responses and longterm disease control in pts with refractory LBCL. Most responses occurred by the first assessment, and the brief time elapsed between enrollment and response supports both the speed and success of manufacturing. Furthermore, axi-cel-treated pts with ongoing responses at ≥ 3 years showed evidence of restoration of a normal B cell compartment and clearance of functional CAR T cells, a critical component of the long-term safety of CD19-directed CAR T cell therapies. Disclosures Locke: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Wugen: Consultancy; Calibr: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Other: Consultancy with grant options; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ghobadi:Celegene: Consultancy; Wugen: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy. Miklos:Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Allogene Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Lin:Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy. Hill:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Timmerman:Merck: Research Funding; Corvus: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Marker Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Immune Design: Honoraria; Celldex Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Genmab: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Valor: Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy. Reagan:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Stiff:Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Delta-Fly: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Atara: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Flinn:Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Research Funding; Curio Science: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Calithera Biosciences: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Yingli Pharmaceuticals ≠: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Other; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vincera Pharma: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy; Great Point Partners: Consultancy; Curis: Research Funding; Nurix Therapeutics: Consultancy; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Triphase Research & Development Corp.: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Farooq:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Goy:COTA: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: leadership role; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; CALBG: Research Funding; PracticeUpdate Oncology: Consultancy; RCCA/OMI: Current Employment; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Hackensack UMC and University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Infinity Verastem: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; MD Anderson: Research Funding; Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding. McSweeney:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Colorado Blood Cancer Institute: Current Employment; Fred Hutchinson: Patents & Royalties. Munoz:Juno/Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Consultancy; Innovent: Consultancy; Acrotech/Aurobindo: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Siddiqi:Oncternal: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rossi:Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Bot:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Travel support . Zheng:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vezan:Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Abbvie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Bashir:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; OmniacPharmConsult Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Kim:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chu:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Celgene: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Neelapu:N/A: Other; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Calibr: Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: personal fees; Celgene: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: personal fees; Allogene Therapeutics: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other; Legend Biotech: Other; Precision Biosciences: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Incyte: Other: personal fees; Cell Medica/Kuur: Other: personal fees.

TPS8073 Background: Response rates to salvage immunochemotherapy in patients with DLBCL relapsing after or refractory (R/R DLBCL) to front line therapy remain unsatisfactory. Lenalidomide (Len) has significant single agent activity in relapsed/refractory DLBCL. The addition of lenalidomide (Len) days 1-7 to rituximab plus ifosfamide-carboplatin-etoposide (RICE) was shown to be feasible with promising efficacy in phase 1b study (Feldman T, et al. BJH, 2014). We developed phase I/II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the addition of Len (extended to 14 day schedule) to RICE (R2-ICE) for R/R-DLBCL patients who are candidates for stem cell transplant. Methods: The phase I portion was designed to determine the maximally tolerated dose Len in combination with RICE using the standard cohort 3+3 design. The escalation dose levels were 15 mg and 20 mg daily x 14 days. Prophylactic aspirin and growth factor support is mandatory. After 2 cycles of therapy response is evaluated with a PET/CT scan; the responding patients are eligible for 1-2 additional cycles of R2ICE as a bridging before HDC/SCT. The estimated overall response rate for two cycles of R-ICE in R/R DLBCL to RCHOP was estimated to be approximate 45%. We hypothesize that the addition of lenalidomide in the relapse setting could increase the overall response rate by approximately 20%. The one-stage design with an interim analysis being utilized in phase 2 requires 45 evaluable patients (one sided alpha = 0.09, power 90%). For Phase I, all types of B-cell lymphomas were eligible. For phase II portion only DLBCL patients are eligible per central pathology review. Other eligibility criteria include: received one line of previous anti-lymphoma therapy, ≥ 2 weeks from completion of prior anti-lymphoma therapy, candidate for HDC and SCT, adequate organ (creatinine clearance ≥ 60ml/min by Cockcroft-, total bilirubin ≤ 2 × ULN) and bone marrow function (ANC) ≥1500/mm3; platelet count ≥75,000/mm3). The use of steroids and/or rituximab up to 1 week prior to registration for management of symptoms is allowed. 9 patients cleared phase 1 without DLT and dose of 20 mg days 1 -14 was recommend for phase 2 part (RP2D) of the study. The phase 2 study passed interim futility analysis and accrual continues. Correlatives include cell of origin by Nanostring, Myc/bcl2 expression and by FISH and minimal residual disease. PET scans are centrally reviewed including metabolic tumor volume. Clinical trial information: NCT02628405 .

SummaryReduced‐intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) is a curative option for select relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients; however, there are sparse data to support superiority of any particular conditioning regimen. We analyzed 492 adult patients undergoing human leucocyte antigen (HLA)‐matched sibling or unrelated donor allo‐HCT for HL between 2008 and 2016, utilizing RIC with either fludarabine/busulfan (Flu/Bu), fludarabine/melphalan (Flu/Mel140) or fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy). Multivariable regression analysis was performed using a significance level of <0·01. There were no significant differences between regimens in risk for non‐relapse mortality (NRM) (P = 0·54), relapse/progression (P = 0·02) or progression‐free survival (PFS) (P = 0·14). Flu/Cy conditioning was associated with decreased risk of mortality in the first 11 months after allo‐HCT (HR = 0·28; 95% CI = 0·10–0·73; P = 0·009), but beyond 11 months post allo‐HCT it was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality, (HR = 2·46; 95% CI = 0·1.32–4·61; P = 0·005). Four‐year adjusted overall survival (OS) was similar across regimens at 62% for Flu/Bu, 59% for Flu/Mel140 and 55% for Flu/Cy (P = 0·64), respectively. These data confirm the choice of RIC for allo‐HCT in HL does not influence risk of relapse, NRM or PFS. Although no OS benefit was seen between Flu/Bu and Flu/Mel 140; Flu/Cy was associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality beyond 11 months from allo‐HCT (possibly due to late NRM events).

3639 Background: The first phase of the multi-center prospectively specified retrospective study Validating Indicators To Associate Recurrence (VITAR), assessing the relationship between GCC gene expression in formalin fixed (FFPE) LNs and time to recurrence (TTR) in stage II CC pts not treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (Sargent, Annals Surg Onc 2011), showed promising initial results. Here we report a validation set of 463 new stage II CC pts. Methods: GCC mRNA was quantified by RT-qPCR using FFPE LNs from untreated T3N0 CC pts diagnosed from 1999-2008 with at least 12 LNs examined , blinded to clinical outcomes. Patients were classified by GCC LN ratio (LNR) (high risk: LNR > 0.1; low risk: LNR ≤ 0.1), with LNR defined as ratio of GCC positive to GCC informative LNs. Cox regression models tested the relationship between GCC and the primary endpoint of TTR, adjusted for age, tumor grade, number of LN examined pathologically, and lymphovascular invasion. Mismatch repair (MMR) status was also assessed. All primary analyses and cut-points were pre-specified. Results: 46pts (10%) recurred (rec), median follow-up was 65 months, median LNs examined was 20, and 42% (195/463) were classified high risk. Overall, TTR was not significantly associated with binary GCC LNR risk class (HR=1.47, p=.208) or DFS (HR= 1.39, p=.097). One site’s (n=97) tissue grossing method precluded appropriate LN assessment with existing GCC qualification methods. Excluding this site resulted in a TTR HR=1.91, p=0.051 (multivariate). In a post-hocanalysis excluding this site and using a 3-level GCC risk group of high (LNR > 0.20), intermediate (0.10 < LNR < 0.20) and low (LNR < 0.10), high risk group pts had a 5-yr rec risk of 22% versus 8% in low risk (HR 2.72, p=0.006). MMR status was not significantly associated with TTR (multivariate p=0.30). Conclusions: GCC status is a promising prognostic factor in appropriately staged stage II CC pts not treated with adjuvant therapy independent of traditional histopathology risk factors, but GCC determination must be performed with methodology adapted to the tissue procurement and fixation technique. Outcome associations were strengthened when considering a 3-level GCC categorization.

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: In the SCHOLAR-1 study, the largest published retrospective analysis of outcomes in patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), the objective response rate (ORR) was 26% and complete response (CR) rate was 7% with available salvage therapies in the pre-chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy era (Crump et al. Blood. 2017). These results served as a benchmark for assessing novel therapies. ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216) is the pivotal, multicenter, single-arm Phase 1/2 study evaluating axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy, in patients with refractory LBCL that supported the approval of axi-cel in the United States and Europe. At a median follow-up of 27.1 months, the ORR in ZUMA-1 was 83% and the CR rate was 58% (Locke et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Here, we describe comparative analyses of outcomes in ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 after adjusting for potential imbalances in refractory status between the 2 studies. Methods: Patients in both studies had refractory LBCL defined as stable disease of ≤ 6 months with ≥ 4 cycles of frontline or ≥ 2 cycles of later-line therapy, progressive disease as best response, or relapse ≤ 12 months post autologous stem cell transplant (SCT). To address potential imbalances between studies in refractory status which could affect response and survival outcomes, standardized analyses were performed which equally weighted the proportions of patients by refractory categorization (primary refractory, refractory to ≥ second-line therapy, or relapse after SCT) and presence of post-refractory SCT in each study. Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests and Cox models were used to compare the odds ratio for response and hazard ratio (HR) for survival between ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1. P values were descriptive and were not adjusted for multiplicity. Results: Axi-cel was administered to 101 patients in the pivotal Phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1. In the SCHOLAR-1 analysis, 508 patients were evaluable for response and 497 were evaluable for survival. The median follow-up in ZUMA-1 was 2.3 years, and the median follow-up from the overall SCHOLAR-1 study ranged from 7.6 to 14.8 years across different cohorts. In general, ZUMA-1 patients were more heavily pretreated with more patients receiving ≥ 3 lines of therapy as compared with SCHOLAR-1 (69% vs 23%). ZUMA-1 also had more patients who were refractory to second- or later-line therapy compared with SCHOLAR-1 (76% vs 62%). Fewer patients in ZUMA-1, however, were classified as primary refractory vs those in SCHOLAR-1 (26% vs 45%), and a similar proportion of patients between studies relapsed within 1 year of SCT (21% vs 18%). After standardization, the ORR and CR rate in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1 were 72% and 54% vs 22% and 7%, respectively. The odds ratios for ORR and CR rate were 7.2-fold and 11.5-fold higher, respectively in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1 (CMH test; P < .0001 for both ORR and CR rate). The 2-year survival rate after standardization was 50% (95% CI, 40% - 59%) in ZUMA-1 and 12% (95% CI, 9% - 15%) in SCHOLAR-1, which translated to a 73% reduction in the risk of death in ZUMA-1 relative to SCHOLAR-1 (HR, 0.27; P < .0001). Conclusions: This standardized analysis of the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies indicates that treatment with axi-cel in this selected population results in 11.5-fold higher odds of CR and a 73% reduction in the risk of death compared with standard salvage regimens in an unselected population. Although limited by retrospective evaluation and cross-study comparisons, these results support the previous literature indicating that axi-cel is a highly effective treatment option for patients with refractory LBCL. Disclosures Neelapu: Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy. Bartlett:Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Miklos:Celgene-Juno: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Research Funding; AlloGene: Consultancy; Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Consultancy; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy. Jacobson:Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Siddiqi:BeiGene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite, A Gilead Company: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy. Kuruvilla:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Van Den Neste:Gilead: Other: travel support. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Navale:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Equity Ownership; Allogene: Equity Ownership; Cellectis: Equity Ownership; Bluebird Bio: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Organesis: Equity Ownership; Jounce: Equity Ownership; Editas: Equity Ownership; Intellia: Equity Ownership. DePuy:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel support. Kim:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment.

Background: While there is evidence in the literature of increased prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), there are no studies evaluating the prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or the relationship between hypogammaglobulinemia and presentation or outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients and to test the hypothesis that DLBCL patients with baseline hypogammaglobulinemia have a distinct clinical profile and outcome. Methods: We obtained banked frozen sera from 200 newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve, DLBCL patients from the Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), a prospective cohort study conducted at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa. IgG/A/M levels were measured using immunoturbidimetric assay whereas IgE level was measured using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay; deficiency was defined using standard reference ranges. IgE levels were considered deficient if &lt;2 UI/ml. The associations between Ig deficiencies and clinical factors were evaluated with Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-squared (Fisher's exact, where appropriate) tests. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, retreatment, or death, and EFS24 was defined as EFS at 24 months after diagnosis (achieve or failure to achieve EFS24). The association of Ig levels with EFS24 was estimated using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression, and with EFS, overall survival (OS), and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI from Cox regression. Results: The mean age (SD) of the cohort was 65.6 (13.4) years, 54% were males and 98% of the patients were white. Over a median follow-up of five years, there were 59 (29.5%) deaths. The prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia, defined as any deficiency, in newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve DLBCL was 22.1% (44/199) in our cohort, and the most common Ig deficiency was for IgG (&lt;700 mg/dL, 13.5%), followed by IgM (&lt;40 mg/dL, 9.0%), IgE (&lt;2 UI/ml, 7.5%) and IgA (&lt;70 mg/dL, 4.0%) (Table1). There were no statistically significant differences between Ig deficient and non-deficient patients in terms of age at diagnosis, gender, stage, cell of origin, or MYC double hit status. However, median LDH levels were higher in Ig deficient patients (228 vs 194, p&lt;0.01). Any immunoglobulin deficiency was associated with inferior EFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.16-3.24) (Figure 1) and OS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.17-3.49), and these associations were not attenuated after adjustment for the international prognostic index (IPI). Any Ig deficiency was also associated with failure to achieve EFS24 (OR=2.13, 95% CI 1.00-4.60) after adjusting for IPI. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report the prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in treatment naïve DLBCL. We found that any Ig deficiency was not uncommon in our cohort and it was associated with an inferior EFS and OS in DLBCL patients. The prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in DLBCL patients seems to be lower than has been described in CLL patients. While the underlying relationship between these two immunologic disorders deserves further study, our findings highlight the interaction between global immune dysfunction and emergence of a clonal B cell process. Disclosures 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. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: Front-line immunochemotherapy (IC) with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is expected to cure 60-70% of newly diagnosed DLBCL. Up to one third of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients will have relapsed or refractory (r/r) disease.1 Current standard of care for these patients is salvage chemotherapy and, if chemosensitive, to be followed by high dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic cell rescue (autoHCT).2,3 Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) after frontline IC is associated with excellent long-term outcomes with overall survival (OS) similar to that of age- and sex-matched controls.4 In comparison, those achieving EFS24 following autoHCT for relapsed or refractory disease may have increased risk for late-mortality compared to the general population with advanced age and intensive salvage therapy contributing to the risk of late complications.5 We sought to better characterize EFS24 after autoHCT to determine the utility of this end-point for informed clinical decisions, patient management, and future clinical trials. Methods: Patients were prospectively enrolled onto the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/ Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Patients were followed for relapse, retreatment, and death; all events were validated by medical record review. For this analysis patients were included if they were consented within 9 months of initial diagnosis of DLBCL between 2002-2012, had received anthracycline-based IC (R-CHOP, or similar), and eventually had undergone autoHCT for r/r DLBCL. Patients with primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) were excluded. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from autoHCT until death due to any cause. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from autoHCT until progression, relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. OS from achieving EFS24 after autoHCT was compared to age- and sex-matched general US population. Results: 108 patients underwent autoHCT for relapsed DLBCL between 2002 and 2017. Median age at autoHCT of the patients was 60 years (range 20-78) and 72 (67%) were male. The most common transplant conditioning regimen was BEAM (82%). At a median follow-up after autoHCT of 85 months (range 1-171), 72 patients (67%) had an event and 64 patients (59%) had died. Kaplan-Meier estimates for EFS and OS at 24 months from the time of autoHCT were 49% (95% CI: 40-59) and 61% (95% CI: 52-71), respectively. 52 patients had a progression within 24 months of autoHCT; OS from progression was poor (median OS=2.8 months, 95% CI: 1.8-6.0; 5 year OS = 9%, 95% CI: 2-22). 48 patients achieved EFS24 after autoHCT; median OS from achieving EFS24 was 136 months (95% CI: 92-NE) and 5 year OS was 79% (95% CI: 68-93). This was inferior to the background population (Figure 1, SMR=3.64, 95% CI: 2.11-6.27, p<0.0001). Eight patients had a progression after achieving EFS24 from autoHCT. OS from progression in these 8 patients (median OS=27.3 months, 95% CI: 14.4-NE; 5 year OS = 16%, 95% CI: 3-93) was improved compared to progression within 24 months of autoHCT (p=0.072, figure B). Cause of death (COD) in EFS24 achievers was progression of lymphoma (n=6), infection (n=1), secondary malignancy related to therapy (n=3), heart disease (n=1), and unknown (n=1). Conclusions: Patients achieving EFS24 after salvage chemotherapy and autoHCT have a favorable long-term prognosis; however, overall survival remained inferior to the general population. Most common COD after achieving EFS24 was progression of lymphoma. In spite of this, EFS24 remains a valuable end-point for informed clinical decisions, patient management, and future clinical trials. Figure 1 Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Ansell:Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding.