Witzig, Thomas E.

e19562 Background: Considerable healthcare resource utilization and financial burden have been associated with the treatment of Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM); however, the impact of health insurance status on patient outcomes has not been explored. We aimed to assess the insurance-based outcome relationship in WM using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods: We analyzed patient-level data obtained from the NCDB, a database representing more than 70% of newly diagnosed cancer cases nationwide. All newly diagnosed WM cases (n = 8540) between 2004 to 2017 were identified. Only patients who underwent treatment were included. Insurance status was recorded by assessing the primary payer at the time of diagnosis. Due to Medicare eligibility criteria, age-based (< 65 and ≥65 years) stratified analysis was conducted. Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to analyze survival. Time-to-event analysis was conducted based on date-of-diagnosis using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Results: Analysis was conducted on 3878 patients after meeting inclusion criteria, with a median follow-up time of 54.6 months. Among patients < 65 years (n = 1249; median age: 58 years; male: 62.4%), those with non-private insurance had inferior survival on multivariate analysis (Table) after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, income, education, treatment center characteristics, and treatment start time. Significant overall survival (OS) differences were seen in those < 65 years (log-rank p < 0.001), with 5-year OS highest among patients with private insurance 91.2%, compared to Medicaid 79.8%, uninsured 77.4%, and Medicare 70.2%. In patients < 65 years, compared to private insurance, uninsured patients were more likely to be of Black race, reside in lower income areas, and be treated at non-academic centers (all p < 0.05). Both Medicaid and Medicare patients < 65 years were more likely to have a higher Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index (> 1) and live in areas of lower educational attainment and household income compared to private insurance (all p < 0.05). In patients ≥65 years (n = 2629; median age: 75 years; 60.6% males), no insurance-based OS (log-rank p = 0.096) differences were seen. Conclusions: Based on our study, significant insurance-based disparities exist in WM, where patients < 65 years old who are uninsured, or non-privately insured are at a higher risk of mortality. While the root cause of these differences is not fully elucidated, efforts should focus on ensuring that all patients have equal access to care regardless of primary payer status.[Table: see text]

7562 Background: Lymphoma is the 6th most common cancer and a top 10 cause of cancer deaths. To date, there are no blood test approaches to population screening, and accurate surveillance markers are limited. Methylated DNA markers (MDMs) are broadly informative for early detection of cancer but have not been extensively studied for lymphomas. We sought to discover and validate MDMs in DNA extracted from lymphoma tissue, then test these MDMs in archival blood plasma specimens. Methods: Reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) was performed on DNA extracted from a discovery set of frozen tissues of classic Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL, n=24), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=78: T-cell-TCL (8); diffuse large B-cell-DLBCL (18); follicular-FL (12); mantle cell-MCL (20); marginal zone-MZL (15)), and lymphoma cell line samples (27); controls included benign lymph node (n=11) and healthy donor buffy coat (n=30). 30 MDMs were ranked by fold-change and AUC and used to design methylation-specific PCR assays for biological validation on independent DNA samples extracted from FFPE tissue from 13 normal lymph node and 63 lymphoma samples and 36 buffy coats from healthy patients. Target enrichment long-probe quantitative-amplified signal assays were developed for 16 MDMs and then assayed in plasma-extracted, bisulfite-converted DNA samples from 390 independent treatment-naïve lymphoma patients (100 CHL and 290 NHL:100 DLBCL, 73 FL, 41 MCL, 41 MZL, 35 TCL), and 210 controls without cancer. Lymphoma plasma samples and 159 controls were provided by the Lymphoma SPORE (CA97274); 51 controls came from a 7-county population archive. Classification of lymphoma cases vs controls was modeled with random forest method and cross-validated across 500 bootstrap samples of each dataset. Results: For MDMs tested in DNA from independent biological validation samples, cross-validated random forest models identified 60/63 cases (95% sensitivity) and 12/13 normal controls (92% specificity). In plasmas, a panel of 16 MDMs ( ZNF503, VWA5B1, HOXA9_5195, GABRG3, ITGA5, MAX_chr17_793, BNC1_2407, CDK20, MAX_chr4_184, TPBG, DNAH14, SYT2, CACNG8, FAM110B, and NRN1) detected 78% (95% CI, 74-82%) of lymphoma cases at 90% specificity. Excluding MZL and TCL, sensitivity increased to 84% (80-88%) including 26/49 (53% (38-67%)) of stage I and 59/71 (83% (71-90%)) of stage II cases. Conclusions: MDMs show promise to detect lymphoma. These markers could be evaluated as part of multicancer early detection testing and could also be evaluated as response markers to treatment and subsequent surveillance.[Table: see text]

TPS7076 Background: Clonal cytopenias of undetermined significance (CCUS) is operationally defined as unexplained persistent cytopenias arising in the context of leukemia-associated somatic driver mutations in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, without morphologic evidence for an underlying hematological neoplasm. Patients with TET2 mutant ( TET2MT) CCUS have a high probability of progression to myeloid neoplasms, with approximated 10-year cumulative rates of progression being 90%. To date, no FDA-approved treatment for CCUS has been established, and we have shown that these patients can have transfusion burdens akin to patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (Li M et al. Blood Adv 2020). Thus there is an urgent and unmet need for therapies for these patients. Intravenous (IV) ascorbic acid (AA) dosed at pharmacologic concentrations could have anti-cancer activity via two mechanisms: (1) hydrogen peroxide-induced oxidative stress and (2) DNA demethylation mediated by TET activation (cofactor for TET1/2/3). TET2, the primary enzyme for catalyzing oxidative reactions, converts 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine, a crucial step leading to iterative DNA demethylation. Our study hypothesis is that IV AA in TET2MT CCUS will restore hematopoiesis and limit clonal progression by stimulating TET2 (the unmutated allele) and TET3 activities. Methods: LS1781 (NCT03418038) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, single-arm, single-institution, phase II trial assessing the safety and preliminary efficacy of high dose of IV AA for patients with TET2MT CCUS (harboring ≥1 TET2MT or TET2MT combined with concurrent spliceosome MTs). IV AA (1g/kg, maximum 100g) is given 3 times weekly for 12 weeks through a central line with assessments being carried out before each cycle (4 weeks), at 12 weeks, and one year. The primary endpoint is the hematologic response rates determined by MDS IWG 2018 criteria. Secondary endpoints include safety and side effects. Exploratory endpoints include the impact of AA on TET2MT variant allele fraction, plasma cytokine levels, DNA methylation, and hydroxymethylation (as measured by Infinium MethylationEPIC array), and TET activity. Patients 18 years or older with TET2MT CCUS, and with any of the following laboratory criteria: (1) hemoglobin ≤10g/dL, (2) absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≤1000/mm3, (3) platelet count ≤100,000/mm3 are eligible. Fifteen patients will be enrolled at Mayo Clinic Rochester and the Mayo Clinic Health System. Dose modifications have been established and will be considered based on adverse events. Treatment will be discontinued for disease progression or in the event of ≥Grade 3 adverse events that don’t resolve promptly. Enrollment to the trial began in June 2021, with 7 patients enrolled at abstract submission. Clinical trial information: NCT03418038.

PURPOSE: Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year). CONCLUSION: Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

Clinical success with intravenous (IV) oncolytic virotherapy (OV) has to date been anecdotal. Here, we conducted a phase 1 clinical trial of systemic OV therapy and investigated the mechanisms of action in responding T-cell lymphoma (TCL) patients. A single IV dose of VSV-IFNβ-NIS was administered to patients with relapsed refractory hematologic malignancies to determine safety and efficacy across 4 dose levels (DL). Correlative studies were undertaken to evaluate viremia, virus shedding, virus replication and immune responses. Fifteen patients received VSV-IFNβ-NIS (7 multiple myeloma, 7 TCL, 1 acute myeloid leukemia); 3 patients were treated at each DL1 through DL3 (0.05, 0.17, and 0.5 x 1011 TCID50), and 6 at DL4 (1.7 x 1011 TCID50). There were no dose limiting toxicities. 3 of 7 patients with TCL had RECIST responses: a 3-month PR at DL2, a 6-month PR and a durable CR ongoing at 20 months at DL4. Viremia peaked at the end of infusion and no infectious virus shedding was detected. Plasma interferon-β levels, a biomarker of VSV-IFNβ-NIS replication, peaked between 4h and 48h post infusion. The patient with CR had robust viral replication with increased ell free DNA in her plasma, a very high peak IFNβ level of 18,213 pg/ml, a strong anti-VSV neutralizing antibody response, and increased numbers of tumor reactive T-cells. VSV-IFNβ-NIS as a single agent was effective in patients with TCL resulting in durable disease remissions in heavily pretreated patients. Correlative analyses suggest that responses may be due to a combination of direct oncolytic tumor destruction and immune-mediated tumor control. Further clinical testing is warranted. (This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03017820).

AbstractThe multicenter, phase Ib CC‐122‐DLBCL‐001 dose‐expansion study (NCT02031419) explored the cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD) agent avadomide (CC‐122) plus rituximab in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients received avadomide 3 mg/day 5 days on/2 days off plus rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 8 of cycle 1, day 1 of cycles 2 through 6, and day 1 of every third subsequent cycle for 2 years. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; preliminary efficacy was a secondary endpoint. A total of 68 patients were enrolled (DLBCL [n = 27], FL [n = 41; 31 lenalidomide‐naïve, 10 lenalidomide‐treated]). Median age was 62 years (range, 33–84 years), and patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1–8) prior regimens. Among patients with DLBCL, 66.7% had primary refractory disease (partial response or less to initial therapy). Among patients with FL, 65.9% were rituximab‐refractory at study entry and 10.0% were lenalidomide‐refractory. The most common any‐grade avadomide‐related adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (63.2%), infections/infestations (23.5%), fatigue (22.1%), and diarrhea (19.1%). The most common grade 3/4 avadomide‐related AEs were neutropenia (55.9%) infections/infestations (8.8%), and febrile neutropenia (7.4%). In patients with DLBCL, overall response rate (ORR) was 40.7% and median duration of response (mDOR) was 8.0 months. In patients with FL, ORR was 80.5% and mDOR was 27.6 months; response rates were similar in lenalidomide‐naïve and ‐treated patients. Avadomide plus rituximab was well tolerated, and preliminary antitumor activity was observed in patients with R/R DLBCL and FL, including subgroups with typically poor outcomes. These results support further investigation of novel CELMoD agents in combination with rituximab in R/R DLBCL and FL.

AbstractCastleman disease (CD) is a rare lymphoproliferative disease characterized by diverse clinical and pathologic features. Due to its rarity, there are limited studies comparing currently available therapies. The role of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in CD has not yet been established. In this paper, we describe the clinical characteristics, treatment choices, and outcomes in 34 Mayo Clinic patients diagnosed with multicentric CD from July 1, 2003 to April 30, 2018. Eighteen patients (53%) also met the criteria for POEMS, including 14 with the osteosclerotic variant. The first‐line treatments included: steroid monotherapy (4), cytotoxic chemotherapy (6), rituximab alone (8) or with chemotherapy (2), anti‐IL6 treatment (3), and ASCT (10). The median follow‐up was 4.8 (range: 0.1–15.2) years. The 5‐ and 10‐year overall survival rates were 84% and 71%, respectively. Sixteen patients received high‐dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT during their disease course. Among those, 14 had multicentric CD associated with POEMS. There were no transplant‐related deaths. All patients had at least a partial response to ASCT, most of whom achieved a complete response. The favorable outcomes seen with ASCT in this cohort suggest that transplantation may have a role in multicentric CD, particularly for patients with multicentric CD associated with POEMS.

AbstractErdheim–Chester disease (ECD) is a histiocytic neoplasm that predominantly harbors mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway variants. MAPK inhibitors typically are effective treatments, but mutations outside the MAPK pathway, such as CSF1R variants, may cause refractory ECD. We describe a patient with a novel somatic mutation in CSF1R (CSF1RR549_E554delinsQ) that resulted in refractory ECD affecting the central nervous system. Cell model studies, RNA sequencing analysis, and in silico protein modeling suggested that she had a gain‐of‐function mutation occurring in a region critical for autoinhibition. The patient was treated with pexidartinib, a CSF1R inhibitor, and has had a complete clinical and metabolic response lasting more than 1.5 years to date. To our knowledge, this is the first report to describe successful treatment of a patient with ECD by using an agent that specifically targets CSF1R. This case also highlights the critical role of individualized molecular profiling to identify novel therapeutic targets in ECD.

Abstract Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) is an important clinical endpoint in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 with frontline immunochemotherapy have minimal loss of lifetime compared to age- and sex-matched general population. However, the prognostic role of EFS24 in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has not been well studied, possibly due to the perception of continued relapse pattern and poor survival outcome of MCL historically. A recent study from our group demonstrated evolving frontline therapy pattern from 2002-2009 ("Era 1") to 2010-2015 ("Era 2") which was associated with improved EFS and overall survival (OS) in Era 2. In the current study, we sought to explore the prognostic role of EFS24 in the two eras. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from 9/2002 through 6/2015 were identified from Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), a prospective cohort study of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. OS was defined as time from diagnosis (or the EFS24 defining event where applicable) to death from any cause and was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Expected OS accounting for age and sex was generated in R by using the general US population as the reference group. Observed versus expected OS was summarized by using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of observed to expected deaths. Cumulative incidence of lymphoma-specific death was analyzed using Gray's test, with deaths from all other causes treated as competing events. Results: A total of 343 patients were included, 175 from Era 1 (median follow-up 13.0 years) and 168 from Era 2 (median follow-up 6.9 years). Age, sex and simplified MIPI score were similar between the 2 groups. Patients diagnosed in Era 2 had better OS, with a 5-year OS of 68.4% vs 59.2% (simplified MIPI-adjusted hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93). Patients diagnosed in both eras had inferior OS compared to the general population, with an SMR of 3.26 (95% CI 2.70-3.89, P&lt;0.001) in Era 1 and 2.63 (95% CI 2.03-3.36, P&lt;0.001) in Era 2. Patients diagnosed in Era 1 who achieved EFS24 (n=98) still had inferior OS compared to the general population, with an SMR of 2.23 (95% CI 1.67-2.92, P&lt;0.001) (Figure 1A). In contrast, for patients diagnosed in Era 2 who achieved EFS24 (n=99), no evidence of OS difference was found compared to the general population, with an SMR of 1.31 (95% CI 0.78-2.07, P=0.31) (Figure 1B). The primary cause of death after diagnosis was lymphoma-related for patients diagnosed in both eras. The 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 28.8% in Era 1 and 20.5% in Era 2. In patients who were diagnosed in Era 1 and achieved EFS24, the primary cause of death after achieving EFS24 remained to be lymphoma-related, with a 5-year rate of 19.8% compared to 6.2% for lymphoma-unrelated causes (Figure 1C). In contrast, in patients who were diagnosed in Era 2 and achieved EFS24, the rate of lymphoma-related death was no longer higher than that of lymphoma-unrelated death, with a 5-year rate of 2.1% vs 5.5%, respectively (Figure 1D). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to only patients who received standard frontline immunochemotherapy, similar results were obtained. For example, in patients who achieved EFS24, the SMR compared to the general population was 2.89 (95% CI 2.00-4.04, P&lt;0.001) in Era 1 and 0.89 (95% CI 0.43-1.64, P=0.82) in Era 2. The 5-year rates of deaths due to lymphoma-related vs lymphoma-unrelated causes were 20.7% vs 6.2% in Era 1 and 1.3% vs 4.9% in Era 2. Conclusions: MCL survival outcome has improved for patients first diagnosed in the more recent era (2010-2015, compared to 2002-2009), likely due to improved frontline therapy as well as better salvage treatments (such as lenalidomide and BTK inhibitors). In the more recent treatment era, patients who achieved EFS24 had survival approaching the age- and sex-matched general population. In addition, these patients had a low risk of dying from lymphoma and were more likely to die from other causes. Longer follow-up (e.g., in Era 2) and external validation in other series are necessary to confirm the prognostic role of EFS24. With more efficacious salvage treatment options and likely continued improvement of OS in MCL, EFS24 may become an important clinical endpoint in frontline therapy of MCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Link: Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy. Farooq: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: While extranodal involvement by mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is relatively common, involvement of the central nervous system (CNS) is rare (&lt;5% of cases), with limited treatment options. We report the outcomes of 36 patients (pts) with CNS involvement compared to 72 matched control MCL pts without CNS involvement. Methods: MCL pts with CNS involvement seen at Mayo Clinic between 1/1995-9/2020 were identified using the Mayo Data Explorer tool. CNS involvement was defined by tissue biopsy confirmed CNS MCL, CSF analysis demonstrating lymphoma cells, and/or neuroimaging findings compatible with CNS involvement. A 2:1 control group of MCL pts without CNS involvement, matched by age (+/- 2 years) and year of diagnosis (+/- 1 year), was selected among all MCL cases. Medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, treatment modalities, and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time to event analysis. Wilcoxon test was used to compare continuous variables and Chi square test was used for categorical variables. Results: Out of 1,753 pts with MCL, 36 (2%) had evidence of CNS involvement, including 4 pts with CNS involvement at initial MCL diagnosis. Baseline characteristics of pts with CNS involvement (CNS MCL group) and those without CNS involvement (control group) are shown in Table 1. At MCL diagnosis, non-CNS extranodal involvement was seen in 30 (83%) pts in the CNS MCL group (24 pts with 1 site and 6 pts with ≥ 2 sites), with bone marrow being the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=24, 67%). For the control group, 54 (75%) pts had extranodal involvement (44 pts with 1 site and 10 pts with ≥ 2 sites), and bone marrow was also the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=50, 69%). Notably, advanced stage disease (stage 3-4) was more commonly seen in the CNS MCL group (n=32, 97%) than in the control group (n=59, 83%) (p=0.04) at MCL diagnosis. Blastoid variant was present in a higher proportion of pts in the CNS MCL group (n=11, 31%) compared to the control group (n=8, 11%) (p=0.02). The CNS MCL group also presented with a higher median serum LDH at diagnosis (239 U/L [range 153-1901] vs. 187 U/L [range 124-588], p=0.02), and higher Ki-67 (40% [range 15-100] vs. 30% [range 10-90], p=0.04) compared to the control group. The most common frontline treatment regimen was anthracycline-based therapies (i.e. R-CHOP, Nordic regimen, R-hyperCVAD) for both groups (58% in CNS MCL group and 56% in control group). 14 (39%) pts in the CNS MCL group underwent autologous stem cell transplant in CR1 vs. 31 pts (43%) in the control group. Similar use of rituximab maintenance was seen in both groups (31% in CNS MCL group and 25% in control group). Median total lines of therapy from initial MCL diagnosis was 3 (range 1-9) in CNS MCL group and 2 (range 1-9) in the control group. The median follow-up from MCL diagnosis was 134 months (95% CI:119-163) for the entire cohort. Median OS from MCL diagnosis was 50.3 months (95% CI: 20.9-71.1) for the CNS MCL group compared to 97.1 months (95% CI: 82.6-192.7; p=&lt;0.001) for the control group (Figure 1). Median time from MCL diagnosis to CNS involvement was 25 months (range 0-167). Median OS from CNS involvement was 4.7 months (95% CI: 2.3-6.7). At last follow up, 31 (86%) pts were deceased from the CNS MCL group, compared to 38 (52%) pts in the control group. For the CNS MCL group, the causes of death were CNS lymphoma in 10 (32%) pts, systemic lymphoma in 9 (29%) pts, treatment-related complication in 7 (23%) pts, and other/unknown in 5 (16%) pts. For the control group, the causes of death were systemic lymphoma in 15 (39%) pts, treatment-related in 2 (5%) pts, and other/unknown in 21 (55%) pts. Conclusion: In pts with MCL, CNS involvement is associated with worse outcomes as evident by a shorter median OS from initial MCL diagnosis (50 months vs. 97 months). Involvement of the CNS by lymphoma is an important contributor for the shorter OS as suggested by the median OS of only 5 months from CNS involvement. Advanced stage, blastoid variant, elevated LDH, and elevated Ki67 at MCL diagnosis were features more commonly seen in the CNS MCL cohort. Validation of risk factors at initial MCL diagnosis associated with CNS involvement and exploring the role of CNS prophylaxis are important topics for further investigation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.