Ansell, Stephen M.

The recent development and clinical implementation of novel immunotherapies for the treatment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma have improved patient outcomes across subgroups. The rapid introduction of immunotherapeutic agents into the clinic, however, has presented significant questions regarding optimal treatment scheduling around existing chemotherapy/radiation options, as well as a need for improved understanding of how to properly manage patients and recognize toxicities. To address these challenges, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts in lymphoma to develop a clinical practice guideline for the education of healthcare professionals on various aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment. The panel discussed subjects including treatment scheduling, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and the integration of immunotherapy and stem cell transplant to form recommendations to guide healthcare professionals treating patients with lymphoma.

Abstract An effective antitumor immune response in patients with lymphoma would eradicate the malignant B cells and cure the patient of the disease. This, however, does not occur, and a suboptimal antitumor response results in persistence and subsequent progression of the patient’s disease. The goals of immunotherapy are therefore to restore an effective antitumor immune response by promoting immune recognition, optimizing immune activation, and supporting persistence of the immune response resulting in subsequent immunological memory. Multiple mechanisms, however, are present within the tumor microenvironment that account for an inadequate immune response. These include loss of major histocompatibility complex expression on tumor cells and subsequent inadequate antigen presentation, increased expression of immunosuppressive ligands on malignant cells, populations of immune cells with suppressive function present in the tumor, and cytokines secreted by the malignant cell or other cells in the microenvironment that promote immune exhaustion or suppress the immune response. Successful immunotherapeutic strategies are specifically addressing these issues by promoting antigen presentation, improving recognition of the malignant cell, directly activating T cells and natural killer cells, and blocking immune checkpoint signaling that would suppress the immune response. Many of these approaches have proven highly successful in patients with various subtypes of lymphoma and are now being incorporated into standard clinical practice.

Abstract The tumor microenvironment in lymphoproliferative disorders, including lymphoma, shows a prevalence of intratumoral T cells suggesting an effective immune response to malignant B cells. This supposes that antigen-presenting cells present tumor-associated peptides to the immune system, resulting in T cells that are primed to target the malignant clone. It is anticipated that activated T cells will target the malignant cells and eradicate the tumor. However, while T cells appear plentiful in the tumor microenvironment in B-cell lymphoma, they are not able to eradicate the malignancy. Rather, the T cells appear inhibited, either due to immune suppression or immune exhaustion, and the lymphoma steadily progresses. An effective antitumor response requires presentation of tumor antigens to T cells in the context of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) proteins. The cells then receive a second activating signal resulting in proliferation of the T cells, expansion of a tumor-specific T-cell clone, and generation of cytotoxic proteins that lyse the lymphoma cell. To control this process, however, inhibitory receptors are typically upregulated upon T-cell activation that allow the process to be suppressed. This prevents damage to healthy tissue from T cells that remain inappropriately activated for protracted periods of time. In lymphoid malignancies, however, malignant B cells commonly overexpress the ligands for PD-1, namely PD-L1 and PD-L2. This results in suppression of the activated T cells and prevents the malignant clone from being eradicated. This leads to a subsequent problem, in which effector T cells are restimulated by the persistent presence of malignant cells that expressed tumor antigens which they are targeting. This repeat stimulation results in activation-induced exhaustion and upregulation of additional receptors that make the cells susceptible to apoptosis. These receptors, including TIM3, TIGIT, and LAG3, are then expressed on T cells whose effector function is severely impaired. The effector T cells expressing TIM3 and LAG3 have very little ability to proliferate or generate cytokines. Additional mechanisms that inhibit T-cell activation are present in lymphoma and include cytokine- and cell-mediated suppression. Among cytokines that mediate T-cell suppression, TGF-β plays a pivotal role in regulating immune responses by inhibiting the proliferation and differentiation in both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. In B-cell malignancies, both malignant B cells and intratumoral T cells can synthesize and secrete TGF-β, and TGF-β inhibits intratumoral T-cell proliferation, upregulates Foxp3 expression, and suppresses the development of TH1 and TH17 cells. Similarly, IL-10 also inhibits the proliferation, cytokine production, and migratory capacities of T cells. IL-10 downregulates expression of MHC class II as well as costimulatory molecules CD80 and CD86 on dendritic cells, resulting in suboptimal stimulation of T cells. Furthermore, IL-10-expressing dendritic cells promote T regulatory cell development. In B-cell NHL, it has been shown that serum IL-10 levels are elevated and correlate with a poor prognosis. IL-10 further affects monocytes by downregulating HLA-DR expression, and IL-10-induced CD14+HLA-DRlow/- monocytes inhibit T-cell activation and proliferation. In addition to regulatory cytokines, cell-mediated suppression plays a crucial role in T-cell suppression. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and CD4+ regulatory T cells are two major types of cells mediating T-cell suppression. In B-cell NHL, increased numbers of MDSCs may contribute to elevated absolute monocytosis at diagnosis that correlates with poor outcome in In DLBCL patients. Tumor-infiltrating MDSCs promote cross-tolerance in B-cell lymphoma by expanding or recruiting regulatory T cells, which supports tumor growth. Regulatory T cells also suppress immune function. In B-cell NHL, we have found that the frequency of regulatory T cells is increased in biopsy specimens. Regulatory T cells suppress proliferation and cytokine production of intratumoral CD4+ cells as well as granule secretion by CD8+ T cells, resulting in suppressed cytotoxicity of effector T cells. We found that both recruitment of naturally occurring regulatory T cells and induction of inducible regulatory T cells contribute to elevated frequency of these cells in the tumor microenvironment of B-cell NHL. Furthermore, malignant B cells play a role in the recruitment and induction of regulatory T cells as chemokine CCL22 secreted by lymphoma cells and CD70 expression by CD19+ lymphoma cells are involved in the process. All of these mechanisms that result in T-cell suppression and exhaustion prevent an effective antitumor immune response in lymphoma. Combination strategies that both activate T cells and prevent their inhibition and suppression are needed to rectify these issues. Citation Format: Stephen M. Ansell. Immune exhaustion and suppression in lymphoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: Advances in Malignant Lymphoma; 2020 Aug 17-19. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Blood Cancer Discov 2020;1(3_Suppl):Abstract nr IA02.

SummaryIbrutinib is associated with durable responses in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinaemia (WM). We hypothesized that response depth is predictive of progression‐free survival (PFS) in WM patients treated with ibrutinib. Using landmark analyses, we evaluated response depth in two cohorts of WM patients treated with ibrutinib monotherapy. The learning cohort was composed of 93 participants from two clinical trials, and the validation cohort of 190 consecutive patients treated off clinical trial. Rates of partial response (PR) or better at six months in learning and validation cohorts were 64% and 71% respectively (P = 0·29). In the learning cohort, three‐year PFS rates for patients who attained PR or better at six monthsversusnot were 81% and 57% respectively (P = 0·009). In the validation cohort, three‐year PFS rates for patients who attained PR or better at six monthsversusnot were 83% and 54% respectively (P = 0·008). In multivariate analyses, attaining PR or better at six months was associated with superior PFS in the learning [hazard ratio (HR) 0·38;P = 0·01] and validation cohorts (HR 0·18;P = 0·004). Attaining PR at six months on ibrutinib emerges as an intermediate outcome of interest and should be validated as surrogate for PFS in clinical trials evaluating Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in WM.

Key Points Systemic immune microenvironment signatures in CMML indicate an altered T- and natural killer cell balance. CMML bone marrow dendritic cell aggregates associate with disease progression and systemic regulatory T-cell phenotypic switch.

Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) is a rare subtype of T-cell lymphoma associated with an aggressive clinical course and a worse prognosis. HSTCL develops in the setting of chronic immune suppression or immune dysregulation in up to 20% of cases and is most often characterized by spleen, liver, and bone marrow involvement. Diagnosis and management of HSTCL pose significant challenges given the rarity of the disease along with the absence of lymphadenopathy and poor outcome with conventional chemotherapy regimens. These Guidelines Insights focus on the diagnosis and treatment of HSTCL as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for T-Cell Lymphomas.

BACKGROUND: Odronextamab (REGN1979) is a first-in-class, hinge-stabilized, fully human IgG4-based CD3 x CD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) that has demonstrated encouraging safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy in a first-in-human study of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL). We report updated safety and efficacy data from the dose escalation and early dose expansion phase of the ongoing Phase (P)1 study (NCT02290951). METHODS: Odronextamab was administered using a step-up dose schedule consisting of an initial dose at Week (W)1, an intermediate dose at W2, and thereafter, a fixed weekly dose until W12 followed by maintenance Q2W dosing. Dexamethasone premedication was used to mitigate the risk for cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Key primary objectives were to assess safety and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and to establish a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended P2 dosing regimen (RP2DR). Secondary objectives included a preliminary assessment of anti-tumor activity. RESULTS: As of Jun 25, 2020, 127 pts with R/R B-NHL have been treated at doses ranging from 0.03-320 mg. The study included pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n=71), follicular lymphoma (FL) Grade (Gr) 1-3a (n=37), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n=11), marginal zone lymphoma (n=6), and other B-NHLs (n=2). Pts were highly refractory (80.3%) and had received a median of 3 (range: 1‒11) prior lines of therapy; 29 pts (22.8%) received prior CAR T therapy (FL: 2; DLBCL: 25; MCL: 2) and 85 pts (66.9%) were double refractory to alkylator and anti-CD20 antibody, in any line of therapy. Median follow-up was 3.9 (0.4‒37.6) months (mo). No DLTs were reported during dose escalation and MTD was not reached with odronextamab doses up to 320 mg weekly. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade were pyrexia (76.4%), CRS (62.2%), and chills (48.0%). Gr 3 CRS occurred in 8 pts (6.3%) and a Gr 4 CRS occurred in 1 pt (0.8%). Most of the CRS events occurred during the first 2 weeks of step-up dosing and resolved within a median of 2 days (range 1-41) with supportive care measures. No pts discontinued odronextamab treatment due to CRS. Gr 3 neurologic AEs were noted in 5 pts, of which only 3 (2.3%) were considered treatment-related: somnolence, syncope, and encephalopathy. None of these events required treatment discontinuation. There were no Gr 4 or higher neurologic AEs. Overall, 7 pts (5.5%) discontinued treatment due to treatment-related AEs. In pts with R/R FL Gr 1-3a, odronextamab demonstrated a broad window of therapeutic activity. In pts treated at doses of ≥5 mg (n=28), objective response rate (ORR) was 92.9%, and complete response (CR) rate was 75.0%; median duration of response (DoR) was 7.7 mo (range 0+-20.9+), with 13 of 21 CRs ongoing at last tumor assessment. The median duration of complete response (DoCR) was 8.1 mo (range 0+-19.9+) and follow-up is ongoing (Table). In pts with R/R DLBCL, encouraging activity was observed at higher odronextamab dose levels. In DLBCL pts who had not received prior CAR T therapy, treated at doses ≥80 mg (n=10), ORR and CR rate were 60%; median observed DoR was 10.3 mo (range 2.9-18.6+), with 4 of 6 CRs ongoing at last tumor assessment. The median DoCR was 9.5 mo (range 2.9-18.6+) and follow-up is ongoing. In DLBCL pts who were refractory to prior CAR T therapy, treated at doses ≥80 mg (n=21), ORR was 33.3%, and CR rate was 23.8%; median observed DoR was 2.8 mo (range 0+-18.9+), with 5 of 5 CRs ongoing at last tumor assessment. The median DoCR was 4.4 mo (range 0+-18.9+) and follow-up is ongoing. Based on an evaluation of preliminary antitumor activity and PK, RP2DR was identified for dose expansion cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Odronextamab has demonstrated encouraging single agent antitumor activity in highly refractory pts with B-NHLs. Durable CRs have been observed in both indolent and aggressive B-NHL pts, including in pts refractory to CAR T therapy. Most CRs are ongoing at time of data cutoff, and updated data will be presented. Odronextamab has an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Dexamethasone premedication and step-up dosing mitigates the risk for CRS and allows odronextamab administration up to 320 mg weekly without DLTs. A global P2 trial investigating odronextamab in R/R B-NHL is ongoing. Disclosures Bannerji: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Sanofi-Pasteur: Other: Spouse is employee; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc and Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding. Allan:Acerta, Genentech, Abbvie, Sunesis, Ascentage, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Consultancy; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Arnason:Regeneron: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy. Brown:Catapult: Consultancy; Sun: Research Funding; Loxo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Nextcea: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; Dynamo Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Invectys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: DSMC; Acerta: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy. Advani:Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding. O'Brien:Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta: Research Funding; Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc. Vaniam Group, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Eisai, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures: Consultancy. Duell:Morphosys: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Li:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Flink:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zhu:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Weinreich:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yancopoulos:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sirulnik:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chaudhry:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ambati:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Topp:Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, KITE, Regeneron, Roche: Research Funding; Amgen, KITE, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: The data described in the abstract will report on use of odronextamab in a Phase 1 clinical trial of patients with B-NHL

Despite recent developments in the therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Richter's transformation (RT), an aggressive lymphoma, remains a clinical challenge. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has shown promise in selective lymphoma types, however, only 30-40% RT patients respond to anti-PD1 pembrolizumab; while the underlying CLL failed to respond and 10% CLL patients progress rapidly within 2 months of treatment. Studies indicate pre-existing T cells in tumor biopsies are associated with a greater anti-PD1 response, hence we hypothesized that pre-existing T cell subset characteristics and regulation in anti-PD1 responders differed from those who progressed in CLL. We used mass cytometry (CyTOF) to analyze T cell subsets isolated from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from 19 patients with who received pembrolizumab as a single agent. PBMCs were obtained baseline(pre-therapy) and within 3 months of therapy initiation. Among this cohort, 3 patients had complete or partial response (responders), 2 patients had rapid disease progression (progressors) (Fig. A), and 14 had stable disease (non-responders) within the first 3 months of therapy. CyTOF analysis revealed that Treg subsets in responders as compared with progressors or non-responders (MFI -55 vs.30, p=0.001) at both baseline and post-therapy were increased (Fig. B). This quantitative analysis indicated an existing difference in Tregs and distinct molecular dynamic changes in response to pembrolizumab between responders and progressors. To delineate the T cell characteristics in progressors and responders, we performed single-cell RNA-seq (SC-RNA-seq; 10X Genomics platform) using T (CD3+) cells enriched from PBMCs derived from three patients (1 responder: RS2; 2 progressors: CLL14, CLL17) before and after treatment. A total of ~10000 cells were captured and an average of 1215 genes was detected per cell. Using a clustering approach (Seurat V3.1.5), we identified 7 T cell clusters based on transcriptional signature (Fig.C). Responders had a larger fraction of Tregs (Cluster 5) as compared with progressors (p=0.03, Fig. D), and these Tregs showed an IFN-related gene signature (Fig. E). To determine any changes in the cellular circuitry in Tregs between responders and progressors, we used FOXP3, CD25, and CD127 as markers for Tregs in our SC-RNA-seq data. We saw a greater expression of FOXP3, CD25, CD127, in RS2 in comparison to CLL17 and CLL14. Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) revealed the upregulation of genes involved in lymphocyte activation and FOXP3-regulated Treg development-related pathways in the responder's Tregs (Fig.F). Together, the greater expression of genes involved in Treg activation may reduce the suppressive functions of Tregs, which led to the response to anti-PD1 treatment seen in RS2 consistent with Tregs in melanoma. To delineate any state changes in T cells between progressors and responder, we performed trajectory analysis using Monocle (R package tool) and identified enrichment of MYC/TNF/IFNG gene signature in state 1 and an effector T signature in state 3 For RS2 after treatment (p=0.003), indicating pembrolizumab induced proliferative and functional T cell signatures in the responder only. Further, our single-cell results were supported by the T cell receptor (TCR beta) repertoire analysis (Adaptive Biotechnology). As an inverse measure of TCR diversity, productive TCR clonality in CLL14 and CLL17 samples was 0.638 and 0.408 at baseline, respectively. Fifty percent of all peripheral blood T cells were represented by one large TCR clone in CLL14(progressor) suggesting tumor related T-cell clone expansion. In contrast, RS2(responder) contained a profile of diverse T cell clones with a clonality of 0.027 (Fig. H). Pembrolizumab therapy did not change the clonality of the three patients during the treatment course (data not shown). In summary, we identified enriched Treg signatures delineating responders from progressors on pembrolizumab treatment, paradoxical to the current understanding of T cell subsets in solid tumors. However, these data are consistent with the recent observation that the presence of Tregs suggests a better prognosis in Hodgkin lymphoma, Follicular lymphoma, and other hematological malignancies. Figure 1 Disclosures Kay: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Ansell:AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ding:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: pembrolizumab

Background: Observation or "wait and watch" (W/W) strategy remains a viable option in the rituximab era for asymptomatic, stage II-IV, low-tumor burden patients with FL grade 1-2, 3A. Studies to date both in pre and post rituximab era have not shown an overall survival benefit from immediate treatment in such low-risk patients.To improve our understanding and to better counsel FL patients on W/W strategy, we sought to estimate the incidence of treatment initiation at landmark time points in our prospectively observed cohort from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). We further evaluate the association between the presence of GELF criteria (MER treatment criteria) at diagnosis and initiation of treatment patterns, transformation rates and cause of death in FL patients managed by W/W. Methods: FL patients on W/W strategy were identified from MER of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. From 2002-2015, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed FL were offered enrollment. Patients were managed per treating physician and followed prospectively. Baseline clinical and pathological data were abstracted using a standard protocol. Cumulative incidence estimates of treatment initiation for follicular lymphoma were calculated using transformation to large cell lymphoma (as the first event) and death due to any cause as competing risks. Transformation was defined based on biopsy-proven disease. Patients were retrospectively considered to meet treatment criteria at diagnosis if they had the presence of any GELF criteria components per available abstracted data in the MER database. Not all GELF criteria were prospectively assessed and captured for all patients, and thus the MER treatment criteria utilized here will be conservative for formal GELF assessment. Results: A total of 401 FL patients were identified in MER on W/W strategy. Baseline characteristics for W/W patients showed a favorable profile such as normal LDH (89%), low and intermediate FLIPI score in 48% and 35% respectively, no B symptoms (97%), low tumor burden (<4 nodal groups) in 72%, and GELF positive vs. negative in 36% and 64% respectively. At a median follow up of 8 years (IQR 5.9-12), 64% initiated treatment for FL only. Cumulative incidence estimates of treatment initiation at sequential time points were calculated from the initiation of observation (Table1&2). At diagnosis, the likelihood of treatment initiation was 15%, 26%, and 42% in the next 1, 2, and 5 years. The incidence of treatment initiation decreased over time as patients remained treatment-free after diagnosis (Figure 1A [blue curve]). Patients that met MER treatment criteria had increased rates of therapy initiation (33.2% vs. 21.9%) in the next two years and untreated transformation to large cell lymphoma [red curve] (8.7% vs. 4.5%) during the next 5 years (Figure 1B). Despite this, the rate of lymphoma related death at 10 years was similar between groups (met treatment criteria = 6.2% vs. 7.1%) (Figure 1C, [green curve]). Discussion: The longer duration of W/W strategy suggests a decreasing need for treatment over time. We provide time point estimates, which would be helpful for counseling patients. Of note, long-term continuous oncologic assessment and follow-up is necessary since approximately 66% of patients in this mature cohort initiated treatment by 8 years median follow up. MER treatment criteria at diagnosis identified patients with higher rates of transformation and therapy initiation in the first two years but did not identify those with worse lymphoma specific survival. Identification of biological differences in patients with early vs. late or no progression is a critical next step in understanding outcomes in W/W patients. Disclosures Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Wang:Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Witzig:MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Maurer:Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: FL is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the Western world. FL may cause disease-related symptoms, and patients with high-risk disease usually require systemic therapy. BR is commonly used as first-line therapy for high-risk FL, and the addition of bortezomib to a BR backbone has been studied (Evens A et al. Clin Can Res 2020). Little is known about how these therapeutic options impact patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). To fill this gap, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were administered to patients enrolled on E2408 to quantify symptom burden and effects of BR versus BVR induction on HRQL. Methods: Patients (n=258) randomized to receive 6 cycles of BR or BVR induction completed PROs assessing neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) at the beginning of each treatment cycle. Additional PROs measuring fatigue (FACT-F), lymphoma-specific concerns (FACT-Lym) and HRQL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G) were completed at baseline, mid-treatment (MT; cycle 3/4) and end of induction (EOI; cycle 6). Paired t-test was used to assess PRO score changes from baseline to MT and EOI within BR or BVR group. Two-sample t-test was used to compare change scores between groups at MT and EOI, respectively. Univariate analyses with a linear model identified patient baseline characteristics and clinical factors (age, sex, stage, performance status, # extra nodal sites, FLIPI, GELF, bone marrow involvement, elevated LDH, palpable splenomegaly, B-symptoms, CRIS) associated with PRO change scores from baseline to EOI, adjusting for treatment group. A multivariate model was built with backward variable selection approach for each of the PROs. Results: As shown in Figure 1, compared with baseline, patients randomized to BVR reported significantly worse FACT/GOG-Ntx scores at cycle 4, which continued to end of induction (FACT/GOG-Ntx change scores -2.91 to -3.73; p < 0.001). Neurotoxicity remained stable for patients treated with BR (Ntx change scores -0.02 to -0.55). FACT-Fatigue scores indicated worse fatigue at MT compared to baseline for patients receiving BVR (-2.7, p<0.05), yet they remained stable for BR. FACT-Lym scores were significantly higher at MT (BR: 2.69, p<0.001; BVR: 2.71, p=0.007) and end of induction (BR: 3.32, p<0.001; BVR: 3.55, p<0.001) compared to baseline, signifying a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms in both arms. FACT-G scores were comparable between treatment arms at each time-point and did not change significantly from baseline to end of induction. Univariate analyses among all patients identified older age and the absence of palpable splenomegaly at baseline as associated with worse FACT-Lym, FACT-Fatigue, and FACT-G change scores, signifying less improvement in lymphoma-related symptoms, fatigue and HRQL from baseline to end of induction (p<0.01). The presence of B-symptoms at baseline was associated with a greater reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms and fatigue from baseline to end of induction (p<0.01). Higher ECOG performance status was only associated with higher FACT-Fatigue change score, suggesting more improvement in fatigue for those with worse performance status at baseline. A multivariate model generated similar results. Conclusions: Despite worse treatment-related symptoms throughout induction, the addition of bortezomib was associated with comparable overall HRQL to those treated with BR. Both treatments were associated with a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms from baseline to end of induction, likely contributing to stable HRQL throughout treatment despite treatment-related symptoms. Findings also suggest that a subgroup of patients, particularly those who are older, may experience fewer improvements in lymphoma-related symptoms. This underscores the potential need for closer monitoring and clinical management of these patients. Collectively, results are likely to be encouraging for patients experiencing lymphoma-related symptoms, for whom the symptom burden associated with treatment may be worth the trade-off given the potential for improved disease-related symptom control. Disclosures Evens: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Advani:Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Winter:Norvartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: DSMB; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board. Cella:FACIT.org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: President; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pled Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Kiniksa: Consultancy; IDDI: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASAHI KASEI PHARMA CORP.: Consultancy; Oncoquest: Consultancy; Mei Pharma: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Evidera: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy, Research Funding; BlueNote: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; PROMIS Health Org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner:Celgene Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Connect Multiple Myeloma Registry: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.