Joseph, Ashlee

Abstract The benefit of rituximab maintenance after first-line (1L) bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains uncertain, with inconsistent results from the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial and several retrospective studies. We conducted a large retrospective study at 27 US and Canadian academic centers to examine the benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR. A total of 911 patients received 1L BR between 2010 and 2020, and 703 had an objective response and no evidence of disease progression at the 3-month post-BR landmark. Among those, 394 (56%) received rituximab maintenance and 309 (44%) did not, with largely similar baseline patient and disease characteristics. In the landmark analysis, rituximab maintenance was associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; median, 49.9 vs 29.7 months; P< .001) as well as overall survival (OS; median, 109.5 vs 74.2 months; P< .001). The EFS and OS benefits were observed across most of the subgroups. EFS and OS differences were statistically significant in those who achieved a complete response to 1L BR (n = 590; median EFS, 62.7 vs 31.1 months [P< .001]; median OS, 136.1 vs 75.3 months [P< .001]), but the analysis among those who achieved a partial response to 1L BR was limited by the small sample size. These results provide additional evidence for the survival benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR in MCL and support its use in clinical trial design and routine practice.

Abstract Introduction: cBTKi have made a substantial impact in pts w/ MCL, but pts who develop PD while on treatment w/ cBTKi have historically had poor responses to subsequent lines of therapy (LOT). Brexucel, lisocel, and the non-covalent BTKi pirto have been approved in this population. While two RW studies have substantiated the benefit of brexucel, similar data for pirto are lacking. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of pts treated w/ pirto in the RW setting. Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study of adult pts w/ a diagnosis of MCL who experienced PD after any approved cBTKi and subsequently received pirto. Pts who received pirto w/ bridging intent and those who switched to pirto due to intolerance of cBTKi were excluded. The 95% exact binomial confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CRR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were defined as the time from pirto start to PD or death, whichever occurred first, and the time from pirto start to death, respectively, and calculated w/ the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. A multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazard model was built to calculate adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). Analyses were performed w/ SAS, version 9.4. Results: Data on 111 pts w/ MCL treated across 21 institutions were collected. Median (mdn) age was 72 (range 33 – 93) years. Twenty-seven pts (24%) were female, 3 (3%) were Asian, 5 (5%) Black, 9 (8%) Hispanic, 86 (77%) White. Among the 53 (48%) pts w/ available MIPI-c at diagnosis, 28 (53%) pts were high-risk. Ki67 at diagnosis was available in 84 (76%) pts: of those, 58 (69%) had a Ki67 ≥30%, and 41 (49%) ≥50%. TP53 mutational status was available in 70 (63%) pts: 33 (47%) had documented TP53 mutation and 10/52 (19%) pts had a disease w/ complex karyotype. Pts had a mdn of 3 (range 1 – 9) prior LOT (n=106). Ninety-one pts (86%) received chemo-immunotherapy (CIT), 16 (15%) autologous stem cell transplant, 19 (18%) venetoclax (ven), 29 (27%) chimeric antigen receptor T-cell, 4 (4%) allogeneic stem cell transplant. For cBTKi, 39 (35%) pts received ibrutinib, 56 (50%) pts acalabrutinib, 33 (30%) pts zanubrutinib, and 17 (15%) pts received more than one cBTKi. The mdn time from the last dose of cBTKi to pirto start was 55 (range 0 – 2587) days, w/ 51 (46%) pts who switched from a cBTKi directly to pirto. Thirty (27%) pts had no response (stable disease or PD as best response) to cBTKi, and 40 (36%) pts had no response to the last LOT. Two (2%) pts received pirto in combination w/ CIT, 8 (7%) w/ an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb), 11 (10%) w/ ven ± a mAb, while 86 (77%) pts as single agent. In 104 (94%) pts, pirto was given at full dose, 10 (9%) pts had a subsequent dose reduction. A total of 35 serious (grade ≥3) adverse events (AE) were documented in 27 (24%) pts: 4 (4%) pts had a serious bleeding AE, 5 (5%) pts a serious cardiac AE, 10 (9%) a serious GI AE, and 16 (14%) a serious infectious AE. Ninety-eight (88%) pts were evaluable for response. The ORR was 40% (95% CI 30% – 50%) w/ a CRR of 29% (95% CI 20%– 39%). At the last follow-up, 29 (26%) pts remained on pirto w/ a mdn treatment duration of 15.1 months (range 0.4 – 26). Fifty-eight (52%) pts died, 35 (78%) because of PD. At a mdn follow-up of 15.8 (range 0.4 – 26) months among survivors, the mdn PFS was 4.7 months (95% CI 3.3 – 8.2) and the mdn OS was 13 months (95% CI 9.2 – not available). Using the log-rank test, age (quartile groups), number of LOT (1-2 vs. 3-4 vs. 5+), time from cBTKi to pirto (quartile groups), Ki67≥30%, and high MIPI-C did not result in a statistically significant difference in PFS (p>0.05). Presence of TP53 mutation was associated w/ a non-statistically significant adverse trend in PFS (p=0.0585). No response to cBTKi and Ki67≥50% were associated w/ a statistically significant inferior PFS in log-rank test (p=<0.05), which persisted in a MV Cox regression model (aHR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-4.2, and aHR 2.6, 95% CI 1.6-4.4, respectively). Conclusions: This is the first RW report on pirto in MCL pts. In this high-risk population, ORR to pirto was comparable to the BRUIN trial, while PFS was significantly worse, especially in pts w/ no response to cBTKi and w/ a high Ki67. However, prolonged remissions were seen in a subset of pts, suggesting that a better characterization of this population w/ durable benefit from pirto is needed.

Abstract The treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients experiencing progression of disease (POD) following CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are undefined. We identified all patients who received CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy for R/R MCL therapy across 15 international centers, and studied those experiencing POD post–CAR T-cell therapy in detail. We extracted clinical/treatment/pathologic variables, and associated these features with survival outcomes. In total, 384 patients received CAR T-cell therapy, and 135 (35%) experienced POD. POD occurred at a median of 6 months following CAR T-cell therapy infusion, and most (64%) patients with POD had complete response as best response to CAR T-cell therapy. Tumor features at POD included blastoid/pleomorphic morphology in 29 of 78 (37%) patients, and TP53 mutation in 21 of 41 (51%) patients. Following POD, 17 patients received no further therapy, 13 underwent local therapy, and 105 received systemic therapy. The most common first-line systemic therapies were chemo(immuno)therapy (22 patients; overall response rate [ORR], 40%), pirtobrutinib (17 patients; ORR, 36%), and bispecific antibodies (13 patients; ORR, 67%). Among patients experiencing POD, the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 2.5 months and 5.4 months, respectively, from POD. Lack of response to CAR T-cell therapy and short time from CAR T-cell therapy infusion to POD (<3 vs 3-6 vs >6 months), among other factors, were associated with inferior OS after POD. In conclusion, we confirm the challenging prognosis for patients experiencing POD following CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for R/R MCL, and establish a benchmark for future investigations in this patient population.

Background: CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is an established treatment with high efficacy in treating relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). However, with CAR-T therapy, refractory disease occurs and a continuous pattern of relapse over time has been observed. Limited data exist about post-CAR-T progression of disease (POD) management and outcomes in MCL. Such data would meaningfully inform practice and set a critical benchmark for future studies in the post-CAR-T setting. We characterized treatment patterns and outcomes for pts with POD after CD19 CAR-T therapy for R/R MCL. Methods: We queried institutional databases to identify pts with R/R MCL who received CD19-directed CAR-T therapy. Treatment may have occurred as standard-of-care or in a clinical trial. We performed chart review to extract variables and categorized therapies by mechanism(s) of action. We used descriptive statistics to characterize patient/disease characteristics and treatment patterns, the reverse Kaplan-Meier method to calculate follow-up, the Kaplan-Meier method to calculate survival, and Cox proportional hazards to associate clinical and disease features with survival outcomes. Results: Across 9 sites, we identified 306 pts who received CD19 CAR-T for R/R MCL, of which 104 (34%) experienced POD and were investigated in detail: pts with POD were mostly men (73%), had a median age of 67 yrs (range 36-86) at infusion, and had received a median of 3 lines of therapy pre-leukapheresis, including a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) in 97% of patients; 36% of BTKi-exposed patients had BTKi-unresponsive disease. High-risk tumor features were common pre-CAR-T: 47/68 (69%) with a TP53 mutation, 66/93 (71%) with Ki67 ≥50%, and 47/102 (46%) with blastoid/pleomorphic MCL. Most pts (75%) received bridging therapy. Pts received brexucabtagene autoleucel (88%) or lisocabtagene maraleucel (12%). Regarding best CAR-T response for pts with POD, 71% had a complete response (CR), 13% partial response (PR), and 15% had no response. The median time from CAR-T infusion to POD was 6 months (IQR 3-12). At time of POD, high-risk MCL features were again common: 55% blastoid/pleomorphic, 42/56 (75%) Ki67 ≥50%, 51/83 (61%) MIPIb high-risk, and 21/35 (60%) TP53-mutated MCL. Among 69 pts with CD19 assessed on a post-POD biopsy, 8 (12%) had CD19-negative disease. 30% of pts had an ECOG performance status of ≥2 at time of POD. After POD occurred, 15 pts received no anti-lymphoma therapy (Tx), 11 pts underwent excision or radiation, and 78 pts received systemic therapy. The most commonly used first-line systemic Tx post-CAR-T progression included: pirtobrutinib in 13 pts [overall response rate (ORR) 31%], chemoimmunotherapy in 12 pts (ORR 25%), venetoclax in 10 patients (ORR 20%), bispecific antibodies (BsAb) in 10 pts (ORR 60%), and small molecule combinations (at least 2 of BTK inhibitor, BCL2 inhibitor, and lenalidomide) in 8 patients with ORR 50%. The ORR to all first systemic Tx post-POD was 42%. The median follow-up from POD is 15.2 months among survivors. The median progression-free and overall survival (OS) from time of POD were 2.3 (95% CI 1.9-3.4) and 5.4 months (95% CI 4.5-9.4), respectively, and 1-year OS rate was 33%. TP53 mutations predicted inferior OS (HR 2.83, 95% CI 1.08-7.43, P = 0.026) as did age ≥65 years at time of POD (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07-3.15, P = 0.023), MIPIb high-risk (HR 3.56, 95% CI 1.08-11.7, P = 0.042), and non-response to CAR-T (HR 3.55, 95% CI 1.93-6.53, P < 0.001). Discussion: Our data, the largest reported cohort of pts with POD post-CAR-T with R/R MCL, confirm the poor prognosis in this patient population, with a median OS of 5.4 months. BsAbs showed promise with an overall response rate of 60%. The presence of a TP53 mutation significantly predicted inferior OS, corroborating the prognostic importance of this finding in the post-CAR-T context. Data from pts treated at additional sites and updated analyses will be presented at the meeting.

Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a standard-of-care first-line (1L) therapy for older or unfit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The SHINE trial compared BR with rituximab maintenance plus ibrutinib vs placebo in patients ≥65 years old and showed that the ibrutinib arm had significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median 80.6 vs 52.9 months) but similar overall survival (OS; 57% vs 55% at 7 years) compared to the placebo arm. Whether sequential treatment with BR in 1L and a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) in second-line (2L) can result in a similar cumulative PFS compared to 1L BR plus BTKi combination therapy is unknown. To provide insight to this question, we modeled observational data to evaluate MCL outcomes after 1L BR and 2L BTKi therapy in the BTKi era. Methods: Patients with MCL who received 1L BR with or without rituximab maintenance in 2014-2020 at one of the 27 participating centers were included. Exclusion criteria included participation in the SHINE or ECHO trials, any additional 1L therapy other than BR (with or without rituximab maintenance), and stem cell transplant consolidation after 1L BR. Baseline characteristics, treatment, and follow-up data were abstracted by chart review. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from index line treatment start to the first event (progression, relapse, retreatment, or death). OS was defined as time from index line treatment start to death. Using an intention-to-treat (ITT) framework, EFS2 was defined as time from 1L BR start to progression, relapse, or retreatment following 2L BTKi treatment or death. Patients who received a non-BTKi treatment at 2L were censored for EFS2 at 2L treatment start; living patients without an event following 1L BR or 2L BTKi were censored for EFS2 at last follow-up. Results: A total of 618 patients with MCL who received 1L BR in 2014-2020 were included. The median age was 71 (IQR 65-76) years, and 447 (72%) were male. 59 (11%) patients had an ECOG PS ≥2, 566 (93%) had stage III-IV disease, and simplified MIPI was low in 105 (21%), intermediate in 200 (39%), and high in 202 (40%) patients. The median follow-up following 1L BR start was 57.4 (95% CI 53.8-63.2) months. Response data were available in 580 patients, and the best ORR was 92% (79% complete response [CR] and 13% partial response [PR]). 258 (42%) patients received rituximab maintenance. As of last follow-up, 255 patients were alive and in remission after 1L BR, 92 patients died without 2L therapy, and 271 patients received a 2L therapy. The median EFS was 34.1 (95% CI 31.0-40.0) months. The median OS was 97.8 (95% CI 81.2-NA) months, the 5-year OS rate was 58.6% (95% CI 54.4-63.2), and the 7-year OS rate was 56.7% (95% CI 52.4-61.5) (Fig 1). Among the 271 patients who started a 2L treatment, 203 (75%) received a BTKi at 2L - 101 (50%) ibrutinib, 76 (37%) acalabrutinib, and 26 (13%) zanubrutinib. The median follow-up following 2L BTKi start was 38.5 (95% CI 31.3-45.1) months. Response data were available in 171 patients, and the best ORR was 64% (36% CR, 28% PR). The median EFS was 10.7 (95% CI 7.7-14.0) months, and the median OS was 24.8 (95% CI 17.3-33.1) months with 2L BTKi therapy (Fig 2). By ITT analysis, the median EFS2 following 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 72.1 (95% CI 56.7-97.8) months (Fig 1). A subset analysis of patients aged ≥65 years (n=471; 198 [42%] received rituximab maintenance) showed similar results. The median EFS with 1L BR was 32.7 (95% CI 29.1-36.3) months. The median OS was 81.5 (95% CI 65.0-NA) months, and the 7-year OS rate was 53.3% (95% CI 48.3-58.7). 208 patients received a 2L therapy, 163 (79%) with a BTKi. The median EFS was 11.5 (95% CI 7.6-15.8) months, and the median OS was 21.0 (95% CI 14.0-29.6) months with 2L BTKi therapy. By ITT analysis, the median EFS2 following 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 58.0 (95% CI 50.2-77.0) months. Conclusion: In this multicenter retrospective study, initiation of 1L BR (with or without rituximab maintenance) resulted in a 7-year OS of 57%. Median EFS2 for sequential 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 72.1 months. In context, the SHINE study reported a median PFS of 80.6 months in the BR (with rituximab maintenance) plus ibrutinib arm and a 7-year OS of 57% in the ibrutinib arm and 55% in the placebo arm, where 39% of patients received a BTKi in 2L. Within the constraints of observational data, our results provide support for sequential use of BR in 1L and BTKi in 2L for patients with MCL.

Background Central nervous system (CNS) involvement is a rare complication (<5% of cases) of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and is associated with poor outcomes, highlighting the need for novel treatment approaches. We report the outcomes of a large cohort of patients (pts) with CNS MCL from Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). Methods MCL pts with CNS involvement seen at Mayo Clinic and MSKCC between 1/2000-1/2021 were included. CNS involvement was defined by histologically confirmed CNS MCL, CSF analysis demonstrating lymphoma cells, and/or neuroimaging findings compatible with CNS lymphoma. Medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. First-line MCL chemotherapy was categorized into higher intensity chemotherapy (i.e., anthracycline-based +/- high-dose cytarabine), moderate intensity chemotherapy (i.e., bendamustine-based regimens or single agent chemotherapy), and other. CNS treatment regimens were categorized as intrathecal (IT) therapy alone, systemic therapy (with CNS penetration such as IV cytarabine or IV methotrexate) with/without IT therapy, regimens with Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi), chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy, or radiation alone. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time to event analysis. Forest plots were developed using univariable Cox proportional hazards models. Results Seventy patients were included in the cohort, 34 from MSKCC and 36 from Mayo Clinic. Median age at MCL diagnosis was 65 years (range 56-72) and 52 were male (74%). MIPI score was available in 60 pts: low (n=10, 17%), intermediate (n=20, 33%), and high (n=30, 50%) risk. First line therapy included: higher intensity chemotherapy (n=42, 60%), moderate intensity chemotherapy (n=25, 36%) and other (n=3, 4%). Twenty-five (36%) pts underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in CR1. Median time from initial MCL diagnosis to CNS involvement was 24 months (m) (range 0-167). Four (6%) pts had CNS involvement at initial diagnosis. Abnormal CNS imaging was reported in 53 (76%) pts: leptomeningeal (n=37), leptomeningeal and parenchymal (n=4), parenchymal (n=8), orbital (n=4). The most common regimen following CNS diagnosis was systemic therapy with or without IT therapy (n=34, 54%) followed by treatment including BTKi (n=13, 21%), IT alone (n=10, 16%), radiation alone (n=3, 5%), and treatment including CAR-T (n=3, 5%). Three patients elected hospice care and four patients had missing/unknown CNS treatment. The overall CNS response to therapy was available in 54 patients: CR in 22 (41%) pts, PR in 8 (15%), SD in 11 (20%), and PD in 13 (24%) pts. Of the 70 patients, 63 died. Median follow up was 6.9 years (range: 1.6-11.2) from initial MCL diagnosis and 2.1 years from CNS diagnosis (range: 0.4-7.9). Median OS from MCL diagnosis was 3.4 years (95% CI: 2.4-4.6). In univariable Cox models, sex, stage, performance status, Ki67, or first line systemic chemotherapy type were not significantly associated with OS from MCL diagnosis. Low risk MIPI score (score < 5.7) was associated with favorable OS (HR 0.31, 94% CI: 0.12-0.77; p value 0.01) compared to high risk. First-line treatment and treatment intensity were not associated with a significant difference in OS. Median PFS for the first CNS-directed therapy was 2.4 m (95% CI: 1.7-4.3). Cause of death was disease-related in a majority (n=49, 78%) of pts and therapy-related in 10% (n=6). The remaining 8 deaths had cause of death reported as missing or other (13%). Median OS from CNS involvement was 5.1 m (95% CI: 3.3-10.0) (Figure 1). When assessing OS from time of CNS diagnosis, treatment regimens incorporating BTK inhibitors were associated with a more favorable OS compared to systemic therapy +/- IT therapy (HR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.89, p value=0.03) (Figure 2). Conclusions Our dual center series confirms patients with CNS involvement by MCL have poor outcomes. When evaluating OS from the time of CNS diagnosis, novel therapies, including BTKi and CAR-T, may be more effective than CNS-penetrant chemotherapy for treatment of CNS relapse suggesting newer therapeutic approaches are required to improve outcomes.

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is frequently curable after frontline therapy, however, relapses can occur after achievement of a PET-negative complete remission (CR). Early detection of relapse may be associated with improved outcomes, particularly given the development of more active therapies for relapsed, refractory DLBCL. Controversy exists regarding the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging which is associated with patient (pt) anxiety, radiation exposure, false-positive results, and cost, without clear overall survival benefit in retrospective studies (Thompson JCO 2014). A retrospective study found that serial minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring during DLBCL surveillance could identify pts at risk of relapse before clinical evidence of disease (Roschewski Lancet Oncol 2015). In this multicenter prospective study, we assessed whether a next-generation immunosequencing (IS) MRD assay could be used for early detection of molecular relapse in DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were enrolled across five cancer centers. In pts who achieved a PET-negative CR, serial peripheral blood samples were obtained every 3 months (mos) and CT scans every 6 mos for 2 years (yrs) post-treatment. The IS MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci and translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH was used. MRD positive was defined as any detectable rearrangement and MRD undetectable as no evidence of rearrangement. Results: 500 pts were enrolled and 400 were evaluable (pre-treatment tumor pathology available, completed frontline treatment, and achieved PET-negative CR at end-of-treatment). Baseline characteristics were median age of 62 yrs (range 19-95), male sex 58%, advanced stage 61%, and poor-risk by R-IPI 42%. Histologies included DLBCL, NOS (88%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (6%), HGBCL (5%), T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma (3%), and other (1%). Pts received regimens including RCHOP x 6 cycles (37%), REPOCH x 6 cycles (20%), clinical trial (15%), combined modality therapy (RCHOP+RT) (9%), and other RCHOP variations (19%). Among the 400 evaluable pts, 44 relapses have occurred as of July 1, 2021. In 45% of pts (20/44), clinical relapse was detected using surveillance imaging alone (typically CT CAP with IV contrast) in an otherwise asymptomatic pt with a normal physical exam and laboratory evaluation . In 10% of pts (4/44), relapse was detected by patient-reported clinical symptoms alone. In 45% of pts (20/44), relapse was detected by imaging, clinical symptoms, and/or evaluation by an oncologist. With a median follow-up of 34 months, the 2-year PFS was 88.9% (85.8, 92.1). Advanced age, advanced stage, and poor-risk R-IPI were associated with inferior PFS. Of the 44 relapses, tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 39 pts (4 failed quality control (QC), 1 failed calibration) and 38 pts had ≥1 sample available within 90 days of relapse. Of 356 patients in ongoing CR, tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 279 patients (29 failed QC, 33 failed calibration, and 15 are pending sequencing). The patient-level prospective MRD results are shown in Figure 1. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the IS MRD assay was 63% (24/38), 78% (218/279), 28% (24/85), and 94% (218/232), respectively. Plasma MRD detection had improved sensitivity and specificity compared with circulating cells. Among the 24 relapsed patients with a positive MRD result at or before relapse, the median anticipation of the test was 3 months (range 0 to 24 months). Conclusion: Overall outcomes are excellent for DLBCL and HGBCL pts who achieve PET-negative CR. In this multicenter prospective analysis with standardized follow up, a substantial proportion (45%) of clinical relapses are detected radiographically in asymptomatic pts, supporting the value of CT surveillance imaging in DLBCL, particularly for pts with advanced stage or high-risk disease. MRD assessment using the IS MRD assay had suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the post-treatment surveillance setting in DLBCL. Further study of the clinical context and its correlation with test performance is ongoing. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: advisory board , Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Abbvie Pharmaceticals, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Westin: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding. Schuster: TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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. Lossos: Lymphoma Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; NCI: Research Funding; University of Miami: Current Employment; NIH grants: Research Funding; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jacob: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment. Mullins: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment. Zelenetz: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; Janssen: Honoraria; LFR: Other; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; MethylGene: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria.

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is frequently curable after frontline therapy, however, relapses can occur after achievement of a PET-negative complete remission (CR). Early detection of relapse may be associated with improved outcomes with second-line curative intent therapy or novel therapies. Controversy exists regarding the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging which is associated with patient (pt) anxiety, radiation exposure, false-positive results, and cost. A retrospective study found that serial minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring during DLBCL surveillance could identify pts at risk of relapse before clinical evidence of disease (Roschewski, Lancet Oncol, 2015). In this multicenter prospective study, we assessed whether a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based MRD assay could be used for early detection of molecular relapse in DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were enrolled across five cancer centers. In pts who achieved a PET-negative CR, serial peripheral blood samples were obtained every 3 months (mos) and CT scans every 6 mos for 2 years (yrs) post-treatment. The clonoSEQ® next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci and translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH was used. MRD positive was defined as any detectable rearrangement and MRD negative as no evidence of rearrangement. We also reported MRD positivity above the limit of detection (LOD) (observations required to have 95% reproducibility). Interim futility analysis was performed after approximately 50% of anticipated relapses occurred to assess the preliminary sensitivity of the assay. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from treatment start date to relapse or death. Results: 501 pts were enrolled and 401 were evaluable (pre-treatment tumor pathology available, completed frontline treatment, and achieved PET-negative CR at end-of-treatment). Baseline characteristics were median age of 62 yrs (range 19-95), male sex 58%, advanced stage 61%, and poor-risk by R-IPI 40% (Table 1). Histologies included DLBCL, NOS (86%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (6%), HGBCL (5%), T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma (1%), and other (1%). Pts received regimens including RCHOP x 6 cycles (36%), REPOCH x 6 cycles (20%), clinical trial (15%), combined modality therapy (RCHOP+RT) (10%), and other RCHOP variations (19%). Among the 401 evaluable pts, 44 relapses have occurred as of June 1, 2020. In 47% of pts (18/38), clinical relapse was detected using surveillance imaging alone (typically CT CAP with IV contrast) in an otherwise asymptomatic pt with a normal physical exam and laboratory evaluation. Clinical relapse was detected by clinical symptoms alone in 11% (4/28), by the evaluation of an oncologist alone in 0%, and by imaging and clinical symptoms and/or evaluation by an oncologist in 42% (16/38) (missing data in 6 pts). With a median follow-up of 2.2 yrs, the 2-yr PFS was 88.1% (84.8, 91.4) (Figure 1). Advanced age, advanced stage, and poor-risk R-IPI were associated with inferior PFS. Of the 44 relapses, 43 pts were included in the interim analysis and tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 39 pts (91%). In 56% (22/39), the MRD assay was positive at or before clinical relapse. In 38% (15/39), the MRD assay was positive above the limit of detection at or prior to clinical relapse, with only 10 relapses detected more than 3 mos prior to relapse, reflecting the poor clinical sensitivity of the assay. The NGS-MRD assay was more sensitive in the acellular (plasma cell-free DNA) than in the cellular (circulating leukocytes) compartment. Results: Overall outcomes are excellent for DLBCL and HGBCL pts who achieve PET-negative complete remission. In interim analysis, surveillance MRD assessment using the clonoSEQ® assay fails to consistently identify pts at risk of recurrence before clinical evidence of relapse in DLBCL. In a prospective analysis, a substantial proportion (47%) of clinical relapses are detected by imaging in asymptomatic pts, supporting the value of CT surveillance imaging in DLBCL, particularly for pts with advanced stage or high-risk disease. Additional analyses are forthcoming for MRD assessment in all pts, including those in remission. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board. Westin:Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Lossos:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; NCI: Research Funding; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other. Batlevi:Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Drullinsky:Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Gerecitano:Janssen: Current Employment. Hamlin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy. Horwitz:ASTEX: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jacob:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. von Keudell:Bayer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Lahoud:MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board. Matasar:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mullins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Other: shareholder. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy. Straus:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Younes:Takeda: Consultancy; HCM: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Zelenetz:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.