Syrbu, Sergei

Background The importance of the immune system in modulating the trajectory of lymphoma outcomes has been increasingly recognized. We recently showed that CD4+ cells are associated with clinical outcomes in a prospective cohort of almost 500 patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). Specifically, we showed that the absence of CD4+ cells inside follicles was independently associated with increased risk of early clinical failure. These data suggest that the composition, as well as the spatial distribution of immune cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME), play an important role in FL. To further define the architecture of the TME in FL we analyzed a FL tumor section using the Co-Detection by Indexing (CODEX) multiplex immunofluorescence system. Methods An 8-micron section from a formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded block containing a lymph node specimen from a patient with FL was stained with a cocktail of 15 CODEX antibodies. Five regions of interest (ROIs) were imaged using a 20X air objective. Images underwent single-cell segmentation using a Unet neural network, trained on manually segmented cells (Fig 1A). Cell type assignment was done after scaling marker expression and clustering using Phenograph. Each ROI was manually masked to indicate areas inside follicles (IF) and outside follicles (OF). Relative and absolute frequencies of cell types were calculated for each region. Cellular contacts were measured as number and types of cell-cell contacts within two cellular diameters. To identify proximity communities, we clustered cells based on number and type of neighboring masks using Phenograph. The number of cell types and cellular communities were calculated inside and outside follicles after adjustment for total IF and OF areas. The significance of cell contact was measured using a random permutation test. Results We identified 13 unique cell subsets (11 immune, 1 endothelial, 1 unclassified) in the TME of our FL section (Fig. 1A). The unique phenotype of each subset was confirmed using a dimensionality reduction tool (t-SNE). The global composition of the TME varied minimally across ROIs and consisted primarily of B cells, T cells, and macrophages subsets - in decreasing order of frequency. Higher spatial heterogeneity across ROIs was observed in the frequency of T cell subsets in comparison to B cells subsets. Inspecting the spatial distribution of T cell subsets (Fig. 1B), we observed that cytotoxic T cells were primarily located in OF areas, whereas CD4+ T cells were found in both IF and OF areas. Notably, the majority of CD4+ T cells inside the follicles expressed CD45RO (memory phenotype), while most of the CD4+ T cells outside the follicles did not. Statistical analysis of the spatial distribution of CD4+ memory T cell subsets confirmed a significant increase in their frequency inside follicles compared to outside (20.4% vs 11.2%, p < 0.001; Fig. 1D). Cell-cell contact analysis (Fig 1C) showed increased homotypic contact for all cell types. We also found a higher frequency of heterotypic contact between Ki-67+CD4+ memory T cells and Ki-67+ B cells. Pairwise analysis showed these findings were statistically significant, indicating these cells are organized in niches rather than randomly distributed across image. Analysis of cellular communities (Fig. 1C) identified 13 niches, named according to the most frequent type of cell-cell contact. All CD4+ memory T cell subsets were found to belong to the same neighborhood (CD4 Memory community). Analysis of the spatial distribution of this community confirmed that these niches were more frequently located inside follicles rather than outside (26.3±4% vs 0.004%, p < 0.001, Fig. 1D). Conclusions Analysis of the TME using CODEX provides insights on the complex composition and unique architecture of this FL case. Cells were organized in a pattern characterized by (1) high degree of homotypic contact and (2) increased heterotypic interaction between activated B cells and activated CD4+ memory T cells. Spatial analysis of both individual cell subsets and cellular neighborhoods demonstrate a statistically significant increase in CD4+ memory T cells inside malignant follicles. This emerging knowledge about the specific immune-architecture of FL adds mechanistic details to our initial observation around the prognostic value of the TME in this disease. These data support future studies using modulation of the TME as a therapeutic target in FL. Figure 1 Disclosures Galkin: BostonGene: Current Employment, Patents & Royalties. Svekolkin:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties. Postovalova:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Bagaev:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties. Ovcharov:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties. Varlamova:BostonGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding.

8052 Background: A significant proportion of patients with FL experience an early relapse and a subsequent poor outcome. While several prognostic indices have been developed, none were designed to predict early failure. Recently, we established that lack of intrafollicular CD4+ T-cell expression predicted risk of early failure, and integrating this microenvironment biomarker with the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, termed BioFLIPI, further improved identification of FL patients at risk of early failure ( Blood 2019;134(suppl1):121). However, the microenvironment may be influenced by the genetic composition of tumor. We investigated whether the CD4 biomarker and BioFLIPI were impacted by genetic features of the tumor as assessed by a 23-gene expression prognostic score ( Lancet Oncol 2018;19:549-61). Methods: Of the 186 cases with FL grade 1-3A treated with immunochemotherapy (IC) in our prior study, 152 had digital expression quantification of 23 selected genes (23-GEP score), which used RNA from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, retreatment, or death. Early failure was defined as failing to achieve EFS at 24 months. Risk of early failure was estimated using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals from logistic regression models. We also used Cox regression to assess associations with continuous EFS and overall survival (OS). Results: 28% of patients failed to achieve EFS24. Lack of CD4+ intrafollicular expression (38% of patients, OR = 2.33, p = 0.024) and high risk 23-GEP score (26% of patients, OR = 3.52, p = 0.001) each predicted early failure, and in a multivariable model that included FLIPI, both CD4+ (OR = 2.26, p = 0.046) and 23-GEP score (OR = 2.26, p = 0.0.057) remained predictors. Similarly, BioFLIPI modeled as a continuous score (1-4, OR per one point increase = 2.31, p < 0.001) predicted early failure, and the association remained (OR = 2.14, p < 0.001) when the high risk 23-GEP score (OR = 2.79, p = 0.013) was included in the model. When stratified on 23-GEP score, BioFLIPI was a stronger predictor of early failure in low risk (74%, OR = 2.51, p = 0.002) relative to high risk (26%, OR = 1.55, p = 0.27) patients. Similar patterns were observed for EFS and OS. Conclusions: CD4+ T-cell infiltrate and tumor gene expression appear to be independently predictive of early failure in newly diagnosed FL patients treated with IC. Future studies should integrate and validate these measures.

Abstract Background: A significant percentage of DLBCL patients present with a composite histology, often seen as a node containing both follicular lymphoma and DLBCL or DLBCL in the node and discordant indolent lymphoma in the bone marrow. Literature from the pre-rituximab era suggests DLBCL patients with transformed lymphoma or composite histology have worse outcome than de novo DLBCL. Here we report on early events in a cohort of R-CHOP treated patients. Goal: To determine whether patients with composite lymphoma have an inferior event free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma when treated with R-CHOP. Methods: Newly diagnosed patients treated with an R-CHOP containing regimen were prospectively enrolled in our Lymphoma SPORE registry from 9/2002 through 6/2007. Pathology was centrally reviewed. All patients were followed for retreatment, disease progression, and death. Results: 401 DLBCL patients were enrolled; 14% (57/401) had a composite histology. 33 patients had DLBCL and another histology, predominantly follicular lymphoma (n=29), in the same node. 20 patients had a non-DLBCL histology in a distinct location from the DLBCL; this was primarily indolent lymphoma in the bone marrow (n=15). 4 patients had both. 19% (75/401) of patients died during follow-up and 30% (121/401) had an event (death due to any cause, progression, or retreatment). Median follow-up for living patients was 34 months (range, 5–73). Composite DLBCL patients had higher event-free (3 year EFS = 79%) and overall (3 year OS = 93%) survival then de novo DLBCL (3 year OS = 66%, 3 year EFS 79%), p=0.05 and p=0.005 respectively. These differences remained statistically significant after adjusting for the International Prognostic Index (IPI): EFS HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29–0.97, p=0.02; OS HR=0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.76, p=0.002. OS and EFS for composite DLBCL more closely resembled R-CHOP treated grade III follicular lymphoma (A,B) from the same cohort (3 year EFS = 81%, 3 year OS = 93%). Improved outcome for composite DLBCL was consistent whether the additional histology was in the same node or distinct from the DLBCL. Conclusions: R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients with indolent discordant bone marrow involvement or other composite histology have improved early OS and EFS compared to de novo DLBCL. Further follow-up is needed to assess the long-term prognosis of composite DLBCL in the rituximab era. Histology N Age &gt; 60 Stage III/IV LDH &gt; ULN PS &gt; 1 &gt;2 EN Sites 3 YR EFS 3 YR OS * Denotes statistically significant difference at p=0.05 de novo DLBCL 344 58% 56% 56% 17% 22% 66% 78% Composite DLBCL 57 65% 77%* 34%* 18% 32% 79%* 93%* Figure Figure

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

Abstract Background: EBV+ DLBCL not otherwise specified (EBV+ DLBCL NOS) is defined by the 2016 WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues as EBV+ DLBCL in patients without a history of known immunosuppression. Among Asian patients, adverse outcomes have been associated with EBV+ vs EBV- DLBCL, and circulating EBV has been found in the majority of patients. Outcome studies of unselected North American patients are few and non-confirmatory. No formal assessment of immunosuppression status has been incorporated into these analyses, leading to the variable inclusion of patients with a history of immunocompromised states. We sought to determine the prevalence, presenting clinical and pathology characteristics, and outcomes of DLBCL by EBV and immunosuppression status in an unselected prospective cohort study of North American patients. Methods: From 2002-2012, we enrolled consecutive, newly diagnosed patients with lymphoma who were ≥ 18 years and HIV negative into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER). Clinical, laboratory, and treatment data were abstracted from medical records. All DLBCL patients with available tissue microarrays (TMAs), excluding primary mediastinal DLBCL and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders, were included. Medical records were reviewed using a standard protocol to classify patients as immunocompromised based on a documented history of primary immunodeficiency or iatrogenic immunosuppression. DLBCL cell of origin was classified as germinal center (GCB) vs non-GCB using the Hans algorithm. CD30 was determined using immunohistochemistry; positivity cutoff was 20% of neoplastic cells. EBV testing was performed by in-situ hybridization for EBV encoded small RNAs (EBERs), and scored by an expert hematopathologist. Event free survival (EFS) was defined as time from diagnosis until recurrence, retreatment, or death due to any cause. Associations with EFS and Overall Survival (OS) were obtained using the methods of Kaplan-Meier (KM). Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from Cox regression models. Results: 1,100 patients with DLBCL were enrolled into the MER; 362 had TMAs available for this analysis. Median age was 63 years (range 20-89) and 59% were male. 89.5% of patients were treated with immunochemotherapy. 16 cases (4.4%) were EBV+, and 39 cases (10.8%) were considered immunocompromised. EBV positivity was more common in immunocompromised vs immunocompetent patients, with a trend towards significance (10.3% vs 3.7%; P = 0.08). The non-GCB subtype was more frequent in EBV+ vs EBV- DLBCL (62.5% vs 34.1%; P < 0.01), but similar between immunocompromised vs immunocompetent patients (48.7% vs 33.7%; P = 0.10). CD30 positivity was also more frequent in EBV+ vs. EBV- DLBCL (25.0% vs 8.1%; P < 0.01), but similar between immunocompromised vs immunocompetent patients (12.8% vs 8.4%, respectively; P = 0.45). With a median follow-up of 59 months (range 0.7-155.2) there were 151 events and 119 deaths. KM curves by EBV and immunosuppression status are shown in the figure. There was no association of EBV positivity with EFS (HR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.34-1.72) or OS (HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.43-2.25). A history of immunosuppression was not associated with EFS (HR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.72-1.89) or OS (HR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.58-1.78). In the subset of immunocompetent patients, there was no association of EBV positivity with EFS (HR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.17-1.70) or OS (HR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.23-2.25). Similar results were obtained after adjustment for the International Prognostic Index. Circulating viral DNA was detected in 2/5 EBV+ and 4/49 EBV- DLBCL patients. Conclusions: The prevalence of EBV+ DLBCL NOS is <5% among patients in a large North American cohort, similar to other western populations. There was no evidence of an association of EBV or immunosuppression status with EFS or OS, with low power for detecting associations with EBV. Circulating viral DNA was infrequent among either EBV+ or EBV- DLBCL patients. While immunosuppression has been previously shown to be a risk factor for DLBCL, it was not found to be associated with EFS or OS. Overall, these results suggest divergent outcomes among EBV+ DLBCL patients between western and non-western populations, underscoring differences in host factors or circulating viral strains. Disclosures Ansell: BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding.

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

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

INTRODUCTION Complete staging via bone marrow assessment is standard of practice for most newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, though the methods and patterns of bone marrow assessment vary in clinical practice. The 2014 Lugano Classification recommends that in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) alone can designated advanced-stage disease in many, but not all cases. For most other NHL subtypes, obtaining bone marrow biopsy (BMB) remains recommended. We aimed to assess clinical practice patterns of marrow assessment and the performance of PET/CT in the clinical setting. METHODS The Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort is a prospective cohort from 8 academic medical centers. All patients were enrolled in the cohort within 6 months of diagnosis, and prospectively followed. Patients with lymphoma enrolled in the cohort between July 2015 and June 2017 were included for study. Baseline clinical characteristics at diagnosis, whether BMB and/or PET/CT were performed, and the result of these assessments were extracted from the database. Bone marrow involvement on PET/CT was abstracted via review of radiology reports. No central review of images was utilized. RESULTS In total, 3,251 patients were included, consisting of the following subtypes: DLBCL (n=1,098), follicular lymphoma (FL n=730), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL n=302), T-cell lymphoma (TCL n=278), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL n=269), other NHL (n=505) and composite lymphoma (n=69). Other clinical characteristics are shown in table 1. Staging BMB was obtained in 78% of patients, PET/CT was obtained in 56%, both BMB and PET/CT were obtained in 46% while neither were obtained in 9% (table 1). There were significant differences in lymphoma subtype between patients having any bone marrow assessment vs no bone marrow assessment (p<0.0001). MCL (96%) and DLBCL (94%) most frequently had any bone marrow assessment, while MZL was least frequently assessed (84%). Patients undergoing any bone marrow assessment had higher median lactate dehydrogenase (247 U/L vs 206 U/L, p=0.0002). Among the 8 enrolling medical centers, the frequency of bone marrow biopsy at diagnosis ranged from 53% to 86%, and the frequency of PET/CT at diagnosis ranged from 34% to 94% (p<0.0001, table 1). Among patients with DLBCL who had positive bone marrow by either PET/CT or BMB (N=107), 41% (44/107) were positive by BMB only, 19% (20/107) were positive by PET/CT only, and 40% (43/107) were positive by both. Figure 1 shows results of similar analyses for FL, MCL, MZL, and TCL. Using BMB as a gold standard for marrow involvement, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PET/CT for marrow assessment in DLBCL is 49%, 90%, 68% and 91%, respectively. Data for other subtypes are shown in table 2. Patients undergoing both PET/CT and BMB had lower median LDH (231 U/L vs 254 U/L, p=0.0032) than those undergoing one or neither assessments. CONCLUSION Overall, 91% of all patients with newly diagnosed NHL had bone marrow assessments via either PET/CT, BMB or both. The significant variation in the frequency of BMB and PET/CT use among the 8 centers reflects a lack of clear consensus on staging practices regarding bone marrow assessment. The sensitivity of PET/CT for detection of marrow involvement was less than 50% across all subtypes. It is possible the sensitivity of PET/CT could be improved via a centralized review process of the images, as is performed in some clinical trials, however practical approaches for implementing such reviews in clinical practice have not been developed. Between 92-100% of all positive bone marrows were detected by BMB, except in cases with DLBCL in which 19% of positive bone marrows were missed by BMB but detected by PET/CT. Thus, in our analysis, BMB more reliably captured marrow involvement that PET/CT in all subtypes in which both assessments were performed. However, neither PET/CT nor BMB alone were able to identify all cases of bone marrow involvement and use of both modalities may be necessary in cases where marrow involvement would have clinically important implications. Disclosures Rutherford: Juno Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Heron: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Friedberg:Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Casulo:Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses. Cohen:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Flowers:Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

Abstract Backgroud. The treatment landscape of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has significantly changed in last decades. Improvement in diagnosis and understanding of disease biology has been coupled with emergence of new therapeutic options, including targeted agents. While MCL outcome data comes primarily from clinical trials (CT), the impact of therapeutic advances on pattern of care (POC) and outcome in MCL in the general population is not well characterized. This study sought to characterize changes in pattern of care and outcomes of patients with MCL in a prospective observational series in the rituximab era. Methods. The study included consenting adult patients with newly diagnosed MCL that were prospectively enrolled into the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) Molecular Epidemiology Resource, from 09/01/2002 to 06/30/2015. Demographic, clinical and prognostic factors were abstracted, and all patients were actively followed for re-treatment, relapse and death. Since bendamustine-rituximab (BR) regimen starting to be used in 2010, we defined patients enrolled from 09/01/2002 to 12/31/2009 as era 1 and those enrolled 01/01/2010 to 06/30/2015 as era 2. Baseline characteristics and outcomes, evaluated in terms of event free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and cause of death, were analyzed and compared between the two eras identified. Results. 348 patients with newly diagnosed MCL were enrolled. Five patients had no available data for front-line treatment and were excluded. The analysis was thus conducted on 343 patients: 169 patients were diagnosed in era 1 with a median follow-up of 131.2 months vs. 174 in era 2 with a median follow-up of 58.9 months. Baseline clinical characteristics and MIPI score were similar across the two eras ( Table 1). Frontline induction treatment was significantly different in the two eras. BR use was 0 vs 49 (28.2% ), R-CHOP/CHOP like regimen in 89 (52.7%) vs 45 (25.9%), high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC)-based therapy in 1 (0.6%) vs 28 (16.1%), intensified regimens (HyperCVAD) in 16 (9.5%) vs 8 (4.5%), other regimens (including R-cladribine, R-fludarabine-mitoxantrone, rituximab monotherapy) in 35 (20.7%) vs 13 (7.5%) patients in era 1 vs era 2 respectively. Non-systemic treatment (observation, surgery or radiation only) was performed in 25 (14.8%) vs 31 (17.8%), while 9 (8%) vs 12 (7.7%) patients were enrolled in clinical trials, in era 1 vs era 2 respectively. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as consolidation of first line treatment or use of Rituximab maintenance was not different between Era 1 and Era 2. Among the entire cohort of 343 MCL patients, 3y-EFS and 3y-OS were 51.9% (95% IC 46.7-57.6) and 73.5 (95% CI 68.8-78.4), respectively (Figure 1). 3y-EFS was 45.9% (95% CI 39.0-54.1%) vs 58.4 (95% CI, 51.2-66.6%) in Era 1 vs Era 2 (HR 0.69 (0.51-0.92), p=0.006), 3y-OS was 70.9% (95% CI, 63.4-78.1%) vs 76.1% (95% CI, 69.7-83.1%) in Era 1 vs Era 2 (HR 0.87 (0.61-1.24), p=0.26), respectively (Figure 1). In a univariate analysis, high risk simplified MIPI was prognostic of lower EFS and OS in both the era groups. Conclusion. The BR regimen entered front line therapy of MCL resulting in decline of R-CHOP use in the MER. While rates of ASCT remain similar over the two eras, high dose cytarabine usage in induction therapy has increased. While POC in MCL continue to evolve, the introduction of bendamustine and high-dose citarabine based regimens resulted in an improvement in EFS but not OS in this observational cohort-based analysis. Findings in this study are important for design and planning of future clinical trials incorporating novel agents in induction therapy of MCL. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Cohen: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: To address the current and long-term unmet health needs of the growing population of patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and NHL survivors, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/) with recruitment at eight centers (Cornell University, Emory University, Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, University of Iowa, University of Miami, University of Rochester, and Washington University). Here we report on the first two years of enrollment. Methods: All patients ≥18 years with NHL (exclusive of chronic lymphocytic leukemia) newly diagnosed within 183 days of enrollment are eligible. LEO reviews all pathology diagnoses; annotates and harmonizes all cases with clinical, epidemiologic, pathology and treatment data; builds a NHL tumor bank that includes an H&E slide, a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sample and extracted tumor DNA and RNA; collects peripheral blood and banks DNA, serum, plasma and buffy coat in a central biorepository; and prospectively follows patients regularly to ascertain disease progression/relapse, retreatment, transformation, second cancers, survival, updated exposures, and patient-reported outcomes. We examined the demographics, clinical characteristics, and NHL subtypes for patients enrolled in the first two years (2015-2017) in LEO Cohort and compared these characteristics to population-based registry data from the United States Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program for 2011-2015. We also examined baseline body mass index (BMI), comorbidities and quality of life (QOL) measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) scores (0-100 scale) overall and by NHL subtype that were collected in LEO but not available in SEER or any other large, prospective US NHL cohort. Results: From 2015-2017, LEO enrolled 3244 NHL patients across 47 states (Figure) with a median age at diagnosis of 62 years (range, 18-94 years) and 55.9% male. Based on self-identified race/ethnicity, 85% of the participants were White, 7.4% were Black/African American, 2.6% were Asian, and 3.5% other or more than one race; 9.9% were Hispanic (regardless of race). The most common subtypes were diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL, 33.9%), follicular (FL, 22.2%), mantle cell (MCL, 9.3%), marginal zone (MZL, 8.3%), T-cell (TCL, 10.9%), and all other NHL subtypes (other NHL, 15.3%). These distributions were all within 5% of SEER data, except that 6.8% of participant in LEO were in the age 80+ years group compared to 18.5% in SEER (Table). The overall prevalence of self-reported comorbidities at enrollment was 13.5% for heart disease (range, 12.1% for FL to 16.6% for MCL), 8.8% for diabetes (range, 7.1% for FL to 9.8% for DLBCL), 4.6% for osteoporosis (range, 3.0% for MCL to 6.3% for MZL), and 5.9% for autoimmune disease (range, 2.0% for MCL to 12.6% for MZL). The median BMI was 27.9 kg/m2 (range, 26.7 kg/m2 for TCL to 28.3 kg/m2 for MZL). A total of 2151 participants completed the FACT-G with a median score of 78.7 (range, 75.9 for TCL to 83.3 for MZL). Complete IPI data were available on 2296 participants: 40.4% IPI 0-1, 32.7% IPI 2, 18.3% IPI 3, 8.7% IPI 4-5. Overall, 73.7% of participants were initially treated with systemic therapy (range, 40.0% for MZL and 91.8% for DLBCL); 14.5% were initially managed with observation (range, 1.4% DLBCL and 31.8% for FL); and 2.0% were initially manage with radiotherapy (range, 0.2% for MCL and 3.8% for DLBCL). Outcomes are being prospectively collected. Conclusions: LEO is a large and diverse cohort of newly diagnosed NHL patients and the first two years of enrollment reflects the broader United States NHL population. Enrollment is ongoing. This unique resource will enable examination of the interactions among a broad array of clinical and molecular factors and their impact on multiple outcomes, to improve prognostication, identify new approaches to improve outcomes and survivorship, and facilitate clinical trials using this infrastructure. Disclosures Flowers: Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/ Janssen: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria. Kahl:Acerta: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Casulo:Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Martin:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Leonard:Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Bernal-Mizrachi:Kodikaz Therapeutic Solutions: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company: Research Funding. Maurer:Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding.