Farooq, Umar

Abstract Background: ZUMA-1 is the registrational Phase 1/2 study of axi-cel, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, in pts with refractory LBCL. In ZUMA-1 Cohorts 1+2 (C1+2; N=101), rates of Grade (Gr) ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) were 13% and 28%, respectively, at the 6-mo primary analysis; the objective response rate (ORR) was 82% (54% complete response [CR]; Neelapu et al. NEJM. 2017). ZUMA-1 safety management C6 assessed whether prophylactic and earlier corticosteroids and/or tocilizumab could reduce incidence and severity of CRS and NEs. With a median follow-up of 8.9 mo (N=40) for C6, there were no Gr ≥3 CRS, a low rate of Gr ≥3 NEs (13%), and high response rates (Oluwole et al. BJH. 2021). Here, we present a 1-yr updated analysis of C6 supported by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis to compare outcomes for pts in C6 vs C1+2. Methods: Eligible pts could receive optional bridging therapy after leukapheresis. Pts received conditioning chemotherapy for 3 d prior to a single axi-cel infusion. Pts received once-daily oral dexamethasone 10 mg on Days 0 (before axi-cel), 1, and 2; corticosteroids and/or tocilizumab for adverse event (AE) management were given earlier vs C1+2. The primary endpoints were incidence and severity of CRS and NEs. Other endpoints included efficacy outcomes and biomarker analyses. To ensure comparability for pts in C6 and C1+2, an exploratory PSM analysis was performed after balancing for key baseline disease characteristics (tumor burden, IPI score, no. of prior lines of chemotherapy, disease stage, and LDH level). Results: As of December 16, 2020, the median follow-up time was 14.9 mo. Gr ≥3 AEs were reported in all 40 treated pts, and the most common were neutropenia (45%), neutrophil count decreased (33%), and white blood cell count decreased (23%). No Gr ≥3 CRS occurred. Gr ≥3 NEs were reported in 15% of pts. Median time to CRS and NE onset was 5 and 6 d, respectively, after axi-cel infusion. Infections of any grade occurred in 50% of pts (20% Gr ≥3). Since the 6-mo analysis, no new cases of CRS were observed. Four new axi-cel-related NEs occurred in 2 pts (pt 1: Gr 2 mental status changes and seizure-like phenomena both on Day 441; pt 2: Gr 1 dementia [occurred on Day 93 but was reported late] and Gr 5 toxic encephalopathy on Day 369 [resultant from a Gr 4 event that started on Day 351]). Two new infections of Gr 2 pneumonia and Gr 1 bronchitis were observed; the latter was axi-cel-related. One death due to progressive disease occurred. The investigator-assessed ORR was 95% (80% CR). Median DOR, PFS, and OS were not reached. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the 12-mo DOR, PFS, and OS rates were 60%, 63%, and 82%, respectively. At data cutoff, 53% of pts were in ongoing response. Median peak CAR T-cell levels were comparably high in pts with ongoing response and relapse (64 cells/µL [n=21] and 66 cells/µL [n=15], respectively) at 12 mo and considerably lower in nonresponders (18 cells/µL [n=2]). In all, 32 matched pts each in C6 and C1+2 were identified during PSM analysis; 8 pts from C6 were not included due to nonavailability of matched pts in C1+2. No Gr ≥3 CRS was observed in C6 vs 13% of pts in C1+2. Incidence of Gr ≥3 NEs was comparable in C6 and C1+2 (19% and 22%, respectively), with median time to onset of 12 d in C6 vs 7 d in C1+2. The ORR was 94% in both C6 and matched C1+2 (75% and 78% CR rates, respectively); 47% and 59% of pts were in ongoing response at 12 mo. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the 12-mo PFS rate was 61% in both C6 and matched C1+2. Median peak CAR T-cell levels were 65 and 43 cells/µL, respectively, in C6 and C1+2. Serum levels of inflammatory biomarkers associated with CAR T-cell treatment-related AEs (IFN-γ, IL-2, GM-CSF, and ferritin) were lower in C6 vs C1+2. Median cumulative corticosteroid dose including prophylaxis was 1252 mg in C6 (n=32) and 7418 mg in C1+2 (n=6). Conclusion: With ≥1-y follow-up, prophylactic and earlier corticosteroid and/or tocilizumab intervention continued to demonstrate a manageable safety profile, absence of new safety signals, and high, durable response rates, which was corroborated by PSM analysis. Although fewer pts in C1+2 received corticosteroids after matching, the median cumulative corticosteroid dose was 4-fold lower in C6 vs C1+2. These findings suggest that the C6 AE management strategy can improve long-term safety of axi-cel in R/R LBCL without compromising durability of responses. Disclosures Oluwole: Pfizer: Consultancy; Curio Science: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Forcade: Jazz: Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Other: Travel Support; Gilead: Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau. Muñoz: Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Seagen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; OncView: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Consultancy; Innovent: Consultancy; Debiopharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Acrotech: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Aurobindo: Speakers Bureau. de Guibert: Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Vose: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bartlett: Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lin: Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Deol: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy. McSweeney: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Allovir: Research Funding. Goy: Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xcenda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elsevier's Practice Update Oncology, Intellisphere, LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; MorphoSys: Honoraria, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive Peer Exchange: Honoraria; Rosewell Park: Consultancy; Genomic Testing Cooperative: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; COTA (Cancer Outcome Tracking Analysis): Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Michael J Hennessey Associates INC: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medscape: Consultancy; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hoffman la Roche: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Genentech/Hoffman la Roche: Research Funding; Physicians' Education Resource: Consultancy, Other: Meeting/travel support; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vincerx pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Elsevier PracticeUpdate: Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Phamacyclics: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Hackensack Meridian Health, Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment. Kersten: Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Jacobson: Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Axis: Speakers Bureau; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau. Farooq: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Minnema: Cilag: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel expenses; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy. Thieblemont: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses . Timmerman: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; TG Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Marker Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Corvus: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Genmab: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Merck: Research Funding. Stiff: Macrogenics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cellectar: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; BioLineRX: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Actinium: Research Funding. Avivi: Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Speakers Bureau. Tzachanis: Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Partner: Consultancy. Kim: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zheng: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shen: Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Atara: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Leadership role, Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Other: Leadership role, Patents & Royalties. Vardhanabhuti: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Van Meerten: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy.

AbstractBecause there have been a dvances in frontline treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) over the last 2 decades, we sought to characterize the changes in frontline treatment patterns and their association with outcomes. Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from September 2002 through June 2015 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study, and clinical characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes were compared between patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2009 (Era 1) compared with 2010 to 2015 (Era 2). Patient age, sex, and simplified MCL International Prognostic Index (sMIPI) score were similar between the 2 groups. In patients age 65 years or younger, there was less use of rituximab plus hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (R-Hyper-CVAD) (16.1% vs 8.8%) but more use of rituximab plus maximum-strength cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-maxi-CHOP) alternating with rituximab plus high-dose cytarabine (R-HiDAC), also known as the Nordic regimen, and R-CHOP alternating with rituximab plus dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin (R-DHAP) (1.1% vs 26.4%) and less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens (64.5% vs 35.2%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 12.1%) in Era 2 (P < .001). These changes were associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; 5-year EFS, 34.3% vs 50.0%; P = .010) and overall survival (OS; 5-year OS, 68.8% vs 81.6%; P = .017) in Era 2. In patients older than age 65 years, there was less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like therapy (39.0% vs 14.3%) and nonstandard systemic therapy (36.6% vs 13.0%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 49.4%). These changes were associated with a trend for improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.4% vs 37.5%; P = .051) in Era 2. The shift from R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens to R-bendamustine was associated with improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.0% vs 44.6%; P = .008) in Era 2. Results from this prospective cohort study provide critical real-world evidence for improved outcomes with evolving frontline patterns of care in patients with MCL.

Abstract The SCHOLAR-1 international retrospective study highlighted poor clinical outcomes and survival among patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) treated with conventional chemotherapy. Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, demonstrated durable responses in patients with refractory LBCL in the pivotal phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216). Here, we compared SCHOLAR-1 with the 2-year outcomes of ZUMA-1. Prior to comparison of clinical outcomes, propensity scoring (based on a broad set of prognostic covariates) was used to create balance between ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 patients. In the pivotal phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1, 101 patients received axi-cel and were evaluable for response and survival. In SCHOLAR-1, 434 and 424 patients were evaluable for response and survival, respectively. ZUMA-1 patients were more heavily pretreated than were SCHOLAR-1 patients. The median follow-up was 27.1 months in ZUMA-1. The objective response rate (ORR) and complete response rate were 83% and 54% in ZUMA-1 vs 34% and 12% in SCHOLAR-1, respectively. The 2-year survival rate was 54% in ZUMA-1 and 20% in SCHOLAR-1, and a 73% reduction in the risk of death was observed in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1. These results were consistent with those of an additional standardization analysis in which strata were limited to 2 prognostic factors (refractory categorization and presence/absence of stem cell transplant after refractoriness to chemotherapy) to conserve sample size. Despite the limitations of a nonrandomized analysis, these results indicate that axi-cel produces durable responses and a substantial survival benefit vs non–CAR T-cell salvage regimens for patients with refractory LBCL.

SummaryZUMA‐1 (NCT02348216) examined the safety and efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi‐cel), an autologous CD19‐directed chimaeric antigen receptor (CAR)‐T cell therapy, in refractory large B‐cell lymphoma. To reduce treatment‐related toxicity, several exploratory safety management cohorts were added to ZUMA‐1. Specifically, cohort 6 investigated management of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) with prophylactic corticosteroids and earlier corticosteroid and tocilizumab intervention. CRS and NE incidence and severity were primary end‐points. Following leukapheresis, patients could receive optional bridging therapy per investigator discretion. All patients received conditioning chemotherapy (days −5 through −3), 2 × 106 CAR‐T cells/kg (day 0) and once‐daily oral dexamethasone [10 mg, day 0 (before axi‐cel) through day 2]. Forty patients received axi‐cel. CRS occurred in 80% of patients (all grade ≤2). Any grade and grade 3 or higher NEs occurred in 58% and 13% of patients respectively. Sixty‐eight per cent of patients did not experience CRS or NEs within 72 h of axi‐cel. With a median follow‐up of 8·9 months, objective and complete response rates were 95% and 80% respectively. Overall, prophylactic corticosteroids and earlier corticosteroid and/or tocilizumab intervention resulted in no grade 3 or higher CRS, a low rate of grade 3 or higher NEs and high response rates in this study population.

e19501 Background: The current standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) following frontline immunochemotherapy (IC) is salvage therapy, followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) rescue in patients responding to salvage therapy. Time to first relapse (or refractory status) and response to salvage therapy in patients with RR DLBCL may reflect the chemosensitivity of the underlying disease. The aim of this study is to determine whether these factors impact post-ASCT outcomes. Methods: Patients with DLBCL that relapsed after R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like frontline therapy who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT at Mayo Clinic or University of Iowa between 07/2000 and 4/2020 were identified from institutional lymphoma and transplant databases. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of ASCT were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: A total of 437 patients with RR DLBCL who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT were identified. 280 (64%) were male. Median time from initial diagnosis to 1st relapse/salvage was 1.0 years (range 0.1-16.4). A median of 1 line (range 1-3) of salvage therapy was required. Response prior to ASCT was complete response (CR) in 211 (48%), partial response in 199 (46%), stable disease in 24 (5%), and unknown in 3 (1%) patients. Median age at ASCT was 61 years (range 19-78), and median follow up after ASCT was 8.0 years (95% CI 7.2-8.7). Median PFS and OS was 2.7 (95% CI 1.5-4.3) and 5.4 (4.2-7.4) years, respectively. Time to 1st relapse/salvage (≤1 vs 1-2 vs > 2 years) was not associated with PFS (median 0.8 vs 2.4 vs 4.9 years, p = 0.170) but was associated with OS (2.4 vs 7.4 vs 6.8 years, p = 0.013). Patients who required > 1 line of salvage therapy had significantly inferior PFS (median 0.3 vs 4.5 years, p < 0.001) and OS (0.9 vs 7.4 years, p < 0.001). In addition, patients who failed to achieve a CR prior to ASCT had significantly worse PFS (median 0.8 vs 5.3 years, p < 0.001) and OS (2.7 vs 9.2 years, p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, time to 1st relapse/salvage was not associated with PFS (p = 0.313) or OS (p = 0.081); however, lines of salvage and response prior to ASCT remain significantly prognostic for PFS ( > 1 line of salvage: HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.59-2.87, p < 0.001; non-CR: HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.26-2.05, p < 0.001) and OS ( > 1 line of salvage: HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.66-3.05, p < 0.001; non-CR: HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.26-2.12, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In patients with RR DLBCL following frontline IC, requiring more than 1 line of salvage therapy and failure to achieve CR are strong independent risk factors for poor PFS and OS after ASCT. Novel therapies such as CAR-T cell therapy should be studied in this population.

7522 Background: Patients with newly diagnoseddiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who achieve event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) following immunochemotherapy (IC) have excellent overall survival (OS) similar to that of age- and sex-matched general population. The standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) DLBCL following frontline IC is salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The goal of this study is to evaluate the role of progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 months (PFS24) as a landmark after ASCT in patients with RR DLBCL. Methods: Patients with RR DLBCL after frontline R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like IC who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT at Mayo Clinic or University of Iowa between 07/2000 and 4/2020 were identified from institutional lymphoma transplant databases. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. Post-ASCT PFS, OS, and post-relapse survival (PRS) were plotted by Kaplan-Meier method, and cumulative incidences of relapse vs non-relapse mortality (NRM) and different causes of death were compared accounting for competing events. Statistical analyses were performed in EZR v1.54. Results: A total of 437 patients were identified. Median age at ASCT was 61 years (range 19-78), and 280 (64%) were male. After a median post-ASCT follow up of 8.0 years (95% CI 7.2-8.7), 215 patients had a relapse (or disease progression), 180 within 2 years and 35 after 2 years. For the entire cohort, post-ASCT relapse rate was much higher than NRM rate (48.1 vs 9.1% at 5-year). Median PFS and OS after ASCT was 2.7 and 5.4 years, respectively. Lymphoma was the primary cause of death after ASCT. In contrast, for patients who had achieved PFS24 (n = 220), rates of post-PFS24 relapse and NRM were similar (14.8% and 12.3% at 5-year). Median PFS and OS after achieving PFS24 was 10.0 and 11.5 years, respectively. Lymphoma related and unrelated death rates were similar after achieving PFS24 (Table). For all patients who had a post-ASCT relapse, median PRS was 0.7 years (95% CI 0.5-0.9), and late relapse ( > 2 vs ≤2 years after ASCT) was associated with better PRS (median 2.3 [1.7-4.8] vs 0.5 [0.3-0.7] years, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Post-ASCT PFS24 is an important prognostic predictor of post-ASCT outcomes in patients with RR DLBCL following frontline IC.[Table: see text]

e13569 Background: Progress in understanding the molecular biology of DLBCL has led to development of complex molecular classifications that rely on sequencing methods. These molecular clusters are defined by activation of distinct pathways and may aid in selecting targeted therapy. In the molecular era, tissue requirements in clinical trials have increased to ensure sufficient tissue for molecular testing, potentially resulting in bias for enrollment of patients with larger excisional biopsies (EB). We examined the impact of tissue biopsy method on outcomes of DLBCL in a prospective observational study. Methods: Consecutive adult patients with DLBCL within 9 months from their initial diagnosis were enrolled into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Demographics, clinical variables, type of tissue biopsy (EB vs. core needle biopsy (CNB)) for initial diagnosis and initial treatment were recorded at baseline. Pts were contacted every 6 months from the date of diagnosis for first 3 years and then annually thereafter. Study objectives were event free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) by tissue biopsy method. Results: A total of 1061 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, from 2002 to 2015, were included. The table lists baseline characteristics of the cohort. 593 (56%) pts underwent EB and 468 (44%) underwent CNB for initial diagnosis. A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving CNB had performance status >=2, advanced stage, high risk disease by international prognostic index (IPI), abnormal lactate dehydrogenase. Median time from diagnosis to treatment initiation (DTI) was significantly shorter in the CNB group (13 days) than EB group (19 days). 2-year EFS (60% vs 75%, HR 0.75 (0.6-0.9), p <0.01) was significantly lower in CNB than EB group. There was a trend towards lower OS (75% vs 80%, HR: 0.8 (0.6-0.95), p =0.049) in CNB than EB group. Conclusions: Patients undergoing CNB are more likely to have higher risk disease, shorter DTI and survival compared to those undergoing EB. A need for large amount of diagnostic tissue in biomarker driven clinical trials may result in disproportional exclusion of high risk DLBCL pts who have inferior outcomes after standard treatment and could potentially benefit from novel agents, resulting in overperformance of the control arm. The need for tissue must be carefully balanced against resulting selection bias.[Table: see text]