Yost, Kathleen J.

Background: Aggressive lymphomas are potentially curable; however, long-term effects of treatment and the disease may adversely affect patients' quality of life (QoL). We investigated QoL at baseline, and up to nine years after diagnosis in survivors of aggressive lymphomas. Methods: Patients newly diagnosed with lymphoma were prospectively enrolled within nine months of diagnosis in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) and systematically followed. Patients were enrolled from September 1, 2002 until June 30, 2015. Eligibility criteria included being a United States resident, English-speaking, no history of HIV, and aged 18 years and older. All pathology was reviewed by a lymphoma hematopathologist. Aggressive lymphoma subtypes included in this analysis were diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Follicular lymphoma grade III, Hodgkin lymphoma, T-cell lymphoma, other non-Hodgkin lymphoma not otherwise specified (NOS), other B-cell lymphoma NOS, and composite lymphomas. We assessed QoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale at baseline enrollment, and 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 years post-diagnosis. FACT-G measures well-being (WB) in four domains-physical (PWB), social/family (SFWB), emotional (EWB), and functional (FWB), which are added to create a total (TOT) score. Those who completed <80% of FACT-G questions at any given time point were excluded. "Survivor" was defined as alive at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 year follow-up with no active disease or treatment within six months of a given time point. Because patients could be enrolled at any time within the first 9 months from diagnosis, the timing of initial QoL assessment was variable with respect to the start of lymphoma treatment. We estimated longitudinal change in QoL using mixed models incorporating scores from all available time points. The minimally important difference (MID) of 5 points for TOT and 2 points for each of the domains was used to determine clinical significance. Scores were compared to United States (US) general population normative data. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS (v 9.4). Results: From September 1, 2002 to June 30, 2015, 3,028 patients with aggressive lymphomas were prospectively enrolled in the MER, of which 2,018 completed the FACT-G baseline assessment (47% prior to therapy initiation). Of these patients, 1,144 at 1 year, 1,002 at 2 years, 943 at 3 years, 562 at 6 years, and 289 at 9 years post-diagnosis completed the FACT-G at both baseline and each of the respective time points after diagnosis, and met the definition of survivor. The median age at diagnosis of patients analyzed was 59 years (range 18-93). The cohort included 844 female patients (42%). DLBCL comprised 44% of cases, Hodgkin lymphoma 19%, T-cell lymphoma 11%, composite lymphomas 8%, other B-cell NOS 6%, other non-Hodgkin lymphoma NOS 7%, and Follicular lymphoma grade III 5%. QoL increased from baseline enrollment; the largest increase was seen from baseline to 1 year after diagnosis with a statistically and clinically significant mean TOT score difference of 6.7 points. This mean increase in TOT scores sustained over time with an increase of 7.8 points above baseline at 9 years after diagnosis. At baseline, PWB, EWB, and FWB scores were significantly lower in patients with aggressive lymphomas compared to the US general population, and SFWB scores were significantly higher (all p <0.01); however, only SFWB and EWB score differences were clinically significant as defined by MID. SFWB showed only a mild decline from baseline over the course of 9 years. Despite this, all SFWB scores were statistically and clinically significantly higher than the US general population at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 years after diagnosis (all p <0.01 and MID >2). Patients with aggressive lymphomas TOT scores at baseline did not differ from the US general population, while TOT scores at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 years post-diagnosis were statistically and clinically significantly higher. Overall, the results in the pre-treatment QoL subset were consistent with the cohort as a whole. Conclusions: In survivors of aggressive lymphomas, QoL improved primarily in the first year after diagnosis, and sustained over the course of nine years. QoL in survivors of aggressive lymphomas is higher than the United States general population at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9 years after diagnosis. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Farooq:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to find out whether 3-dimensional (3D)–printed models improved the learners' ability to identify liver segments. METHODS: A total of 116 physicians from 3 disciplines were tested in a cross-over trial at baseline and after teaching with 3D models and 2-dimensional (2D) images. Adjusted multilevel-mixed models were used to compare scores at baseline and after 3D and 2D. RESULTS: Accuracy in identifying hepatic segments was higher with 3D first than 2D (77% vs 69%; P = 0.05) and not significantly improved by a combination of 3D and 2D. Increased confidence in segment identification was highest in trainees after 3D ( P = 0.04). DISCUSSION: 3D-printed models facilitate learning hepatic segmental anatomy.

e19112 Background: We sought to study the longitudinal QOL, financial burden and perception of care (PoC) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) or lymphoma (LYM) enrolled on CTs vs. those receiving standard care (Non-CT). Methods: QOL was evaluated using the FACT-G questionnaire (baseline, 1, 2, 3, 6 & 12 months). Financial burden was evaluated using 10 questions adapted from the MEPS survey and PoC was evaluated using 6 questions adapted from the CAHPS survey (baseline, 3, 6 & 12 months). Results: 35 (28%) of 123 enrolled patients were treated on CTs. Demographics, QOL and financial burden are shown in the Table. Baseline QOL scores were similar in CT vs non-CT groups. Age, gender and self-reported performance status were significantly associated with baseline QOL, while lines of therapy & cancer type were not. There were no significant differences in change in QOL vs. baseline in patients treated on CTs vs. non-CTs at 1, 2, 3, 6 and 12 months from baseline, including the total FACT-G score and the subdomains of functional, physical, emotional and social well-being. Within each group, there was a decline in QOL over the first 3 months, specifically physical WB, which gradually returned to baseline. Baseline answers to financial burden questions were similar, except patients on CTs reported less need for taking extended time-off from work (22% vs. 46%, p = 0.02). The only statistically significant difference in individual Qs over 1 year was ‘worry about having to pay large medical bills’ at the 6-month timepoint (CT: 0%, non-CT: 52%, p = 0.01). Using a composite score from 4 MEPS questions, financial burden over time was lower in the CT group, though the differences were not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in PoC at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months in the two groups based on answers to each of the six questions adapted from the CAHPS survey. Conclusions: Over 1 year, patients on CTs experienced a similar QOL and perceived their care to be similar as non-CT patients. Financial burden was lower in the CT group, though differences were not statistically significant. [Table: see text]

1610 Background: Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans have reduced lung cancer deaths by 20.3% in high risk populations, although there is an unknown balance between the benefits and harms of LDCT scans as a screening tool. Our purpose was to compare health-related QOL issues among lung cancer patients who were initially detected by LDCT scans; 4 comparison groups included: lung cancer diagnosed by a screening chest X-ray, as an incidental finding from procedures taken for other medical reasons, or based on symptoms indicative for lung cancer and routinely diagnosed, and individuals who were LDCT screened but found no lung cancer (controls who participated in Mayo’s lung cancer CT screening trial). Methods: A total of 1,658 lung cancer patients (cared at Mayo Clinic) in the 4 groups (37, 151, 389, and 1081 respectively) and 488 controls were compared on following patient-reported outcomes (collected via validated tools): overall QOL, four symptoms (cough, pain, dyspnea, fatigue), mental/ physical/ emotional/ social/ spiritual QOL, and other concerns (e.g., family/ friends/ financial/ legal). A clinically significant deficit was defined as at least 10-points in difference (or <50 points) on a 0-100 scale. The rates of deficits were compared via Fisher’s exact tests and average QOL values via Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: Overall QOL and individual symptoms were significantly worse (p<0.05) in all lung cancer groups than in controls, except for pain. LDCT-screened patients reported the greatest deficit among the 4 lung cancer groups in physical (41%), emotional (24%), social (38%), and spiritual QOL (24%); whereas chest X-ray detected patients had the least deficit in overall QOL (22%) and pain (32%). All 4 lung cancer groups experienced much worse fatigue (52-64%) than the controls (32%). Conclusions: Our preliminary results suggest that LDCT-screening detected lung cancer patients reported a different QOL profile from other lung cancer patients and non-lung cancer controls. The clinical course, smoking behavior, and QOL related health issues associated with LDCT screening for lung cancer warrant thorough investigation.

Introduction Population-level screening has been shown to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). Unfortunately, adherence to screening recommendations among eligible US adults remains below national goals. A relatively new non-invasive screening modality, the Food and Drug Administration–approved multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) assay (commercialised as Cologuard), which combines the detection of haemoglobin and DNA abnormalities, has been completed by more than 3 million individuals. Given mt-sDNA’s recent availability, the effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening with respect to CRC incidence and mortality reduction has not yet been established. Methods and analysis Through an academic–industry collaboration, a prospective cohort study (Voyage) was designed with an initial enrolment target of 150 000 individuals with mt-sDNA ordered by their healthcare provider for CRC screening. Consented participants will be asked to complete a baseline questionnaire to collect sociodemographic and health information. Additional questionnaires will be provided after 1 year, and every 3 years thereafter, to collect data regarding CRC screening follow-up in order to estimate rates of CRC incidence and other health outcomes. Linkage to the National Death Index will be used to estimate mortality rates. Ethics and dissemination The Voyage study will be conducted in accordance with international guidelines and local regulatory requirements and laws. Data will be stored and retained at Mayo Clinic. Only limited data elements required for research purposes will be transmitted between Mayo Clinic and Exact Sciences Laboratories. Results of the Voyage study will be disseminated through scientific presentations and publications. Trial registration number NCT04124406.

Introduction: With the expanding use of CAR-T cell therapy, which is associated with serious adverse effects (AEs), there is a need to characterize the patient's experience over time to guide patient/provider education, and help optimize symptom management. This study reports on longitudinal evaluation of patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden of CAR-T cell therapy compared with established forms of cellular therapy i.e autologous stem cell transplant (autoSCT) and allogeneic SCT (alloSCT). Methods: Patients with hematologic malignancies were prospectively recruited in three cohorts: CAR-T, autoSCT and alloSCT. The primary endpoint was change in QOL from baseline, using the FACT-G questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported AEs (PRO-AEs) using 7 items from the PRO-CTCAE and assessment of cognition/memory using the NeuroQOLv2 questionnaire. PRO-CTCAE data was graded using a composite score (combining frequency, severity, and interference) and rates, using a method adjusting for pre-existing baseline symptoms, were compared using Fisher's exact test. We also evaluated the time profile of PRO-AEs using the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) approach, a longitudinal approach to AE analysis (Thanarajasingam Lancet Onc 2016). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, week 2 and monthly thereafter. Results: From 07/2018 to 06/2019, 93 patients were recruited (CAR-T: 20; autoSCT: 37; alloSCT: 36). At data cut-off, week 2 and months 1, 2 and 3 data were available in 74, 62, 46 and 35 patients, respectively. There was no difference in patient age across the 3 groups (median age 63, range 23-77; p=0.26). Baseline QOL by FACT-G total score (mean=83.4, SD=14.7; p=0.77), side effect bother by FACT-G GP5 (66/93 [71%] a little bit or less; p=0.72), activities and function (70/93 [75%] fairly normal activities or no limitations; p=0.68) and cognition by NeuroQOL t-score (mean=52.2, SD=8.13; p=0.39) were similar across 3 groups at baseline. The CAR-T group experienced significantly less worsening in QOL (FACT-G) than both autoSCT and alloSCT groups (Fig. 1a). Worsening in overall QOL nadired at week 2, after which QOL gradually returned to baseline in all groups. When comparing changes from baseline in overall QOL, statistically significant differences between groups were evident at week 2 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p&lt;0.001; vs alloSCT p&lt;0.001), month 1 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p=0.02; vs alloSCT p=0.003), month 2 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p=0.02; vs alloSCT p=0.001) and month 3 (CAR-T vs autoSCT p=NS; vs alloSCT p=0.03). Results for physical (Fig. 1b) and functional well-being (WB) were similar, with significantly less QOL worsening at week 2 in CAR-T vs autoSCT and alloSCT groups. The most common PRO-AEs (Table 1) in the CAR-T group were decreased appetite (59%), diarrhea (53%) and fatigue (44%). There was no statistically significant difference in the PRO-AEs between CAR-T and autoSCT groups. However, patients undergoing alloSCT had significantly higher proportion of PRO-AEs vs the CAR-T group, except for neuropathy and sad feelings. AutoSCT and alloSCT groups had significant worsening of FACT-G side effect bother (GP5) at week 2, which was significantly different from that of the CAR-T group, following which the side effect bother gradually returned to baseline. (Fig. 1c) This was the first application of ToxT to PRO-CTCAE data (graphs not shown). Bar charts of maximum grade frequency and stream plots of mean grade over time demonstrate that mouth sores, fatigue, diarrhea and decreased appetite peak at week 2 and improve by month 3, and are of lesser severity in the CAR-T vs autoSCT and alloSCT groups. The trajectory of maximum grade across all PRO-AEs was similar by group as overall side effect burden by FACT-G GP5. Heatmap visualization demonstrated significant intra-patient variability and allowed inspection of data completeness. No difference in cognition and memory was observed across the three groups over the first three months. (Fig. 1d) Conclusion: This study is the first to our knowledge to provide comprehensive PRO data comparing QOL, patient-reported AEs and cognition in CAR-T cell therapy vs. auto- and alloSCT, and the first application of ToxT to PRO-CTCAE data. Short-term QOL, including physical and functional WB domains was better in the CAR-T group vs. SCT groups. These data can serve as a guide for patient education and symptom management in CAR-T cell therapy. Co-senior authors: SKK & ACD Disclosures Paludo: Celgene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding; Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding. Gertz:Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Appellis: Consultancy; Amyloidosis Foundation: Research Funding; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Other: personal fees for Data Safety Monitoring board; Medscape: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Prothena Biosciences Inc: Consultancy; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Annexon: Consultancy; Alnylam: Consultancy; International Waldenstrom Foundation: Research Funding; Ionis/Akcea: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; i3Health: Other: Development of educational programs and materials; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties. Dispenzieri:Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Bennani:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Purpose: Develop and evaluate a mammography intervention that provides hope about cancer prevention and treatment. Design: Pilot randomized controlled trial. Setting: Two communities on the Navajo Nation. Participants: Navajo women and support persons. Intervention: Both groups received standard care: one home visit discussing mammography pros/cons and barriers. The treatment group received an intervention based on Navajo language via an additional home visit with health education materials (written and oral) in English and Navajo, including a Navajo Cancer Glossary with a new descriptive phrase for cancer. Analysis: Between control and intervention conditions, we compared baseline sociodemographics; changes from baseline to 3 months on mammography completion and breast cancer literacy scores. Measures: (1) intervention feasibility; (2) self- and clinic-reported mammography screening completion; (3) breast cancer literacy. Results: A total of 25 participants were randomly assigned (13 treatment, 12 control), with 7 support persons in each arm. Mean age was 53 years, 90% had a high school degree or higher, 86% spoke Navajo and English. At 3 months, 44% had a clinically verified mammogram. Mammography completion was 57% among those with a support person and 27% among those without ( P = .14). Intervention women reported more breast cancer beliefs consistent with mammography ( P = .015). Conclusions: Increases in breast cancer beliefs consistent with mammography show promise. Findings highlight a need to tailor education materials to Navajo culture/language and focus on enhancing support.

AbstractBackgroundSeveral registry-based analyses suggested a survival advantage for married versus single patients with pancreatic cancer. The mechanisms underlying the association of marital status and survival are likely multiple and complex and, therefore, may be obscured in analyses generated from large population-based databases. The goal of this research was to characterize this potential association of marital status with outcomes in patients with resected pancreatic cancer who underwent combined modality adjuvant therapy on a prospective clinical trial.Materials and MethodsThis is an ancillary analysis of 367 patients with known marital status treated on NRG Oncology/RTOG 97-04. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.ResultsOf 367 patients, 271 (74%) were married or partnered and 96 (26%) were single. Married or partnered patients were more likely to be male. There was no association between marital status and overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) on univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09 and 1.01, respectively) or multivariate analyses (HR, 1.05 and 0.98, respectively). Married or partnered male patients did not have improved survival compared with female or single patients.ConclusionAncillary analysis of data from NRG Oncology/RTOG 97-04 demonstrated no association between marital and/or partner status and OS or DFS in patients with resected pancreatic cancer who received adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy followed by concurrent external beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Clinical trial identification number. NCT00003216.

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.