Ruppert, Amy S.

7506 Background: Optimal consolidative therapy for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is not defined. Avoidance of whole brain radiation may reduce risk of neurotoxicity. Non-radiation consolidative options include myeloablative chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) or non-myeloablative chemotherapy. Methods: This is a randomized phase 2, National Clinical Trials Network study of induction methotrexate (MTX) (8 g/m2 days 1, 15), temozolomide (TMZ) (150-200 mg/m2 D7-11), and rituximab (RTX) (C1 D3, 10, 17, 24 and C2 D3, 10 ) in four 28-day cycles followed by one cycle of cytarabine (ARA-C) (2 g/m2 BID, D1, 2) (MTRA). After induction, patients (pts) received consolidation with thiotepa (5 mg/kg BID, D -5, -4) plus carmustine (400 mg/m2, day -6) and ASCT (Arm A) or one cycle of ARA-C (2 g/m2 BID, D1-4) plus infusional etoposide (40 mg/kg over 96h) (Arm B). Pts were stratified on age and performance status and randomized 1:1 before induction. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization. With 110 pts, there was 84% power to detect an improvement in PFS using a log-rank test (1-sided α= 10%), assuming a median PFS of 3 months for pts who progress during induction, and a median PFS of 2 years (yrs) for Arm B and 4.5 yrs for Arm A consolidation. This report includes the results for the primary endpoint analysis. Results: 113 pts (median age 61 yrs, range 33-75) were randomized (Arm A: 57, Arm B: 56) across 27 centers. 108 eligible pts who received induction therapy were included in the primary endpoint analysis (Arm A: 54, Arm B: 54). 72/108 pts started consolidation and 70/72 completed consolidation per protocol (Arm A: 36, Arm B: 34). With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, median PFS from randomization was 6 yrs (95% CI 3.9-not reached) in Arm A vs 2.4 yrs (95% CI 0.6-not reached) in Arm B (p = 0.02). However, more pts randomized to Arm B went off treatment before consolidation due to progression or death (28% vs 11%, p = 0.05). PFS landmarked at start of consolidation demonstrated a trend for improved PFS favoring Arm A (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25-1.36; p = 0.21). Median OS was not reached in either arm, and 3-yr estimates were 83% (95% CI 69-91; Arm A) vs 72% (95% CI 57-82; Arm B). Toxicities were similar between arms with no treatment-related mortality during consolidation. Conclusions: MTRA induction followed by myeloablative consolidation (Arm A) had improved PFS vs MTRA induction followed by non-myeloablative consolidation (Arm B), though more progressions or deaths leading to treatment discontinuation prior to consolidation in Arm B were noted. Both consolidation regimens were well-tolerated with encouraging PFS and OS in newly-diagnosed PCNSL. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT01511562.

Abstract Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) is a rare B-cell malignancy, and there is a need for novel treatments for patients who do not benefit from purine analogs. Ibrutinib, an oral agent targeting Bruton tyrosine kinase in the B-cell receptor signaling pathway, is highly effective in several malignancies. Its activity in HCL was unknown, so we conducted a multisite phase 2 study of oral ibrutinib in patients with either relapsed classic or variant hairy cell leukemia. The primary outcome measure was the overall response rate (ORR) at 32 weeks, and we also assessed response at 48 weeks and best response during treatment. Key secondary objectives were characterization of toxicity and determination of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Thirty-seven patients were enrolled at 2 different doses (24 at 420 mg, 13 at 840 mg). The median duration of follow-up was 3.5 years (range, 0-5.9 years). The ORR at 32 weeks was 24%, which increased to 36% at 48 weeks. The best ORR was 54%. The estimated 36-month PFS was 73% and OS was 85%. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea (59%), fatigue (54%), myalgia (54%), and nausea (51%). Hematologic adverse events were common: anemia (43%), thrombocytopenia (41%), and neutropenia (35%). Ibrutinib can be safely administered to patients with HCL with objective responses and results in prolonged disease control. Although the initial primary outcome objective of the study was not met, the observation of objective responses in heavily pretreated patients coupled with a favorable PFS suggests that ibrutinib may be beneficial in these patients. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01841723.

CCTG CLC.2/Alliance A041202 demonstrated superior progression-free survival at 2 years with ibrutinib alone (87%; HR 0.39) or ibrutinib-rituximab (IR 88%; HR 0.38) compared to chemo-immunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR 74%) in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who were 65 or older (Woyach NEJM 2018). We hypothesized that ibrutinib-based therapies would be more costly than BR but that costs would be offset by less toxicity and improved quality of life (QOL). We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with ibrutinib-based therapies compared to BR in the Canadian (CDN) subset of patients enrolled in CLC.2/Alliance 041202. All CDN pts were invited to participate in the companion analysis. Health utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D and calculated using CDN population valuations (Bansback PLOS One 2012). Resource utilization forms were administered to collect off-protocol health care encounters. The planned analysis was a cost-utility analysis from the perspective of a public healthcare system, examining the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years or QALYs) of ibrutinib-based therapy compared to BR. Unit costs were applied to resource data based on publicly available provincial/national databases; all costs were expressed in 2019 US dollars (1 CDN = 0.75 US dollar). Total and disaggregated direct medical costs are presented descriptively. Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months; derived utilities were used to calculate QALYs. A discount rate for costs and benefits (r=0.05) was applied. The analysis was based on estimation (with bootstrapping) of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and/or direct medical costs. A total of 55 pts were enrolled; two pts who did not receive any treatment were censored at day 1 and 3 after randomization and excluded from analysis. Of the 53 analysed, pt demographics were well balanced between treatments and were reflective of the entire population: mean age was 71.6 (SD 6.34) in pts receiving ibrutinib alone (n=17), 72.2 (SD 3.85) in pts receiving IR (n=18), and 71.7 (SD 4.1) in pts receiving BR (n=18). A total of 3 pts, one in each arm, had 17p deletion. Progression-free survival at 2 years for CDN pts was 94% (95% CI 65-99%) for ibrutinib, 100% (95% CI 100-100%) for IR, and 72% (95% CI 45-87%) for BR (Figure 1). At 24 months, 1 pt on the BR arm had crossed over to ibrutinib (as per protocol); there was no overall survival difference between the three arms. On-protocol costs (including protocol treatment, ambulatory care, and imaging) and off-protocol costs (including hospitalizations, concomitant medications, and ambulatory care) are highlighted in Figure 2. On-protocol costs were higher for pts receiving ibrutinib (mean $142,001 USD; SD 48,417) and IR ($164,931; SD 46,208) compared to BR ($38,509; SD 10,351), driven by higher drug acquisition costs associated with ibrutinib (list price $6422 for 420mg/30 days). In contrast, off-protocol costs were modestly higher for pts on BR (mean $3050; SD 3812) compared to the ibrutinib ($2460; SD 3863) or IR ($2890; SD 4206); hospitalizations were the key off-protocol cost drivers and were highest for pts on IR and BR. Overall mean costs over the 2-year time horizon were $144,461 (SD 47,910) for pts on ibrutinib, $167,820 (SD 46,830) for pts on IR, and $41,560 (SD 11,849) for pts on BR. Discounted QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR. Given the similar quality-adjusted survival between arms at the time of this analysis, a formal ICER was not calculated. Direct medical costs are substantially higher for pts receiving continuous ibrutinib-based therapies, compared to chemo-immunotherapy of fixed duration, in frontline CLL management; the key cost driver is the cost of ibrutinib. The PFS benefit with ibrutinib-based therapy has not translated into an advantage in quality-adjusted survival to date; further follow-up may be required to demonstrate any cost or QOL benefits associated with fewer progression events for those on ibrutinib. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180863 and #704970 CCTG. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01886872 Figure Disclosures Owen: AbbVie, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Astrazeneca, Merck, Servier, Novartis, Teva: Honoraria. Lam:Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Servier: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Sperlich:Lundbeck Canada: Honoraria. Woyach:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Morphosys, Karyopharm, Verastem, Abbvie, Lox: Research Funding; Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Arqule: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, ArQule: Honoraria. Prica:astra zeneca: Honoraria; seattle genetics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hay:Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Background FDG-PET is used in staging and response assessments in patients (pts) with DLBCL. An analysis of 158 pts with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP or DA-EPOCH-R on CALGB/Alliance 50303 failed to show an association between the interim PET (iPET, after cycle 2 of therapy) visual 5-point scale score (5-PS) by central review and progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), but did show a significant association between percent change in FDG uptake from baseline to after cycle 2 (∆SUV) and PFS/OS (Schoder et al. 2020). As central review of FDG-PET is not feasible in routine practice, we retrospectively compared local vs central readings, and determined associations from local imaging data with PFS/OS. Methods 126 pts at baseline and 109 at iPET had local imaging data submitted across 21 institutions. Visual scores 1-3 defined PET- and scores 4-5 defined PET+ disease. ∆SUV was defined as the percent change in the maximum SUV at any site (maxSUV) from baseline to iPET. Continuous ∆SUV and categorized ∆SUV (<66% vs >66%) were analyzed. Differences in quantitative measures were calculated as the local minus central result. The Kappa statistic estimated agreement in PET and ∆SUV groups between local and central review. PFS and OS distributions for local PET and ∆SUV groups were landmarked at iPET, estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared using the log-rank test. Results At baseline, maxSUV was reported locally and centrally in 118 pts. Median maxSUV was 24.3 (range: 5.9-77.3) by local review and 24.3 (range: 5.9-77.0) by central review. The median difference in maxSUV was 0 (range: -12.9 to 21.9), with 50% of differences between -1.1 and 0.1, and 90% of differences between -7.8 and 4.1. In 106 pts with visual iPET 5-PS results, 52 (49.1%) were PET+ by local review and 37 (34.9%) by central review. Agreement in local and central review was moderate (kappa=0.53), occurring in 81 pts (76.4%; 32 PET+ and 49 PET-). Disagreement occurred in 25 patients, 20 with local PET+ but central PET- and 5 with local PET- but central PET+. iPET maxSUV was reported locally and centrally in 90 pts. Median maxSUV was 3.4 (range: 0-18.3) by local review and 3.3 (range: 1.2-18.2) by central review. The median difference in maxSUV was 0 (range: -8.6 to 2.4), with 50% of differences between -0.3 and 0.4, and 90% of differences between -4.4 and 1.8. ∆SUV was calculated in 87 pts. Median ∆SUV was 84.6% (range: -3.0% to 95.9%) by local review and 85.1% (range: -34.9% to 95.8%) by central review. The median difference in ∆SUV was -0.3 (range: -19.6 to 31.9), with 50% of differences between -2.1 and 1.1, and 90% of differences between -7.1 and 12.3. ∆SUV was <66% in 12 (13.8%) pts by local review and 12 pts by central review. Agreement in local and central review was high (kappa=0.81), occurring in 83 pts (95.4%; 10 with ∆SUV <66%, 73 with ∆SUV >66%). Disagreement occurred in 4 pts, 2 in each direction. Using local data, PFS and OS estimates were numerically lower in pts with iPET+ vs iPET- disease, but did not reach statistical significance (p=0.12 and p=0.15). Two-year estimates for PFS were 79% (95% CI 68-91%) and 89% (95% CI 81-98%), and 2-year estimates for OS were 84% (95% CI 75-95%) and 96% (95% CI 91-100%) in pts with iPET+ and iPET-, respectively. In contrast, ∆SUV groups were significantly associated with PFS and OS (p=0.03 and p=0.002). Two-year estimates for PFS were 56% (95% CI 34-94%) and 87% (95% CI 79-95%) and 2-year estimates for OS were 56% (95% CI 34-94%) and 93% (95% CI 88-99%) in pts with ∆SUV <66% and ∆SUV >66%, respectively. Conclusion Agreement in visual 5-PS at iPET was moderate; most discrepancies arose from a local PET+ result when central review called PET-. Differences in maxSUV and ∆SUV tended to be small. Grouping ∆SUV resulted in only 4 discrepancies (4.6%). Similar to the previous analysis using central data, the separation in PFS and OS curves using local data for ∆SUV was greater than by visual 5-PS. Encouragingly, the agreement in ∆SUV of <66% vs ≥66% was high between local and central review. Overall agreement however may be unduly influenced by the large proportion of pts with ∆SUV ≥66%, with less certainty in agreement for pts with ∆SUV <66%. Larger prospective studies comparing local and central imaging data are warranted to best determine the utility of local imaging in clinical trials. Support: P30 CA008748, U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00118209 (CALGB 50303) Disclosures Kahl: Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy. Friedberg:Astellas: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.: Other; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy. Leonard:MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; GenMab: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Bartlett:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding.

e20004 Background: IB is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that showed superior progression-free survival compared with BR in CLL patients (pts) 65 years or older in a randomized phase 3 trial (Woyach et al, NEJM 2018). Pts receiving IB had higher rates of atrial fibrillation (AFIB) and hypertension (HTN); BR pts had higher rates of hematologic toxicity. Differences in treatment duration for BR (6 cycles) and IB (until progression) complicated adverse event (AE) comparisons. Here we use an exploratory approach to compare toxicity burden between arms and provide assessment of AFIB, HTN and infections (INF). Methods: AEs were reported for each of cycles 1-6 and then every 3 cycles until progression or nonprotocol CLL therapy. Only grade (gr) 3-4 AEs were reported thereafter until death. A simple global AE score was calculated for each pt by summing grades of all gr 1-4 AEs and dividing by the number of cycles over which AEs were submitted. Results: 537 pts began therapy (176 BR, 361 IB). 68% on BR completed all 6 cycles. At a median follow-up of 38 months, 64% remained on IB. Treatment discontinuation for AE occurred in 10% and 14% of BR and IB pts. Overall, median AE score was 1.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-3.3) and 3.8 (IQR 2.3-5.9) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). For cycles 1-6, median AE score was 6.2 (IQR 3.8-9.0) and 4.8 (IQR 3.0-7.2) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). In the IB arm, median AE score post 6 cycles decreased significantly to 3.4 (IQR 1.9-5.6) (p < 0.01). Gr 3 or higher cumulative rates of AFIB, HTN, and INF over time appear in the table. 100 pts (26/176 BR, 74/361 IB) had 137 severe INF (39% respiratory: 16 BR, 37 IB; 25% skin: 3 BR, 31 IB; 12% GU: 3 BR, 13 IB; 25% other: 12 BR, 22 IB). There were 7 gr 5 INF (3 BR, 4 IB), none confirmed fungal. Conclusions: There was no difference in treatment discontinuation rates for AE. Overall toxicity burden was significantly higher for IB, although IB toxicity burden decreased after 6 cycles. Toxicity burden was significantly higher in cycles 1-6 for pts receiving BR. Risk of severe AFIB, HTN, and INF is highest in the first year of IB. A simple AE score provides valuable information, especially when evaluating regimens of varying length. Clinical trial information: NCT01886872 . Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01886872. [Table: see text]

8042 Background: Optimal consolidative therapy for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is not defined. Avoidance of whole brain radiation may reduce risk of neurotoxicity. Non-radiation consolidative options include myeloablative chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) or non-myeloablative chemotherapy. Methods: This is a randomized phase 2, National Clinical Trials Network study of induction methotrexate (MTX) (8 g/m2days 1, 15), temozolomide (TMZ) (150-200 mg/m2 D7-11), and rituximab (RTX) (C1 D3, 10, 17, 24 and C2 D3, 10) in four 28-day cycles followed by one cycle of cytarabine (ARA-C) (2 g/m2 BID, D1, 2) (MTRA). Following induction, patients (pts) received consolidation with thiotepa (5 mg/kg BID, D -5, -4) plus carmustine (400 mg/m2, day -6) and ASCT (Arm A) or one cycle of ARA-C (2 g/m2 BID, D1-4) plus infusional etoposide (40 mg/kg over 96h) (Arm B). The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (PFS), designed to compare consolidation regimens. This report describes the results of the 5 cycles of induction therapy. Results: 113 pts (median age 61 years, range 33-75) were randomized (Arm A: 57, Arm B: 56) across 27 centers. 108 eligible pts who received induction therapy were evaluated. 36 pts (33.3%) did not proceed to consolidation, mainly due to disease progression (17), pt withdrawal (8), or adverse events including death (6). Grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 12 pts (11.1%) during induction. Dose modifications of MTX were required in 75% of pts and 63.3% of cycles, mainly due to renal adjustments. Dose delays of MTX were required in 52.8% of pts and 22.2% of cycles. Overall response rate (CR, CRu, PR) at the end of induction was 65.7% (95% CI, 56%, 74.6%). Conclusions: While MTRA is feasible and active a significant proportion of pts did not receive consolidation, supporting the need to develop more effective induction strategies. Clinical trial information: NCT01511562 .

Abstract Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Three scoring systems incorporating simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the International Prognostic Index (IPI), revised IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We evaluated 2124 DLBCL patients treated from 1998 to 2009 with frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; or variant) across 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials to determine which scoring system best discriminates overall survival (OS). Median age was 63 years, and 56% of patients were male. Five-year OS estimates ranged from 54% to 88%, from 61% to 93%, and from 49% to 92% using the IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI, respectively. The NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest- and lowest-risk groups and best discriminated OS (concordance index = 0.632 vs 0.626 [IPI] vs 0.590 [R-IPI]). For each given IPI risk category, NCCN-IPI risk categories were significantly associated with OS (P ≤ .01); the reverse was not true, and the IPI did not provide additional significant prognostic information within all NCCN-IPI risk categories. Collectively, the NCCN-IPI outperformed the IPI and R-IPI. Patients with low-risk NCCN-IPI had favorable survival outcomes with little room for further improvement. In the rituximab era, none of the clinical risk scores identified a patient subgroup with long-term survival clearly &lt;50%. Integrating molecular features of the tumor and microenvironment into the NCCN-IPI or IPI might better characterize a high-risk group for which novel treatment approaches are most needed.

AbstractImmunochemotherapy followed by autologous transplant (ASCT) in CALGB/Alliance 59909 achieved a median progression‐free survival (PFS) in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) of 5 years, but late recurrences occurred. We evaluated tolerability and efficacy of adding post‐transplant bortezomib consolidation (BC) or maintenance (BM) to this regimen in CALGB/Alliance 50403, a randomized phase II trial. Following augmented‐dose R‐CHOP/ methotrexate, high‐dose cytarabine‐based stem cell mobilization, cyclophosphamide/carmustine/etoposide (CBV) autotransplant, and rituximab, patients were randomized to BC (1.3 mg/m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 of a 3‐week cycle for four cycles) or BM (1.6 mg/m2 IV once weekly × 4 every 8 weeks for 18 months) beginning day 90. The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from randomization for each arm. Proliferation signature, Ki67, and postinduction minimal residual disease (MRD) in bone marrow were assessed. Of 151 patients enrolled; 118 (80%) underwent ASCT, and 102 (68%) were randomized. Both arms met the primary endpoint, with median PFS significantly greater than 4 years (P < .001). The 8‐year PFS estimates in the BC and BM arms were 54.1% (95% CI 40.9%‐71.5%) and 64.4% (95% 51.8%‐79.0%), respectively. Progression‐free survival was significantly longer for transplanted patients on 50403 compared with those on 59909. Both the PFS and OS were significantly better for those who were MRD‐negative post‐induction. The high risk proliferation signature was associated with adverse outcome. Both BM and BC were efficacious and tolerable, although toxicity was significant. The comparison between studies 50403 and 59909 with long‐term follow up suggests a PFS benefit from the addition of BC or BM post‐ transplant.

7544 Background: Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients (pts) newly diagnosed with aggressive BCL. Three scoring systems based on simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the international prognostic index (IPI), revised-IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We studied BCL pts treated with R-CHOP to determine which scoring systems best identifies subgroups with poor outcomes that might benefit from new approaches. Methods: Individual pt data from 7 multicenter trials (1998-2009) of pts with BCL (86% DLBCL) treated front-line with R-CHOP (or variant) were analyzed to determine whether IPI, R-IPI, or NCCN-IPI best discriminated overall survival (OS). The concordance index (c-index) from a proportional hazards model, stratifying on trial and induction therapy, quantified predictive accuracy of each scoring system. Results: 2561 pts (median age 63 yrs, 56% male) were classified into IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI risk groups (Table). With a median follow-up of 5 yrs, NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest and lowest risk groups at 1, 3, and 5 yrs, and best discriminated OS (c-index = 0.631, Table). Conclusions: In an independent and large cohort of pts, NCCN-IPI performs best in risk-stratifying pts with aggressive BCL, readily distinguishing pts at high and low risk for treatment failure using clinical parameters (5-yr OS between 48 and 92%). Improvement over the simpler IPI appears incremental, and IPI may remain a valuable alternative. Work integrating molecular features of the tumor into the (NCCN-) IPI is in progress to define high risk groups where targeted novel approaches are needed most. [Table: see text]

*equal contribution of AB, RLL, BD and JCB Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is common with increasing age, and older adults with AML rarely achieve long-term remission with chemotherapy. Gene discovery studies in older adults with AML have shown that this malignancy is characterized by a multitude of somatic genomic alterations beginning with initiating somatic events followed by acquisition of collaborative transforming mutations. Despite these important biologic insights, current therapeutic approaches to AML remain limited, particularly in adults ≥ 60 years of age. The Beat AML trial was designed to assess the feasibility of using genetic profiling to assign patients (pts) to molecularly defined, subtype-specific therapies within 7 days of the initial diagnosis in a multi-center clinical trial setting, and to delineate the role of molecularly informed first-line treatment of AML with mechanism based novel therapies. Methods: Treatment-naïve patients with AML were enrolled in this prospective trial which offered accelerated cytogenetic and comprehensive mutational testing within 7 days followed by treatment assignment using these molecular data. Pt eligibility included age ≥ 60 years with non-APML AML, no known CNS leukemia, no prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy and no clinical need for emergent therapy. Eligible pts were profiled by local cytogenetics analysis and using a central next generation sequencing (NGS) assay (Foundation Medicine, Inc.) with all molecular data required for treatment assignment (TA) obtained &lt; 7 days. TA was made centrally using a pre-determined algorithm considering somatic cytogenetic and molecular alterations in the dominant clone, available targeted therapeutics for specific AML subsets, and the likelihood of cure with intensive chemotherapy. Results: From November 2016 to January 2019, 487 pts with a suspected diagnosis of AML had enrolled at 14 clinical sites; 395 were eligible for the study (77% of the patients not eligible for the study had an alternative diagnosis). The median age of eligible patients was 72 years (range: 60 to 92) with 38% being≥ 75 years and 16% with treatment-related AML. From the 395 eligible patients, 374 (94.7%) were centrally assigned to the different cytogenetic/genomic groups within 7 days. The most common groups were TP53 mutated (19%) and marker negative (18%) molecular groups. The Beat AML trial is dynamic by design, thereby allowing different arms to open over time; all trial arms are designed to evaluate for substantial clinical efficacy in small, molecularly defined patient subsets. As shown in Figure 1, 224 patients (57%) had a TA and consented to a BEAT AML sub-study. Of the remaining 171 patients, 103 received standard therapy defined as induction therapy (7+3) or hypomethylation agent (25 before TA and 78 after TA), 28 received an alternative investigational agent (5 before TA and 23 after TA), 38 received palliative care, and 2 had an unknown treatment status and are grouped with the palliative care patients in subsequent analyses; 9 patients died before TA (2 who received standard therapy and 7 in the palliative care group). Demographic, clinical, performance and molecular characteristics were not largely different between pts who elected targeted therapy as part of the BEAT AML trial versus those who elected standard therapy. As shown in Figure 2, the overall survival was significantly longer for patients enrolled in a targeted therapy arm as part of the BEAT AML trial compared to those who elected standard therapy. (p&lt;0.0001). The 30-day estimated death rate was 3.7% (95% CI: 1.9-7.2) for patients electing treatment on a BEAT AML sub-study, 20.4% (95% CI: 13.0-31.2) for those receiving standard therapy, 0% for those receiving an investigational therapy, and 72.6% (95% CI: 57.8-85.7) for the palliative care group. Conclusion: Our data support the feasibility of a rapid precision medicine approach in older patients with previously untreated AML. Patients with AML who elected treatment assigned based upon cytogenetic and molecular alterations in the dominant clone using a novel precision medicine approach had significantly improved overall survival versus those who elected standard of care treatment. Disclosures Levine: Gilead: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria. Mims:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borate:Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Stein:Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patel:France Foundation: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Baer:Takeda: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Deininger:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; TRM: Consultancy; Sangoma: Consultancy; Fusion Pharma: Consultancy; Adelphi: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Humana: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sangamo: Consultancy; Blueprint: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blum:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Astellas,: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; AmerisourceBergen: Consultancy. Schiller:Amgen: Other, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Sangamo Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding. Olin:Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Ignyta: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Mirati Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lin:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Traer:AbbVie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Notable Labs: Equity Ownership. Odenike:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Research Funding; Oncotherapy: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; CTI/Baxalta: Research Funding. Arellano:Gilead: Consultancy. Vergilio:Roche Holding AG: Equity Ownership; Foundation Medicine: Employment. Brennan:Foundation Medicine: Employment. Vietz:Foundation Medicine: Employment. Druker:ALLCRON: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Aileron Therapeutics: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees , Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cepheid: Consultancy, Honoraria; The RUNX1 Research Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GRAIL: Equity Ownership, Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; Patient True Talk: Consultancy; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (antibody royalty): Patents & Royalties: #2524, antibody royalty; Pfizer: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding; Merck & Co: Patents & Royalties: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute license #2063, Monoclonal antiphosphotyrosine antibody 4G10, exclusive commercial license to Merck & Co; OHSU (licensing fees): Patents & Royalties: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees ; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aptose Biosciences: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beta Cat: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vivid Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; Beat AML LLC: Other: Service on joint steering committee; CureOne: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; ICON: Other: Scientific Founder of Molecular MD, which was acquired by ICON in Feb. 2019; Monojul: Other: former consultant; Novartis: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Patents & Royalties: Patent 6958335, Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors, exclusively licensed to Novartis, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding. Byrd:Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.