Thompson, Carrie A.

AbstractNon‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and statin drugs may protect against the development of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but data are limited, particularly for NHL subtypes. Furthermore, some in vitro, animal and epidemiologic data suggest there may be a synergistic effect of these two agents, but there has been no test of this hypothesis in NHL. We evaluated the self‐reported use of NSAIDs and statins in a clinic‐based study of 1703 NHL patients and 2199 frequency‐matched controls. Unconditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for potential confounding variables. We observed an inverse association of regular use of low‐dose aspirin with risk of NHL (OR = 0.82; 95% CI 0.70‐0.96) that was stronger with longer duration of use (P < .01). There were no associations for use of regular or extra‐strength aspirin, ibuprofen, other NSAIDs, statins or other cholesterol‐lowering drugs with NHL risk, while an inverse association with COX‐2 inhibitors was equivocal. There was also no interaction of low‐dose aspirin and statins on NHL risk. Inverse associations of similar magnitude to all NHL were observed for regular use of low‐dose aspirin with diffuse large B‐cell, follicular, marginal zone and all other lymphomas, although not all associations were statistically significant. In conclusion, low‐dose aspirin but not regular/extra strength aspirin, other NSAIDs or statin use was associated with lower risk of NHL. Beyond the potential for the primary prevention of NHL, these data also point to a role of anti‐platelet or other effects of low‐dose aspirin in lymphomagenesis that warrant follow‐up.

Background: Obesity is increasing worldwide, with the highest prevalence in the United States. High or low body mass index (BMI) is a well-established risk factor for increased all-cause mortality and also has been associated with cancer-specific mortality. However, the impact of BMI on survival following diagnosis with lymphoma currently remains controversial. We leveraged a prospective cohort of lymphoma patients to assess the relationship of BMI two years prior to diagnosis (BMI-2), at diagnosis (BMI-dx), and three-years post-diagnosis (BMI+3) with lymphoma-specific survival (LSS) as the primary endpoint and with event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) as secondary endpoints. Patient and Method: Patients were prospectively enrolled at lymphoma diagnosis to the SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort at Mayo Clinic and University of Iowa from 2002-2015. BMI-2 and BMI+3 were self-reported in patient questionnaires, while BMI-dx was extracted from the medical chart. Patients with extreme BMI (BMI &lt;14 and BMI ≥50) were excluded from the analysis. BMI change from BMI-2 to BMI-dx and from BMI-dx to BMI+3 was categorized as no change (-5% to 5%), decrease (&gt;-5%), and increase (&gt;+5%). Person-time at risk was assessed from lymphoma diagnosis until death or last follow-up, except for analyses of BMI change from BMI-dx to BMI+3, which started person-time at risk when the 3-year (+/- 6 months) follow-up questionnaire was returned. Cause of death was assigned by a study clinician. For all lymphoma patients combined and in the most common subtypes, we evaluated the association of BMI at each time point and change in BMI with EFS, LSS, and OS using hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from multivariable adjusted Cox models. Results: A total of 4,009 lymphoma patients (including 670 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], 689 follicular lymphoma [FL] and 1018 chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma [CLL/SLL] and 1,632 others) with data on BMI-dx were included. Among them, 2,955 patients had BMI-2 and 2,004 had BMI+3 and were evaluable for change in BMI. The median age of all patients at diagnosis was 61 years (range 18-92 years), and 94% of patients had ECOG performance status &lt;2. At the time of diagnosis, 28% were normal weight (BMI 18.5-25), 1% were underweight (BMI &lt;18.5), 39% were overweight (BMI 25-30) and 32% were obese (BMI ≥30). With a median follow-up of 108 months from diagnosis (IQR 83-143 months), 1320 deaths were observed, 48% of which were due to lymphoma. Patients with FL who were obese at BMI-2 had significantly shorter LSS (HR: 3.02, 95%CI: 1.43-6.41, p=0.004). Associations between obesity at BMI-2 and LSS were not evident for DLBCL (HR: 1.04, 95%CI: 0.62-1.76, p=0.879) or CLL/SLL (HR: 1.10, 95%CI: 0.71-1.70, p=0.668) (Table). BMI-dx was not associated with LSS in any lymphoma patients, except that DLBCL patients who were underweight at BMI-dx (n=10) experienced shorter LSS (HR: 3.52, 95%CI: 1.22-10.1, p=0.020). This correlated significantly with presence of B symptoms (p=0.004) and may signify aggressive disease. Across all subtypes, &gt;5% decrease in BMI from BMI-2 to BMI-dx was associated with significantly shorter LSS in patients with (HR: 2.02, 95%CI: 1.65-2.48, p&lt;0.001). However, only for FL patients, &gt;5% increase in BMI from BMI-dx to BMI+3 also was associated with significantly shorter LSS in subsequent years (HR: 3.74, 95%CI: 1.30-10.8, p=0.014). The associations reported for LSS generally were similar for EFS and OS. Conclusions: FL patients with obesity prior to diagnosis or who experienced increasing BMI after the diagnosis had significantly shorter LSS. The impact of weight control after the diagnosis of FL patient outcomes warrants investigation. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flowers:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding.

Introduction: Lymphoma is the most common cancer among adolescents and young adults (AYAs). We examined changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and its predictors in AYA patients (pts). Patients and Methods: We identified AYA pts (aged 18-39) enrolled 2002-2015 in a prospective cohort of pts with newly diagnosed lymphoma from the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource, part of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort. Enrollment could occur prior to or after initiation of treatment. We measured HRQoL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire at baseline, 12, and 24 months. FACT-G yields five HRQoL domain scores: emotional well-being (EWB), functional WB (FWB), physical WB (PWB), social/family WB (SFWB), and total FACT-G score (a sum of the domains). Pts completing &lt;80% of the FACT-G questions were excluded. Linear mixed models with random subject intercepts estimated changes in FACT-G scores from baseline. The covariates in multivariate analysis were lymphoma subtype, stage, and treatment. Interaction effects between treatment (chemotherapy and/or radiation) and subtype were added to the model. We calculated effect sizes (ES) for the magnitude of mean change scores: 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 were considered small, medium, and large ESs, respectively. Only ESs for mean score differences with p&lt;0.05 are reported. Results: We identified 467 pts; median age at diagnosis was 30 years, median follow up was 5.9 years. 53% of pts completed the baseline FACT-G assessment pre-treatment, 47% completed after treatment began. Pts assessed after treatment initiation had lower baseline total FACT-G (ES -0.25), FWB (ES -0.27), and PWB scores (-0.46); but baseline EWB was higher in pts assessed prior to treatment (ES 0.20). There was no association between HRQoL scores at baseline or over time and lymphoma subtype, stage, or treatment type, or interactions. Total FACT-G scores modestly improved over time, ES 0.32 at 1 year and ES 0.45 at 2 years after enrollment. EWB, FWB, and PWB also improved over time (ES 0.36, 0.44, 0.30 at 1 year; and 0.49, 0.56, 0.38 at 2 years, respectively). SFWB scores slightly worsened over time (ES -0.24 at 1 year and -0.12 at 2 years). Conclusions: AYA pts with lymphoma had higher baseline total FACT-G scores, FWB and PWB prior to therapy initiation compared to after initiation. HRQoL improved from diagnosis through the first 2 years after diagnosis, except for SFWB. Neither stage, lymphoma subtype, nor treatment type affected change in HRQoL. The lack of improvement in SFWB suggests social interventions and future studies should examine factors impacting SFWB in AYA pts. Disclosures Cohen: Genentech, BMS, Novartis, LAM, BioInvent, LRF, ASH, Astra Zeneca, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo: Consultancy. Flowers:Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

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 &lt;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 &lt;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 &lt;0.01 and MID &gt;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.

Background: Indolent B-cell lymphomas are a group of neoplastic disorders that account for approximately one-third of non-Hodgkin lymphomas in the Western world. They are clinically indolent but pathologically diverse and generally composed of follicular lymphoma (FL), extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL), lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL), nodal marginal zone lymphoma (NMZL), splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL), and small lymphocytic lymphoma. The overall prognosis is favorable in most patients, but others can have a more aggressive disease with associated progression, relapse, or histologic transformation. We have previously reported that the most common cause of death in FL was lymphoma. Here we report on the cause of death (COD), in other non-follicular indolent B-cell lymphomas (NFIBL) during the first decade of the rituximab era. Methods: Participants were from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). From 2002 -2015, MER offered enrollment to all patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma who were US residents and age &gt;18 years. Patients were treated per physician choice and followed prospectively. An event was defined as progression or relapse, initiation of 2nd line therapy, or death from any cause. EFS24 was defined using event-free survival at 24 months from diagnosis. Overall survival was defined as the time from diagnosis until death due to any cause. Overall survival from EFS24 was defined as time from event defining date (achieving EFS24 or early event). For decendents, copies of the death certificate or medical records associated with death were reviewed. Cumulative incidence estimates of the cause of death in NFIBL were calculated as competing risks utilizing the cuminc function from the cmprsk package in R version 3.6.2. COD was categorized as a result of lymphoma (progression or therapy-related) vs. other causes vs. unknown/missing. Results: 820 patients with newly diagnosed NFIBL were enrolled in this study. The subtypes included extranodal marginal zone (EMZL, N = 362), unclassifiable low-grade B-cell lymphoma (LGBCL-U, N = 202), lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL, N = 92), nodal marginal zone lymphoma (NMZL, N = 80), and splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL, N = 84). The median age at diagnosis was 63 years (range 18-92), and 50.5% were male. Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics showed that the LDH was abnormal in 19.3%, hemoglobin was abnormal in 33.8%, and 62.8% had stage III-IV disease. The IPI score was 0-1 in 51%, 2 in 36.6%, 3 in 10.6%, and 4-5 in 1.8%. At a median follow-up of 83 months (range 0-193), 172 (21%) patients had died, and the primary cause of death was non-lymphoma related in 87 (50.6%), lymphoma related 48 (27.9%), and unknown in 37 (21.5%). When examining all subtypes combined, the 10-year estimate for lymphoma related death was 7% (95% CI: 5.2-9.5) which was lower than the rate of non-lymphoma related death (10 years estimate 14%, 95% CI: 11.3-17.4), Figure 1A, Table 1. The 10-year estimate of lymphoma related death varied by subtype, ranging from 2.7% in EMZL to 16.3% in LPL (table 1), while non-lymphoma related death at 10 years ranged from 10.2% in EMZL to 22.5% in SMZL; only in LPL was the lymphoma related rate higher than the non-lymphoma. Patients who failed to achieve EFS24 from diagnosis had significantly higher rates of lymphoma related death (18% at 10 years from failure, 95% CI: 11.7-29.1, Figure 1B) compared to patients who achieved EFS24 (3.9% at 10 years from achieving EFS24, 95% CI: 2.3-6.8, Figure 1C). Rates were similar by EFS24 for non-lymphoma related death (14.5%, 95% CI: 11.0-19.0 vs. 11.2, 95% CI: 6.3-19.7). Figure 1B-C. Conclusion: The most common cause of death in NFIBL at 10 years was unrelated to lymphoma, in contrast to our previous data in follicular lymphoma which showed lymphoma as the most common cause of death at 10 years. However, similar to follicular lymphoma, patients with NFIBL who failed to achieve EFS24 to frontline therapy had significantly increased risk of lymphoma related death. Further research into the cause of death in NFIBL is warranted. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene / BMS: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Novak:Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Farooq:Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Cerhan:BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Background: Patients with newly diagnosed MM can be quite symptomatic as a result of end organ damage related to MM as well as presence of other comorbidities in this relatively older patient population. Prior studies have shown that the performance score as well as other quality of life (QOL), frailty and comorbidities scores can have prognostic value in these patients. However, many of these questionnaires are lengthy and complex, and not practical in a busy outpatient practice. We implemented a three question symptom assessment score in 2010 in our outpatient practice. Here we present the results of the analysis looking at the impact of this measurement in patients with newly diagnosed MM. Patients and Methods: Patients seen in the outpatient Hematology practice at Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN, were asked to grade the symptoms of fatigue, pain, and QOL on a 0 to 10 scale during the past 7 days, with 10 being the worst and the QOL on a similar scale but with 10 being the best. For the purpose of the current analysis the QOL score was reversed.These three scores were added for a total score. We looked at the impact of the baseline score as well as the score after four cycles of therapy, at the time of best response, and at the time of the first progression, wherever they were available. Survival curves were generated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for assessment of the impact of different prognostic variables. Results: Data from 735 patients with newly diagnosed MM seen at Mayo Clinic between 2011 and 2018 were available from baseline. The median total score was 10 (0-30), and for fatigue, pain and QOL were 4, 3 and 7 respectively, all with range of 0-10. Based on the baseline scores, patients were grouped into tertiles (Group 1 with score &lt; 8, group 2 with score 8 to 14 and group 3 with a score ≥ 15). There were 256 (34%), 272 (37%) and 207 (28%) patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The median overall survival (OS) (95% CI) from diagnosis was NR (7.9, NR), 7.7 (6.2, NR) and 5.4 (4.2, 6.9), respectively for groups 1, 2 and 3 (P &lt; 0.0001) (Figure 1a). The prognostic value of the score was independent of age, FISH based risk status and the ISS stage. When evaluated after 4 cycles (n=325), the OS was significantly different for the 3 groups (P&lt;0.01) (figure 1b). We then examined the impact of the score at best response to initial therapy (n=446) on OS from that timepoint and saw similar trend, but the results were not statistically significant (P=0.09) (Figure 1c). When evaluated at the time of first disease progression, the score again identified three groups with different OS from progression (P&lt;0.001) (Figure 1d). Conclusions:Patient-reported outcomes are associated with survival in patients with MM. This simple, easy to complete patient-reported outcome 3-item scale can be easily completed in a busy practice and is a clinically useful tool to assess potential outcomes of patients at various disease stages, including at diagnosis and at relapse. Disclosures Kumar: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Gertz:Proclara: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Aurora Bio: Other; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Research to Practice: Other; Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Dingli:Rigel: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Patients with Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) tend to present at an older age. Frailty, resulting from comorbidities and reduced organ function, poses unique challenges to the management of WM in the elderly. Age above 65 years, is an established unfavorable prognostic factor in WM. However, data specifically pertaining to the very elderly patient population are scant. The impact of advanced age (≥75 years at diagnosis) on the clinical features and outcomes of patients with symptomatic/active WM were studied. Methods: Patients with active WM, evaluated at Mayo Clinic, Rochester between January 1996 and December 2018 were included in the study. The characteristics and laboratory parameters at presentation of the cohort of patients with the age ≥75 years were compared to those of the younger (age &lt;75 years) cohort. The median follow-up and overall survival (OS) were assessed from active disease to last follow-up or death using the Kaplan Meier method. Because older age is a confounding factor for deaths from unrelated causes, the cause-specific survival (CSS) was calculated. Deaths were deemed WM-related if patients died from progressive disease, transformation with antecedent WM, concomitant light chain (AL) amyloidosis, infection associated with WM or anti-WM therapy related toxicity, while patients who died from other causes were considered to have a WM-unrelated death. The patients who died from causes unrelated to WM were censored at death for CSS analysis. The OS of the cohort of the very elderly patients was compared to that of a cohort of the general US population, matched for age, sex as well as follow-up from the calendar-year of diagnosis, to assess the degree to which WM impacts survival. Results: Among 949 consecutive patients, with a median follow-up of 8.4 years [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 7.7-9.3 years] from active disease, the median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range: 31-93 years). Of 177 patients (19%) who were ≥75 years of age at the onset of active WM, 173 (98%) received anti-WM therapy. The baseline characteristics of the 2 cohorts (patients ≥75 years of age versus &lt;75 years) are outlined in Table 1. The patients in the age ≥75 years cohort were noted to have lower IgM levels and serum albumin, and higher serum LDH and serum β-2 microglobulin compared to the age &lt;75 years cohort. A higher proportion of patients in the age &lt;75 years cohort had coexisting AL amyloidosis at diagnosis. The frequency of MYD88L265P mutation was similar between the 2 cohorts (p=0.2). During the 23-year period, there was an increase in the proportion of patients ≥75 years who were diagnosed with active WM (12% during the 1996-2003 period, 18% during 2004-2010, 25% during 2011-2018; P&lt;0.0001). In the elderly WM cohort, the most frequently used frontline treatment was rituximab monotherapy (36%), followed by rituximab-alkylating agent-based regimen (31%). Of 177 patients with age ≥75 years, 89 (50%) patients were deceased at the time of last follow-up and 58% (52/89) of all deaths in age ≥75 years were attributable to WM. By contrast, 303 (39%) out of the 772 patients in the age &lt;75 years cohort were deceased at last follow-up, with 73% (224/303) deaths attributable to WM. The CSS for patients with age ≥75 years was 10.9 years (95% CI: 7.3-11.7 years) versus 14.7 years (95% CI: 13.2-15.7 years) for age &lt;75 years [Risk ratio 2.1(95% CI: 1.5-2.8); p&lt;0.0001]. At the 1 and 2 year follow-up, WM-related mortality was 6.8% and 11.9%, respectively, for patients with age ≥75 years versus 2.6% and 4.9%, respectively, for the younger cohort. The median OS of patients with age ≥75 years from the diagnosis of active WM was 5.9 years (95% CI: 4.2-7.3 years) compared to the OS of 8.3 years for an age, sex and calendar-year-matched cohort, derived from the general US population (p&lt;0.001), Figure 1. Conclusion: Patients who are ≥75 years of age at the time of diagnosis of active WM present with certain poor prognostic features, including higher serum LDH and β-2 microglobulin and lower serum albumin compared to their younger counterparts. The impact of advanced age is underscored by a poorer WM-specific survival for the subset of patients with the age ≥75 years compared to the younger cohort. Furthermore, although active/symptomatic WM is typically an indolent malignancy, it adversely affects OS of the very elderly patients as suggested by the comparison with an age, sex and calendar-year matched cohort of the general US population. Disclosures Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Gertz:Ionis/Akcea: Other: personal fee; Alnylam: Other: personal fee; Prothena: Other: personal fee; Spectrum: Other: personal fee, Research Funding; Annexon: Other: personal fee; Appellis: Other: personal fee; Amgen: Other: personal fee; Medscape: Other: personal fee, Speakers Bureau; Physicians Education Resource: Other: personal fee; Abbvie: Other; Celgene: Other; Research to Practice: Other; Sanofi: Other; Teva: Speakers Bureau; Johnson and Johnson: Speakers Bureau; DAVA oncology: Speakers Bureau; Proclara: Other; Springer Publishing: Patents & Royalties; Aurora Bio: Other; Janssen: Other: personal fee. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Witzig:Spectrum: Consultancy; Immune Design: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Kumar:Sanofi: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments. Kapoor:Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

In 2013, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) published recommendations with Choosing Wisely to limit surveillance imaging in aggressive lymphoma. We studied surveillance imaging practice patterns for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) before and after the ASH Choosing Wisely campaign. We used OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a national insurance claims database, to retrospectively study imaging frequency in survivors of DLBCL from 2008 to 2016. Three time periods were defined: Period 1 (2008 to 2010), Period 2 (2011 to 2013), and Period 3 (2014 to 2016). One thousand four hundred seventy-two patients were included. Median follow up was approximately 2 years. During the first and second years of surveillance, imaging remained stable between Period 1 (years 1 and 2: 199 [91%] and 137 [83%], respectively) and Period 2 (years 1 and 2: 257 [88%] and 172 [77%], respectively; P = .38), but decreased in Period 3 (years 1 and 2: 315 [78%] and 83 [61%], respectively; P < .01). In a multivariable logistic regression, year after 2012 was a significant predictor of decreased overuse (more than two scans per year in the first year of surveillance; [odds ratio, 0.49 for 2013 v 2008; P = .02]). Our study demonstrated the rate of surveillance scans—both computed tomography and positron emission tomography imaging—in DLBCL decreased after the ASH Choosing Wisely campaign. Multiple factors, such as changes in recommendations, reimbursement, and provider knowledge base, may have all contributed and should be studied further.