Reeder, Craig B.

Abstract Background :COVID-19 adversely affects individuals with cancer. Several studies have found that seroconversion rates among patients with hematologic malignancies are suboptimal when compared to patients without cancer. Among patients with hematologic malignancies, seroconversion rates also appear to be influenced by recent treatment and the type of treatment they have received. Patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM) are immunocompromised due to impaired humoral and cellular immunity in addition to prescribed immunosuppressive therapy. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy is now widely used for NHL and MM, but little is known about seroconversion rates after COVID-19 vaccination among these populations. Current national guidelines recommend COVID-19 vaccination to be offered to CAR T recipients as early as three months thereafter. We retrospectively evaluated SARS-CoV-2 spike-binding IgG antibody levels following COVID-19 vaccination among NHL and MM CAR T therapy recipients. Methods:This retrospective study was conducted at three Mayo Clinic sites on NHL and MM patients that received CAR T infusions from Sept 2016 to June 2021. Baseline characteristics were ascertained from medical records. All NHL and MM patients who had received CAR T at any point and were alive at the time that the COVID-19 vaccine first became available were eligible for inclusion for antibody response evaluation. For antibody response to vaccination, antibody spike values > 0.80 U/mL were considered positive. Results: Out of 104 CAR T infusions, 73 patients are alive at the time of this submission. We have had 7 patients with known COVID-19 pre-CAR T and all 7 are currently alive (5 have antibody titers and 2 have not been tested yet). Nineteen patients developed known COVID infection post-CAR T (13 alive and 6 deceased). The mortality of COVID post-CAR T in our sample was 31.5%. Furthermore, of the 13 patients that survived COVID-19, they received CAR T an average of 416 days prior to COVID-19 infection (median = 337, range = 54 - 1406); the 6 patients who died from COVID-19 had received CAR T an average of 250 days prior to COVID-19 infection (median = 164, range = 7 - 846). All 6 deceased patients did not receive COVID-19 vaccination pre-CAR T. Out of 17 CAR T patients tested for antibody spike titers post COVID-19 vaccination, 76.4% were able to mount an antibody response. More patients with MM had a higher titer response to the vaccine (>250 U/mL) compared to the NHL counterparts (0.80-249 U/mL). All patients that received the vaccine, regardless of antibody response, were alive at the time of this submission. Conclusions:The majority of CAR T recipients with NHL and MM are able to mount an antibody response following COVID-19 vaccination in our relatively small sample. The frequency of seroconversion among CAR T recipients seems to be similar to patients with hematologic malignancy who had received a hematopoietic cell transplant reported elsewhere. These findings are limited by our small sample size and may be influenced by the timing of vaccination relative to CAR T. Furthermore, almost half of our patients received IVIG post CAR T which could potentially cause false positive antibody results as pooled immunoglobulin preparations may contain COVID-19 antibodies from vaccinated healthy donors. To better understand the characteristics of the immunologic response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients post-CAR T, larger multicenter studies exploring both humoral and cellular immunity will be needed. JEWN, MI and JM are co-first authors and PV, HM and AR are co-senior authors. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Bergsagel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria. Wang: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca: Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Palmer: Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Kapoor: Sanofi: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: 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, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding.

7530 Background: Clinical trials of novel salvage therapies (ST) have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). In this observational study, we report efficacies and outcomes of different ST in ASCT-eligible R/R cHL. Methods: Consecutive ASCT-eligible R/R cHL pts at 3 Mayo Clinic sites were included. Demographics and clinical variables at relapse were recorded by medical records review. Time to event endpoints were defined from relapse. Univariate associations were confirmed in multivariate models of age, sex, B symptoms, stage, bulky disease (BD, single mass > 6 cm) extra nodal disease (END), primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER, within 1 year). Results: From Jan 2008 to May 2020, 207 ASCT-eligible pts with R/R cHL were included. Median age was 33 (24-43) years, 53% were male, 52% had advanced stage, 24% had BD, 36% had B symptoms, 41% had END, 11% had PRD and 43% had ER. All patients received ST and underwent ASCT; 43 (21%) received 2 ST, 14 (7%) 3 ST and 4 (0.5%) received 4 ST. 6 groups of ST were identified: ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide (ICE), bendamustine/brentuximab (BBV), brentuximab vedotin (BV), gemcitabine-based therapy (Gem), checkpoint inhibitor (CPI), and others. Table lists response to first line ST. BBV had significantly higher overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) as first ST in univariate and multivariate models. 114 (79%) after ICE, 30 (97%) after BBV, 15 (56%) after BV, 25 (76%) after Gem, 8 (73%) after CPI and 15 (79%) after other ST underwent ASCT. Higher number of pts were bridged to ASCT after BBV than ICE (p<0.01). 110 (53%) went to ASCT in CR, 74 (36%) in partial response (PR) and 11% in progressive disease (PD). 43 received BV maintenance (BVm) after ASCT. Pts going to ASCT in PR or PD had significantly lower progression free survival (PFS) compared to pts in CR (2 yr PFS: 62%, 18% vs 77%, respectively, p<0.0001) in univariate and multivariate models. There was no difference in PFS and overall survival (OS) by type of ST. BVm was associated with higher PFS (HR 0.3 (CI95 0.2-0.8)) and higher number of ST was associated with lower OS (HR 2 (CI95 1.4-3)) in multivariate model (p<0.001). For pts transplanted in CR, there was no significant difference in PFS and OS by type of ST but higher number of ST predicted lower OS (HR 2.4 (CI95 1.2-3.5), p<0.01). Conclusions: Type of ST did not predict survival, response to and number of ST did. For pts with CR, number of ST not type of ST predicted survival. BBV had higher response rates, higher rates of bridge to ASCT, and may be a preferable ST than ICE. Large, randomized trials are needed to evaluate efficacy of BBV compared to ICE.[Table: see text]

Abstract Comparative data guiding initial therapy for Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an infrequently encountered non‐Hodgkin lymphoma, are sparse. We evaluated three commonly used rituximab‐based frontline regimens: rituximab‐bendamustine (R‐Benda); dexamethasone, rituximab, cyclophosphamide (DRC); and bortezomib, dexamethasone, rituximab (BDR) in 220 treatment‐naïve patients with WM, seen at Mayo Clinic between November 1, 2000 and October 31, 2019. The median follow‐up was 4.5 (95%CI: 4–5) years. The R‐Benda cohort (n = 83) demonstrated superior overall response rate (ORR: 98%), in comparison to DRC (n = 92, ORR: 78%) or BDR (n = 45, ORR: 84%) cohorts, p = 0.003. Similarly, longer progression‐free survival (PFS) was evident with R‐Benda use [median 5.2 vs. 4.3 (DRC) and 1.8 years (BDR), p < 0.001]. The time‐to‐next therapy (TTNT) favored R‐Benda [median, not‐reached, 4.4 (DRC) and 2.6 years (BDR), p < 0.001). These endpoints were comparable between the DRC and BDR cohorts. Overall survival (OS) was similar across the three cohorts, p = 0.77. In a subset analysis of 142 patients genotyped for MYD88 L265P mutation, the ORR, PFS and TTNT were unaffected by the patients' MYD88 signature within each cohort. In conclusion, ORR, PFS and TTNT with R‐Benda are superior compared to DRC or BDR in treatment‐naïve patients with active WM. The patient outcomes with any one of these three regimens are unaffected by the MYD88 L265P mutation status.

Introduction: Daratumumab (D) is an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, used frequently in combination with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), lenalidomide (Len) and pomalidomide (Pom). There are no studies comparing DRd to DPd in Len-exposed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). We present the Mayo Clinic experience of DPd and DRd utilization and outcomes. Methods: We identified consecutive MM pts who received D, between 1/2015 and 4/2019 at Mayo Clinic. We included pts who were exposed (at least one full cycle, 21/28 days) or refractory (progression on full dose or maintenance Len during treatment or within 60 days of stopping Len) to Len prior to D and received 1 to 4 prior lines of therapy. Only Pts who received DRd and DPd were included. Results: Out of 411 evaluable pts 162 met the inclusion criteria; 67 were Len exposed, but not refractory and 95 were Len refractory. Pts' characteristics are shown in Table 1. DRd was used in 76 (47%) and DPd in 86 (53%) pts. Majority of pts (105; 65%) received DPd or DRd in the 2nd or 3rd line and 104 pts (64%) are still alive. In Len refractory pts, the median time from last dose of Len to D initiation was 1 mths (interquartile range 0-6.5). Seventy pts (43%) had high-risk cytogenetics (HR). Only 11 pts (7%) underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplant after DPd or DRd regimen. There was no significant difference between pts who received DRd and DPd in terms of age (&gt;65 years), gender, race, proportion exposed or refractory to Bortezomib, number of prior lines of treatment (&gt;2), or HR status (p&gt;0.05 for all). Pts who received DPd were 4 times more likely to be Len refractory compared to pts who received DRd, p=0.0008. Median follow up time for the whole cohort from initial diagnosis was 92 mths (CI 95%; 79.5-107), while from D start date was 30 mths (CI 95%; 27-34). Median PFS for the whole cohort was 21 mths (CI 95%; 15-25) and median OS was 138 mths (CI 95%; 111-193). In Len exposed but not refractory pts, n=67, the overall response rate (ORR) was 82% in the DRd group compared to 68% in the DPd group, p=0.2. There was no difference in median PFS; 25.5 mths (CI 95%; 23-NR) for DRd compared to 25 mths (CI 95%; 5-NR) for DPd, p=0.37. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; 138-NR) and 145.5 mths (CI 95%; 70-NR), respectively, p=0.06. In the 48 Len exposed but refractory pts who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no difference in median PFS; 39 mths (CI 95%; 23-NR) for DRd compared to 21 mths (CI 95%; 3-NR) for DPd, p=0.11. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; NR-NR) and 145.5 mths (CI 95%; 36-NR), respectively, p=0.13. In Len refractory pts only, n=95, the ORR was 84% in the DRd group compared to 58% in the DPd group, p=0.009. There was no difference in median PFS; 25 mths (CI 95%; 13-32) for DRd compared to 9 mths (CI 95%; 5-15) for DPd, p=0.18. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 78-NR) and 106 mths (CI 95%; 66-183), respectively, p=0.5. In the 57 Len refractory pts who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no difference in median PFS; 25 mths (CI 95%; 13-32) for DRd compared to 13 mths (CI 95%; 5-NR) for DPd, p=08. Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 69-NR) and 105 mths (CI 95%; 47-NR), respectively, p=0.35. In the 16 Len exposed but not refractory pts with HR MM who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, the median PFS was better in the DRd group; 24.4 mths (CI 95%; 12-NR) compared to 3.3 mths (CI 95%; 1.9-27.5) for DPd, p=0.0093. However, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; NR mths (CI 95%; 51-NR) and NR mths (CI 95%; 18-NR), respectively, p=0.13. In the 29 Len refractory pts with HR MM who received DRd or DPd in 2nd or 3rd line, there was no statistically significant difference in median PFS; 18 mths (CI 95%; 6-43) for DRd compared to 6 mths (CI 95%; 4-13) for DPd, p=0.22.Similarly, there was no difference in median OS for DRd compared to DPd; 103 mths (CI 95%; 47-NR) and 53 mths (CI 95%; 26-105), respectively, p=0.2. Conclusions: D+IMiD regimens after prior Len exposure/refractoriness are commonly used in real-world, despite the lack of data from prospective clinical trials. Combining D with IMiDs in Len exposed or refractory pts is efficacious, whether the IMiD is Len or Pom. Our study shows that regardless of prior Len use, DRd is at least equivalent to DPd. Prospective studies should be done to confirm these observations. Disclosures Alhaj Moustafa: Acrotech: Consultancy. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fonseca:Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dingli:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Phosplatin: Research Funding.

Background: PCL is a rare and aggressive form of multiple myeloma (MM). It is associated with high risk cytogenetics, aggressive disease biology and a dismal prognosis. Dara has revolutionized the treatment of MM leading to deep and durable responses as a single agent and in combination with other agents. We evaluated the efficacy of Dara-based regimens in the treatment of PCL. Methods: Clinical charts of primary and secondary PCL patients treated at the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between 2012-2019 were reviewed. Survival was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Plasma cell leukemia was defined by ≥5% peripheral blood plasma cells and/or absolute plasma cell count ≥0.5 x109/L (based on IMWG consensus statement).1 Results: Thirty-one patients were identified (55% female) with a median age at PCL diagnosis of 66 y (range 38-83). Fifteen (48%) had primary (p) PCL, while 14 (52%) had secondary (s) PCL. Nineteen (61%) had high risk cytogenetics with 11 (45%) del 17p, 4 (13%) t(14;16), 14 (45%) 1q amplification/duplication and 3(10%) t(4;14). Twelve (39%) had t(11;14). Eighteen (58%) patients had undergone autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT) with 12 (39%) having undergone AHCT following their diagnosis of PCL. Patients received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1-9) prior to receiving Dara-based regimens; 15 (42%) were refractory to an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), 18 (58%) were refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and 10 (32%) were refractory to both. Twenty-eight (90%) were IMiD exposed, 31 (100%) were PI exposed. Eighteen (58%) were lenalidomide (R) refractory, 5(16%) were pomalidomide (P) refractory, 8 (26%) were carfilzomib (K) refractory and 13(42%) were bortezomib (V) refractory prior to receiving Dara. Four (13%) received Dara + chemotherapy, 8 (26%) received Dara + PI, 11 (35%) received Dara + IMiD, 5 (16%) received Dara + PI + IMiD and 4 (13%) received single agent Dara. Median follow up time was 26 months (m) (95% CI; 13-61) from diagnosis of PCL and 17m (95% CI; 10-23) from initiation of Dara. Overall response rate (ORR) to Dara-based regimens was 65% (20/31 ≥partial response). The median duration of response was 5.5m (95% CI; 5.6-12.7). The median time to first response was 1m (95% CI; 0.57-1.72) and the median time to best response was 1m (95% CI; 0.7-2.5). Since the start of Dara-based treatment, median progression free survival (PFS) was 4m (95% CI; 2-11, Figure 1A) and median overall survival (OS) was 9 m (95% CI; 5-21, Figure 1B). Patients with pPCL had superior PFS (19 m vs. 3m, p=0.0096) and OS (21 vs. 5m, p=0.0068, Figure 1C) following Dara-based treatment compared to those with sPCL, respectively. Being refractory to an IMiD, PI or both when receiving Dara did not affect PFS or OS. Patients with high risk cytogenetics had similar OS as compared to those with standard risk cytogenetics (8m vs.13m, p=0.89) following Dara-based treatment. After performing a landmark survival analysis at 3m, achieving ≥PR to a Dara-based regimen resulted in a trend towards superior OS (13m vs. 9 m, p=0.07, Figure 1D). Patients who underwent AHCT following the diagnosis of PCL had a superior OS (41m vs. 6m, p=0.020) however there were no PFS or OS differences whether Dara-based regimens were given before or after AHCT. Conclusions: Dara-based regimens induce a high ORR in patients with PCL with a rapid time to first response. However, the OS of patients with PCL, particularly sPCL remains dismal. Prospective trials for PCL patients using novel therapeutic strategies are warranted. 1Fernandez de Larrea, et al. Plasma Cell Leukemia: consensus statement on diagnostic requirements, response criteria, and treatment recommendations by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Leukemia. 2013; 27(4): 780-791. Disclosures Alhaj Moustafa: Acrotech: Consultancy. Kapoor:Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Dingli:Millenium: Consultancy; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Ailawadhi:Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Introduction: Response assessment at day 100 post Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) is associated with long-term relapsed free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma (MM). The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) are the preferred criteria to define best response to treatment and define relapse. In the last years, response assessment has incorporated minimal residual disease (MRD) status -associated with improved RFS and OS (Munshi et al); and PET/CT combined with clinical characteristics -also associated with favorable outcomes (Zamagni et al. NCT01910987; MMY3033). The 2016 IMWG MRD criteria, combined imaging (PET/CT) plus next-generation sequencing (NGS) MRD-negative to define complete response (CR). To our knowledge, there is limited data examining the correlation and prognostic value of MRD and FDG-PET/CT at day 100 post ASCT in MM. IN this study, we aimed to determine the prognostic valued of MRD by NGS combined with PET/CT in RFS and OS status after high dose chemotherapy and ASCT in MM. Methods: Patients who underwent ASCT for MM at Mayo Clinic Arizona and had MRD and PET/CT data were included in the study. Clinical data was obtained via retrospective chart review. Cytogenetic risk (CyR) was classified using the mSMART criteria . Disease and ASCT related characteristics were compared by MRD status. MRD was measured by NGS on bone marrow aspirates using the previosly validated clonoSEQ ® Assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation, Seattle, USA) tracking the IgH, IgK and IgL rearrangements at a minimum sensitivity level of 10-5. MRD was defined by residual clonal cells per million nucleated cells as: negative= 0, borderline= 1-5, positive &gt;5. PET/CT scans were performed locally at baseline and at day 100. Comparisons were performed using the chi-square test for categorical variables, Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuos variables, McNemar's test and Cohens's Kappa for agreement measures. Results: A total of 103 patients had matched MRD and PET/CT assessment around day 100 (+/-9 days) and were included in the analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 54-66 years), 71 patients (68.9%) were men. CyR was standard risk in 49 (47.6%), high-risk in 39 (37.9%) and unknown in 15 (14.6%) patients. Most 75 (72.8%) patients were MRD positive, 16 (15.5%) were MRD negative, and 12 (11.7%) borderline. The median main MRD clone detected was 64 (range 0-91,874). 70 patients (68%) and 33 (32%) had a negative and positive PET/CT respectively. The median follow-up time was 18 months (range, 13-31 months). At the time of data analysis, 10 patients (9.7%) had relapsed and only 4 (3.9%) had died. There was a high-correlation between MRD status and PET/CT, 31 patients (93.9%) with positive PET/CT were also MRD positive (p=0.0027). There were no statistical differences between PET/CT and CyR (p=0.95). We analyzed the correlation using the FREQ procedure (McNemars's test); there was a strong association between positive PET/CT and positive MRD in 31/33 patients (93.9%, high sensitivity), and low association for negative PET/CT the negative/borderline MRD in 26/70 (37.1%, low specificity; p&lt;0.001). The agreement measure between the PET/CT and MRD using negative/borderline combined had a kappa of 0.23 (95% CI 0.11, 0.35) indicating a fair agreement beyond chance (Figure 1). PET/CT-CT was a statistically significant predictor of worse RFS (HR 3.53, 95%CI: 1.02-12.24, p&lt;0.0337) and OS (HR 11.38, 95%CI: 1.18-109.56, p&lt;0.0078) (Figure 2-3, respectively). MRD was not predictive of neither RFS (HR 1.72, 95%CI: 0.36-8.14, p&lt;0.49) or OS (p&lt;0.16). Conclusions: In conclusion, we demonstrate that the combination of MRD by NGS (clonoSEQ ®) and PET/CT at day 100 are complementary and have a high sensitivity (true positive rate) and fair correlation of agreement but low specificity (true negative rate). PET/CT was the best most sensitive technique to prognosticate RFS and OS. We did not find prognostic correlation of MRD with RFS and OS. However, our findings might be confounded by the low risk of relapse and death, a longer follow-up may demonstrate clinically important differences. Our results add evidence that MRD plus PET/CT improve the definition of CR in MM patients post ASCT. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the optimal timing and role of combined MRD, PET/CT with other prognostic markers of clinical outcomes. Disclosures Larsen: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca:Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy.

Introduction The molecular basis for the clinical heterogeneity observed in DLBCL was initially elucidated with gene expression profiling, identifying three distinct subgroups with prognostic relevance based on COO namely activated B-cell like (ABC), germinal center B-cell like (GCB) and a type 3 subtype. Shortly afterwards the Han's algorithm was developed allowing for widespread applicability and correlation of gene expression with protein expression. GCB profile at diagnosis is generally associated with superior long term outcomes compared to non-GCB in patients treated with conventional chemo-immunotherapy. Patients with relapsed/refractory disease (R/R) after front-line therapy undergo salvage treatment and, upon demonstration of objective response, proceed with high dose therapy and autologous transplantation (auto-HCT). Whether COO by Han's algorithm retains its prognostic significance post auto-HCT in patients with R/R DLBCL is not well established. Methods A retrospective analysis was carried out using the Mayo database across all three sites. It included all patients between 18-75 years of age who were diagnosed with de-novo DLBCL and underwent first auto-HCT for R/R disease. Patients must have received salvage treatment and shown chemotherapy sensitive disease. Patients with transformed DLBCL or other variants and those who underwent auto-HCT in first complete remission for high risk disease were excluded. Patients who had less than a partial response at time of transplantation and still underwent auto-HCT were also excluded. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS); relapse and relapse-free survival (RFS). Continuous variables were summarized as mean (standard deviation) and median (range). Categorical variables were reported as frequency (percentage). Continuous baseline variables were compared between GCB and non-GCB using Wilcoxon rank sum test and categorical baseline variables were compared with Chi-squared test. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 5 and 10-year rates of freedom from long-term events and draw corresponding survival curves. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate the impact of cell of origin on long-term survival after adjusting for baseline factors. All tests were two-sided with alpha level set at 0.05 for statistical significance. Results A total of 357 patients underwent auto-HCT between 2005 and 2018. Cell of origin was determined for 284 patients and these were included in the analysis. Median age was 61 (range: 19-78) years, and 64% patients were male. GCB and non-GCB patients did not differ significantly with regards to baseline factors (Table 1). During a median follow up of 1.7 years, 139 patients died, 151 had relapse and 175 either died or had relapse. Five year OS for GCB patients versus (vs) non-GCB was at 44% vs 64% (p=0.004) (Figure 1); relapse was at 67% vs 49% (p=0.012) and RFS was at 28% vs 50% (p=0.003). The difference between GCB and non-GCB groups remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis, with GCB patients 60% more likely to die and 50% more likely to experience relapse compared to non-GCB patients. The only other factor that retained significance in multivariate analysis for both endpoints was response at the time of transplant (Table 2A-C). Conclusions In this analysis, GCB DLBCL results in worse OS and higher relapse vs. non-GCB DLBCL following an auto-HCT. It is unclear if relapse/progression of GCB subtype after front-line therapy alters its natural history into a more aggressive disease. Disclosures Ansell: Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Foran:Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tun:Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

8569 Introduction: Relapsed or refractory MCL patients demonstrated a promising overall response rate (ORR) of 53% with a median duration of response (DR) of 13.7 months to single-agent lenalidomide when analyzed as a subset in a recent a phase II study (NHL-002). A supporting international phase II trial (NHL-003) of single-agent lenalidomide was initiated for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL. In this report, we analyze the current results from the MCL patients enrolled in this trial. Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory MCL and measurable disease 2 cm after at least 1 prior treatment regimen were eligible. Patients received 25 mg of lenalidomide orally once daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle. Patients continued therapy until disease progression or toxicity. The 1999 IWLRC methodology was used to assess response and progression. Results: Fifty-four MCL patients were enrolled and were evaluable for response assessment. Median age was 69 years (33–82) and 40 patients (74%) were male. Median time from diagnosis was 3.2 years (0.4–10.4), patients had received a median of 3 prior treatments (1–8), 17 of the patients (32%) had received prior bortezomib therapy (MCL-bortezomib), and 14 (26%) had received a prior stem cell transplant (MCL-stem cell). Response rates are shown in the Table. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (43%), thrombocytopenia (22%) and anemia (11%). Conclusions: This is the second study to demonstrate that lenalidomide oral monotherapy is effective in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, with manageable side effects. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

8560 Background: Lenalidomide has shown activity in a wide range of hematological malignancies. We conducted a phase II trial of single-agent lenalidomide in indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Patients with relapsed or refractory indolent NHL were eligible, with no limit on the number of previous therapies. Oral lenalidomide 25 mg was self-administered once-daily on days 1–21 of every 28-day cycle for up to 52 weeks as tolerated, or until disease progression. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), with secondary endpoints of response duration, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Results: Forty-three patients were enrolled and were evaluable for response and safety. Patients had received a median of 3 prior systemic therapies (1–17) and half of all patients were refractory to their last therapy. The ORR was 23% (10/43), including a complete response (CR) or unconfirmed CR (CRu) rate of 7%. The median time to first response was 3.6 months (1.7–4.2) and the median time to CR or CRu was 4.2 months (1.9–11.1). Twenty-seven percent (6/22) of patients with follicular lymphoma grade 1 or 2, and 22% (4/18) of patients with small lymphocytic lymphoma responded to therapy. The median duration of response has not reached, but is longer than 16.5 months with 7 of 10 responses ongoing at 15–28 months. Median PFS was 4.4 months (2.5–10.4). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of lenalidomide and manageable; the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (30% and 16%, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (14% and 5%, respectively). Conclusions: Oral lenalidomide monotherapy produces durable responses with manageable side effects in relapsed or refractory indolent NHL and warrants further investigation in the treatment of indolent NHL. [Table: see text]