Leonard, John P.

Background: Activation induced cytidine deaminase (AICDA or AID) causes somatic hypermutation (SHM) of the immunoglobulin heavy chain variable genes (IGHV). It has been widely hypothesized that aberrant targeting of AICDA creates additional driver mutations and intra-clonal heterogeneity which enables clonal evolution and thus disease progression. This hypothesis predicts that greater AICDA-mediated intraclonal heterogeneity will be associated with shortened progression free survival (PFS). To definitively test this hypothesis that AICDA-mediated heterogeneity is linked to risk of progression, we evaluated available samples from the largest US-based phase 3 trial of untreated follicular lymphoma patients treated with CHOP-based therapies, SWOG trial S0016. Methods: We have previously shown that ultradeep sequencing of two genes, the expressed IGHV and the 5' UTR of the translocated BCL2 allele, provide unrelated measures of AICDA-mediated genetic heterogeneity (Spence, J Immunol. 2014). Furthermore, the number of AICDA-mediated mutations in the 5' UTR of BCL2, but not in IGHV, correlates with the number of AICDA-mediated mutations at other known AICDA sites throughout the genome (such as PIM1, BCL6, RHOA, etc). Genomic DNA was prepared from all available paraffin-embedded specimens. Ultra-deep, amplicon-based sequencing (~10,000x) with internal controls to establish specimen-specific signal-to-noise parameters allowed sensitive and specific detection of sequence variants at 0.2% (FDR 1%). Results: For subjects with (152) and without (419) available specimens, the median duration of follow-up (11.3 years), the number of patients who progressed (60%), and other patient characteristics (demographics, histology, stage, FLIPI) were indistinguishable. Sequencing data that fulfilled strict quality metrics for low frequency variants were obtained for >75% of the specimens (114 for BCL2; 120 for IGHV); further analysis was restricted to these subjects. The extent of intraclonal variation within both the IGHV and the 5' UTR of BCL2 was highly variable. For BCL2, a median of 7 mutations/case were detected (range 0-61); the mutations were highly skewed to the RCYW motif (p<0.001), the preferred target of AICDA. These mutations defined a median of 5 subclones/case (range 1-22). The clonal IGHV was somatically mutated (<0.98 germline identity) in 94% of samples (median 0.89). For IGHV, a median of 113 subclones/case were detected (range 0-1531). Consistent with our prior study, no correlation was seen between the number of mutations detected in the IGHV and BCL2 or the number of subclones defined by IGHV and BCL2. Neither the number of mutations in nor the number of subclones defined by BCL2 or IGHV were prognostic. Cox regression showed no relationship between PFS and mutation number or subclone count based on either IGHV or BCL2 (hazard ratios are indistinguishable from 1; parameters were treated both as a continuous variables and dichotomized as quartiles). Furthermore, receiver operator curves did not suggest a cut point for any of these measures that would predict disease progression at any time (areas under the curve are indistinguishable from 0.5). Conclusions: Several measures of AICDA-mediated mutation and resulting subclonal heterogeneity were not found to be prognostic in previously untreated, advanced stage FL treated with CHOP-based regimens. In contrast, AICDA-mediated mutations have been reported to accrue during transformation from low grade FL to large cell lymphoma. This paradox calls for a more refined model to explain the role of AICDA in the progression of FL. Support: NIH/NCI grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180821, R21CA198072(WRB); and in part by GlaxoSmithKline. Disclosures Rimsza: NanoSting: Patents & Royalties: Named inventor on a patent licensed to NanoSting [Institution]. Leonard:Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy. Fisher:Celgene: Consultancy; Barclays: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; prIME: Honoraria. Smith:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee.

Key Points Five-year follow-up of S1106 demonstrates similar efficacy, MRD negativity, and 5-year survival with RH or RB, but RH was more toxic than RB. RB showed excellent efficacy and survival and less toxicity compared with a cytarabine-based regimen in transplant-eligible MCL patients.

Abstract Background: TP53 is reported to be mutated in about 20% of transformed and/or relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) specimens but in fewer than 5% of pre-treatment FL specimens. The disparity in the reported prevalence of TP53 mutations at diagnosis versus transformation/relapse suggests that TP53-mutated subpopulations, which are too small for detection, might be present at the time of diagnosis in tumors destined to relapse. To test this hypothesis, we developed a more sensitive assay for TP53 mutations and applied the assay to SWOG S0016, a phase III randomized intergroup trial of CHOP chemotherapy plus rituximab (R-CHOP) compared with CHOP chemotherapy plus 131-iodine tositumomab (radio-immunotherapy (RIT)-CHOP) for previously untreated follicular non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods: Formalin Fixed Paraffin Embedded (FFPE) biopsies were available for 213/571 enrollees. 147 samples fulfilled inclusion criteria: 1) sufficient DNA for 3 PCR-reactions each at 250 ng gDNA (~40,000 diploid equivalents; 5'UTR and all exons of TP53 were amplified in 3 multiplexed reactions to obtain consistently sized amplicons); 2) appropriate size distribution of DNA products after library preparation (~300 bp). To maintain specificity with high read-coverage, each PCR included an amplicon of eUCR41 (eukaryotic ultra-conserved region) to provide specimen-specific metrics of DNA-damage and sequencing noise. Sequence reads (Ilumina 300 nt paired end) were merged, mapped to reference (>10,000x coverage), and single nucleotide variants (SNV) were called using LoFreq based on case and base-change error thresholds (from the eUCR41 data). Pathogenicity of each TP53 sequence variant was based on a consensus of the Seshat and IARC databases. Variant Allele Frequencies (VAF) of passenger SNVs (5'UTR of BCl2) allowed normalization to the minimum tumor fraction. Results: A total of 73 SNVs within TP53 were detected in 147 FFPE specimens (80 RIT-CHOP; 67 R-CHOP); the SNVs in 34 patients (23%; 17-30% 95% CI) created missense or nonsense mutations which met criteria for pathogenicity. The VAF for these SNVs ranged from 0.008 to 0.7 (median 0.02) and 82% had a VAF of less than 0.1. Among the 34 patients with a pathogenic TP53 mutation, no relationship was observed between the VAF and time to progression. The group of 34 patients with a pathogenic TP53 mutation had a shortened Progression Free Survival (PFS) (HR=1.68; p=0.035) and Overall Survival (OS) (HR=2.02; p=0.045). However, the relationship between TP53 mutations and PFS depended on treatment: for the R-CHOP arm, the pathogenic TP53 mutations were not associated with PFS (10-year PFS 44% vs 42%); in contrast, for the RIT-CHOP arm, pathogenic TP53 mutations were associated with a shortened PFS (10 year PFS 27% vs 65%; HR=3.2; p=0.001) (see figure). Furthermore, among patients with no detectable pathogenic TP53 mutation, RIT-CHOP was associated with a longer PFS than R-CHOP (10 year PFS 65% vs 44%; HR=0.58; p=0.046). Conclusions: Using specimens from SWOG S0016, we find that pathogenic TP53 mutations are present in 23% of untreated, advanced stage FL specimens, a considerably higher fraction than reports based on less sensitive methods. Long term follow-up of S0016 has shown that the RIT-CHOP arm had a small but statistically significant improvement in the 10-year PFS compared to R-CHOP (Shadman 2018). We now show that the interaction of RIT and TP53-status substantially affects PFS. First, in the cohort without a detectable TP53 mutation, a longer PFS was observed with RIT-CHOP than R-CHOP. Second, in the cohort with a detectable TP53 mutation, a shorter PFS was observed with RIT-CHOP than R-CHOP. This observation is consistent with the well-defined role of TP53 as the mediator of the apoptotic response to ionizing radiation. Therefore, an assay which detects subclonal populations with TP53 mutations defines two cohorts for which the inclusion of radio-immunotherapy had substantial and opposite effects on the risk of progression. Finally, this identification of subclonal TP53 mutations as a predictive biomarker highlights that preserving specimens from clinical trials to mine with new technologies can be key to the advancement of precision medicine. We wish to recognize the late Dr. Oliver Press for his central role in S0016 and his many contributions to SWOG. Support: NIH/NCI grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180821, R21CA198072 (RB); and in part by GlaxoSmithKline. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Rimsza: NanoString: Other: Inventor on the patent for the Lymph2Cx assay. Leonard:Juno: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction For patients with Stage III/IV Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), lack of response as assessed by PET scan following cycle 2 (PET2) of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) is predictive of poor clinical outcomes. SWOG Study S0816 utilized response-adapted therapy, where patients achieving a complete remission (CR) on PET2 (Deauville Score ≤ 3) continued 4 additional cycles of ABVD and those patients unable to achieve a complete remission (CR) on PET2 (Deauville Score > 3) were switched to therapy with escalated bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) for 6 cycles. This study demonstrated a 2-year PFS of 64% in the PET2+ patients after switching to eBEACOPP, which was much higher than expected (Press 2016). Herein, we report the 5-year follow-up of survival and toxicities of the patients treated on S0816. Methods Patients with Stage III/IV HL were enrolled to S0816 from 7/1/09-12/2/12 (n=358). Eligible patients were age 18-60 years, had measurable disease, no prior lymphoma therapy, a Zubrod performance status of 0-2, and no serious medical comorbidities. Patients were treated with response-adapted therapy as above. A subset of 336 eligible and HIV-negative patients were analyzed. Of 336, 331 had central review of PET2. PFS and OS estimates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The two-sided Fisher's exact test was used to compare the rate of second cancer between patients switched to treatment eBEACOPP and those treated with continued ABVD after 2 initial cycles of ABVD. Results The median age of patients was 32 years (range, 18-60). All were Stage III/IV and 51% had an International Prognostic Score of ≥ 3. PET2 was negative in 271 patients (82%) and positive in 60 patients (18%). Of PET2+ patients, 49 (82%) switched to eBEACOPP as planned and 11 (18%) declined. Median follow-up is now 5.9 years (range, 0.2-8.3 years). Eighty-five (25%) patients have either progressed or died, for an estimated 5-year PFS of 74% (95% CI: 69%-79%; Figure 1). There were 64 (24%) events in those patients who were PET2- for a 5-year PFS of 76% (95% CI: 71-81%; Figure 2). There were 20 (33%) events in those patients who were PET2+ for a 5-year PFS of 65% (95% CI: 51-76%; Figure 2). One event occurred in a patient without central review of PET2. Nineteen patients have died for an estimated 5-year overall survival of 94% (95% CI: 91%-96%; Figure 1). Eleven (3%) patients died of HL including 6 (2%) that had PET2- and 5 (8%) that had PET2+. Other causes of death included: treatment-related toxicity [sepsis (eBEACOPP n=1), bleomycin lung injury (eBEACOPP n=1; ABVD n=1), and graft versus host disease (ABVD n=1)]; second primary cancers [(eBEACOPP n=2; cervical cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)]; and unknown causes (ABVD n=2). Post-therapy grade 3 adverse events were uncommon but included 1 case each of heart failure, peripheral neuropathy, prolonged neutropenia, diarrhea, DVT (catheter-related) in patients who received continued ABVD and osteonecrosis of hips/shoulders in patients who received eBEACOPP. There were 13 (4%) cases of reported second cancers, including 7 (14%) in patients treated with eBEACOPP [1 each of myelodysplastic syndrome, kidney, melanoma, NHL, cervical, medullary thyroid, and basal cell carcinoma] and 6 (2%) in patients treated with ABVD (1 each of kidney, melanoma, NHL, bladder, prostate, and squamous cell carcinoma; 2-sided Fisher's exact P value = 0.001). Conclusions The long-term overall survival of the patients treated on S0816 remains high (94%) at 5 years. Despite historical data suggesting favorable clinical outcomes in patients with a negative PET2, nearly 25% of these patients experienced relapse events, demonstrating limitations of a PET-adapted approach and of standard frontline therapy with ABVD. In patients who were PET2+, PFS was favorable relative to historical series, but was associated with a high rate of secondary malignancies. Our results emphasize the importance of long-term follow-up in this disease, and the need for better biomarkers at diagnosis of HL and less toxic approaches for patients with a positive PET2. Acknowledgment In memory of Oliver W. Press, principal investigator of this trial, who died in 2017. Disclosures Straus: DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; JUNO: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment. Rimsza:NanoString: Other: Inventor on the patent for the Lymph2Cx assay. Bartlett:ImaginAB: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Evens:Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics International DMC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Affimed: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Tesaro: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Leonard:Gilead: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy. Kahl:Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: The optimal initial management of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is unknown, but aggressive induction chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant confers long remission durations and is standard for younger patients. Cytarabine-based induction achieves higher rates of MRD-negativity compared to anthracycline-based induction regimens and correlates with improved outcomes. Whether a similar benefit exists after bendamustine-rituximab (RB) induction is unknown. S1106 compared induction R-HyperCVAD/MTX/ARAC (RH) or RB followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). We previously reported similar 2-year (yr) progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with either regimen, and provocatively found that MRD negativity was similar with both regimens. RH was more toxic than RB and had higher stem cell mobilization failure rates. Methods: Inclusion criteria were untreated stage III, IV or bulky stage II MCL, Cyclin D1 +, age > 18-65, and adequate organ function. Randomization was stratified by MIPI. Patients (pts) received either 4 cycles of RH or 6 cycles of RB followed by ASCT. MRD was assessed at baseline and post induction. Extraction of genomic tumour DNA from paraffin embedded tissue or bone marrow aspirate and PCR amplification of IGH-VDJ, IGH-DJ, and IGK regions was performed followed by high-throughput sequencing to determine the tumor clonotype(s) (Adaptive Biotechnologies). DNA from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and plasma was amplified and sequenced to determine lymphoma molecules per million diploid genomes. Herein we report the results of the updated analysis at a median follow-up (mFU) of 5 yrs. Results: Fifty-two of 53 pts were evaluable. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups except for more female pts in the RH group. This study was closed based on prespecified criteria of stem cell mobilization failures in the RH arm. With mFU of 5 yrs (range, 29 days-6yrs), updated ORR (94.1% RH vs. 85.7% RB) and CR (41% RH vs. 43% RB) rates were similar. The 5-yr estimated PFS was 62% and 66% and the 5-yr estimated OS was 74% and 80% for RH and BR, respectively (Fig.1). Increased grade 3/4 toxicity and inadequate stem cell mobilization was seen in the RH arm thus challenging its use as an induction platform for future upfront MCL trials. 9/17 pts in RH and 23/35 pts in RB arm underwent ASCT. A landmark analysis was performed evaluating 5-yr PFS and 5-yr OS with and without ASCT in each arm. (Table 1) 27 patients consented to optional MRD assessment, with 12 paired serial samples (baseline and post induction). Overall, the estimated 5 yr PFS was 90% for all patients who achieved MRD negative status at the end of RB. Long-term toxicity included acute myeloid leukemia (N=1) in the RH arm at 5.4 yrs after diagnosis and lung cancer (n=1) in the RB arm at 2.9 yrs after diagnosis. Conclusion: The optimal induction regimen prior to ASCT in the initial management of MCL is a source of significant debate. Our initial findings supported RB as an effective platform with the ability to achieve MRD negativity. Long-term results of this study continue to demonstrate excellent response rates, 5-yr PFS and 5-yr OS with either RH or RB without any new toxicity signal. The 5-yr outcomes with RB compare favorably to more aggressive cytarabine-based induction regimens. Thus, R-Bendamustine could be an excellent backbone for induction therapy in transplant eligible patients and needs to be tested in larger phase III trials. Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180821, CA180820, and in part by Sequenta, Inc. (Adaptive Biotechnologies) Disclosures Kamdar: Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Chen:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech Inc.: Consultancy. Rimsza:NanoString: Other: Inventor on the patent for the Lymph2Cx assay. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Phillips:Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Leonard:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy. Kahl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria. Smith:Portola: Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: To address the current and long-term unmet health needs of the growing population of patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and NHL survivors, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/) with recruitment at eight centers (Cornell University, Emory University, Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, University of Iowa, University of Miami, University of Rochester, and Washington University). Here we report on the first two years of enrollment. Methods: All patients ≥18 years with NHL (exclusive of chronic lymphocytic leukemia) newly diagnosed within 183 days of enrollment are eligible. LEO reviews all pathology diagnoses; annotates and harmonizes all cases with clinical, epidemiologic, pathology and treatment data; builds a NHL tumor bank that includes an H&E slide, a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sample and extracted tumor DNA and RNA; collects peripheral blood and banks DNA, serum, plasma and buffy coat in a central biorepository; and prospectively follows patients regularly to ascertain disease progression/relapse, retreatment, transformation, second cancers, survival, updated exposures, and patient-reported outcomes. We examined the demographics, clinical characteristics, and NHL subtypes for patients enrolled in the first two years (2015-2017) in LEO Cohort and compared these characteristics to population-based registry data from the United States Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program for 2011-2015. We also examined baseline body mass index (BMI), comorbidities and quality of life (QOL) measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) scores (0-100 scale) overall and by NHL subtype that were collected in LEO but not available in SEER or any other large, prospective US NHL cohort. Results: From 2015-2017, LEO enrolled 3244 NHL patients across 47 states (Figure) with a median age at diagnosis of 62 years (range, 18-94 years) and 55.9% male. Based on self-identified race/ethnicity, 85% of the participants were White, 7.4% were Black/African American, 2.6% were Asian, and 3.5% other or more than one race; 9.9% were Hispanic (regardless of race). The most common subtypes were diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL, 33.9%), follicular (FL, 22.2%), mantle cell (MCL, 9.3%), marginal zone (MZL, 8.3%), T-cell (TCL, 10.9%), and all other NHL subtypes (other NHL, 15.3%). These distributions were all within 5% of SEER data, except that 6.8% of participant in LEO were in the age 80+ years group compared to 18.5% in SEER (Table). The overall prevalence of self-reported comorbidities at enrollment was 13.5% for heart disease (range, 12.1% for FL to 16.6% for MCL), 8.8% for diabetes (range, 7.1% for FL to 9.8% for DLBCL), 4.6% for osteoporosis (range, 3.0% for MCL to 6.3% for MZL), and 5.9% for autoimmune disease (range, 2.0% for MCL to 12.6% for MZL). The median BMI was 27.9 kg/m2 (range, 26.7 kg/m2 for TCL to 28.3 kg/m2 for MZL). A total of 2151 participants completed the FACT-G with a median score of 78.7 (range, 75.9 for TCL to 83.3 for MZL). Complete IPI data were available on 2296 participants: 40.4% IPI 0-1, 32.7% IPI 2, 18.3% IPI 3, 8.7% IPI 4-5. Overall, 73.7% of participants were initially treated with systemic therapy (range, 40.0% for MZL and 91.8% for DLBCL); 14.5% were initially managed with observation (range, 1.4% DLBCL and 31.8% for FL); and 2.0% were initially manage with radiotherapy (range, 0.2% for MCL and 3.8% for DLBCL). Outcomes are being prospectively collected. Conclusions: LEO is a large and diverse cohort of newly diagnosed NHL patients and the first two years of enrollment reflects the broader United States NHL population. Enrollment is ongoing. This unique resource will enable examination of the interactions among a broad array of clinical and molecular factors and their impact on multiple outcomes, to improve prognostication, identify new approaches to improve outcomes and survivorship, and facilitate clinical trials using this infrastructure. Disclosures Flowers: Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/ Janssen: Consultancy; OptumRx: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria. Kahl:Acerta: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Casulo:Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Martin:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Leonard:Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Bernal-Mizrachi:Kodikaz Therapeutic Solutions: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company: Research Funding. Maurer:Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Aggressive chemo-immunotherapy followed by peripheral blood stem cell autografting (ASCT) in CALGB (Alliance) 59909 achieved a median progression-free survival (PFS) in MCL of 5 years (Damon et al JCO, 2009), but late recurrences occurred. Using the CALGB 59909 treatment backbone, we evaluated tolerability and efficacy of adding post-transplant bortezomib consolidation (BC) or maintenance (BM)in a randomized phase II trial. Interim results of CALGB (Alliance) 50403 were previously presented (ASH 2015) demonstrating 5 yr PFS 70% and 69% for the BM and BC arms respectively. We now report final 8 year follow up results from this trial and compare outcomes to CALGB 59909, which differed from CALGB 50403 only by the absence of post-transplant bortezomib. Methods: The primary endpoint was PFS measured from randomization for each treatment arm. Induction therapy was with 2-3 cycles of augmented R-CHOP (2000 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide) and methotrexate (300 mg/m2) followed by high-dose cytarabine/etoposide/rituximab(R)/filgrastim (EAR) stem cell mobilization and cyclophosphamide/carmustine/etoposide (CBV) ASCT. After 2 doses of post-transplant R, patients were randomized to BC (1.3 mg/ m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 of a 3-week cycle for 4 cycles) or BM (1.6 mg/m2 IV weekly x4 every 8 weeks for 18 months) beginning at approximately day 90. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was analyzed using patient-specific PCR probes for the bcl-1 / IgH junction or the IgH CDR3 region. Results: 151 patients were enrolled from 10/2006 - 6/2010 at 14 sites; 147 who received treatment are included in this analysis. Median age was 59 years (29-69); stage II (2.7%), III (11.6%), IV (85.0%); MIPI low (52.4%), intermediate (30.6%), high (17.0%); blastoid histology (12.9%); bone marrow involvement (81.0%); Ki67 was evaluated in 86 and was >30% in 17.4% of patients. 118 (80%) underwent ASCT and 102 (68%) were randomized. Most withdrawals (45) were for progression (10) or adverse events (AEs) (19) including 4 treatment-related deaths. Fifty-two patients were randomized to BM and 50 to BC. Following randomization, 34 (65%) completed BM and 33 (66%) completed BC. Withdrawal for AEs occurred in 14 (28%) of BC and 7 (13%) of BM patients (p = 0.09), most for cytopenias or peripheral neuropathy. With a median follow-up 7.8 years from randomization (8.3 from registration), the median PFS from randomization for the BM arm was not reached and was 8.9 years (95% CI 7.2 to not reached) for the BC arm. Both arms had median PFS significantly greater than the null hypothesis setting median PFS to 4 years (p < 0.001; 1-sided test of exponential parameter)The 8-year PFS estimates in the BM and BC arms were 77% (95% CI 66-90%) and 58% (95% CI 44-76%), respectively. Among all 147 patients treated on CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from time of registration was 43.6% (35.6-53.3%). PFS from registration was not significantly extended in CALGB 50403 compared with CALGB 59909 (log rank p=0.24), but using a landmark analysis from time of transplant, PFS was significantly extended in CALGB 50403 (log rank p=0.005)(fig 1). Baseline patient characteristics in the two studies were not significantly different. In CALGB 50403, 8-year PFS from registration by MIPI was 52.0% (95% CI 41.1-66.0%) in MIPI low risk, 37.5% (95% CI 25.3-55.4%) in intermediate risk, and 28.2% (95% CI 13.7-57.9%) in high-risk. Bone marrow MRD results were collected for 42 patients post-induction therapy; 8-year PFS estimates were 80.2% (95% CI 62.2-100%) (n=17) and 43.2% (95% CI 27.3-68.2%) (n=25) for MRD-negative and MRD-positive patients, respectively (p=0.009). Conclusions: Induction chemotherapy followed by ASCT and either BC or BM was efficacious and tolerable, although BC was associated with more withdrawals for toxicity. PFS was not significantly different between BC and BM. The comparison between studies 50403 and 59909 with long-term follow up continues to suggest a PFS benefit from the addition of BC or BM among patients undergoing transplant. This did not translate into a PFS benefit from time of study enrollment possibly due to the higher pre-transplant dropout rate in 50403. MRD-negativity following induction chemo-immunotherapy is highly associated with improved PFS and the role of ASCT in post-induction MRD-negative patients is currently under investigation in a randomized clinical trial. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310037 Disclosures Kaplan: Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Blum:Acerta: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Data safety and monitoring board. Leonard:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Cheson:AbbVie, Roche/Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Acerta, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL), including follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), is typically responsive to initial chemoimmunotherapy, but relapse is expected. Single-agent rituximab is FDA approved and frequently administered for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) low-grade or follicular CD20-positive B-cell NHL. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent with preclinical and clinical antilymphoma activity alone and in combination with rituximab. We compared the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) to rituximab (plus placebo) in patients with R/R iNHL. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs rituximab/placebo (control) in patients with FL grade 1-3a or MZL who were previously treated with ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy with documented relapsed or refractory disease but not refractory to rituximab (refractory was defined as < partial response to rituximab or rituximab-chemotherapy OR disease progression < 6 months after last rituximab dose). Patients were stratified by prior rituximab treatment (yes vs no), time since last antilymphoma therapy (≤ 2 vs > 2 years), and histology (FL vs MZL), and then randomized 1:1 to R2 or control for up to 1 year. R2 patients received oral lenalidomide 20 mg/day (d), d1-21/28 for 12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2-5. Control patients received rituximab and placebo on the same schedule. Dose modifications were pre-specified in the protocol to manage toxicities. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG criteria without PET as assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC; central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), duration of response (DOR), time-to-next antilymphoma treatment (TTNLT), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: A total of 358 patients were randomized (n = 178 R2; n = 180 control), median age was 63 years (range, 26 - 88), 34% FLIPI score ≥ 3, and histologies of 82% FL/18% MZL. Median number of prior systemic treatments was 1 (range, 1 - 12); 84% received prior rituximab and 51% had prior antilymphoma therapy within 2 years of enrollment. At median follow-up of 28.3 months, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS with HR = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34 - 0.62; P < 0.0001) (Figure 1). Median PFS was 39.4 months for R2 vs 14.1 months for control. IRC-assessed ORR for R2 was 78% vs 53% for control (P < 0.0001). CR was 34% for R2 vs 18% for control (P = 0.001). Median DOR was 36.6 and 21.7 months for R2 and control arms, respectively. TTNLT was improved for R2 vs control with HR = 0.54 (95% CI, 0.38 - 0.78; P = 0.0007). OS data were not mature with 16 deaths reported in the R2 arm vs 26 deaths in control (HR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.33 - 1.13]). Selected all-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of interest more common in the R2 vs control arm (≥ 10% difference) were infections (63% vs 49%), cutaneous reactions (32% vs 12%), constipation (26% vs 14%), thrombocytopenia (15% vs 4%), and tumor flare reaction (11% vs 1%). Grade 3/4 TEAEs were reported in 69% R2 and 32% control patients. More frequent grade 3/4 TEAEs in the R2 vs control arm were primarily attributable to increased neutropenia (50% vs 13%) and leukopenia (7% vs 2%). Grade 5 TEAEs were reported in 2 patients in each arm. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide occurred in 9% of patients vs 5% for rituximab + placebo. Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in > 1 patient (n = 5). Seventy-one percent of R2 patients completed all 12 cycles of planned treatment vs 61% of control. Disease progression was the leading reason for discontinuation of lenalidomide/placebo (n = 21 R2, n = 54 control). Conclusions: R2 demonstrated superior efficacy over rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary endpoint of progression-free survival as well as secondary endpoints of ORR, CR, DOR, and TTNLT in patients with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL. At this early analysis, fewer deaths have been observed in the R2 arm. Despite additional hematologic toxicity, greater efficacy of the R2 regimen (and fewer early progressions) allowed more patients to complete the planned therapy and delayed the need for subsequent treatment. R2 represents an important new treatment option in patients with previously treated FL/MZL, with meaningful advantages over single-agent rituximab. Disclosures Leonard: Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Trněný:F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Sandoz: Honoraria. Izutsu:Otsuka: Honoraria; Bristol- Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Nihon Medi-Physics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundhi: Honoraria; HUYA Bioscience International: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria, Research Funding; Symbio: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Meiji Seika: Honoraria; Shionogi: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei: Honoraria. Fowler:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital (Peking University Cancer Hospital): Employment. Scheliga:INCA - Instituto Nacional Do Cancer, Brazil: Employment. Pinto:Servier: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Scheinberg:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Moreira:Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto FG, EPE, Porto, Portugal: Employment. Liu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kalambakas:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Unum: Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Wellcome Trust: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; NIH: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Medical Research Council: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria.

Abstract Background:The role of radiation therapy (XRT) for advanced stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is controversial. In the HD15 trial, the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) administered XRT for PET-positive residual disease ≥2.5 cm at least 2 weeks after completion of chemotherapy and showed 91.5 % in-field control rate with a median follow-up of 102 months (Engert, A; personal communication). However, there is no comparison arm where patients with PET-positive residual disease ≥2.5 cm did not receive XRT. SWOG S0816 was a US intergroup trial utilizing ABVD-based therapy with response adaptation based on interim PET imaging; XRT was not allowed per protocol, and counted as an event. In this analysis, we identified patients in S0816 who would have met HD15 criteria for XRT, but did not receive XRT per design. We then modeled the potential impact of XRT on disease control. Patients and Methods:Of 336 eligible and evaluable HIV-negative patients enrolled in S0816, 49 had an end-of-treatment PET (termed "PET3," to be done 6-8 weeks after completion of chemotherapy) that was positive (i.e. Deauville 4-5) upon central review. We simulated the progression free survival (PFS) if XRT had been delivered per HD15 criteria (PET positive disease and ≥2.5 cm), evaluating by assumptions of 50, 80 and 90% control of the disease within the XRT fields. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed with additional size cut-off points of 2.0 and 1.5 cm. Results:The median follow-up for the 49 PET3 positive patients was 71 months (range 9.7-92.6). For these 49 patients, the observed landmark PFS at 2 years after the date of PET3 was 30.6%. Twenty-four (49%), 33(67%), and 40 (82%) of the 49 patients had at least one site of disease that met the HD15 criteria for XRT with ≥2.5 cm, ≥2.0 cm, and ≥1.5 cm size cut-offs respectively. Sixteen, 19, and 25 patients had disease progression respectively from each group at median of 1.4-1.5 months. Twelve, 12, and 15 patients had relapses limited to the sites that would have been radiated following HD15 criteria with ≥2.5 cm, ≥2.0 cm, and ≥1.5 cm respectively. Estimated landmark PFS at 2 years for the 49 PET3 positive patients assuming 50, 80, and 90 % control of the disease within the radiated sites following HD15 guideline with ≥2.5 cm, ≥2.0 cm, and ≥1.5 cm cut-off are summarized in columns A, B, and C of the table respectively. For the entire group of 336 patients, the observed PFS at 2 years was 79%. Estimated 2-year PFS for the entire group of 336 patients assuming 50, 80, and 90 % control of the disease within the radiated sites following HD15 guideline with ≥2.5 cm, ≥2.0 cm, and ≥1.5 cm cut-off are in columns D, E, and F of the table respectively. Conclusion: Among the PET3 positive patients, consolidation XRT per HD15 criteria with cut-off points of 2.5, 2.0, and 1.5 cm could have raised the 2-year PFS by 12-28 % assuming 50-90% local control within radiated sites. However, the improvement in PFS is more moderate at 1.6-3.9 % if we consider the entire cohort of 336 patients. Although there may be some gain in PFS as the cut-off point is lowered by our ROC analysis, one needs to consider the trade-off against potentially increasing normal tissue toxicity as more sites are irradiated. Table. Table. Disclosures Brem: Pharamcyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genetech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartlett:Merck & Co: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Evens:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Affimed: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Tesaro: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics International DMC: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy. Rimsza:NanoString: Other: Inventor on the patent for the Lymph2Cx assay. Leonard:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kahl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Smith:BMS: Consultancy; Portola: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria.

Abstract PURPOSE Urgency to initiate therapy has to be weighed against the time required for screening and consenting to enroll a patient onto a clinical trial. Exclusion of patients with rapidly progressive or symptomatic disease may lead to selection of patients with less aggressive disease. We recently identified that a short diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) is associated with adverse clinical factors and inferior outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Maurer et al, JCO 2018); shorter time to treatment was also found to be associated with outcome in other aggressive lymphomas, including mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), in the National Cancer Database (Olszewski et al, BJH 2018). Here we assess the association of DTI with clinical variables and outcome in MCL from an observational cohort with validation in patients enrolled on an NCTN clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Newly diagnosed patients with MCL were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), now a subcohort of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study. Patients initially managed with observation were excluded. DTI was defined as the time in days from date of first lymphoma-containing biopsy to the initiation of therapy. Associations of DTI with clinical factors and outcome were examined using a 14 day split based on the previous MER study of DTI in DLBCL. Odds ratios (OR) and Cox model hazard ratios (HR) are reported. Outcome was assessed using event-free survival (EFS) where events were defined as progression/relapse, initiation of new anti-lymphoma therapy, or death due to any cause. A validation cohort was assembled from patients enrolled in CALGB (Alliance) clinical trial 50403. Protocol therapy was high dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) consolidation and post-ASCT rituximab followed by bortezomib as either consolidation or maintenance. DTI was defined as time from diagnosis to study registration and outcome was assessed using progression-free survival (PFS) as defined on the clinical trial. RESULTS 271 patients with MCL enrolled in the MER from 2002-2015 and initiated treatment within 100 days of diagnosis. Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range 36-76), 211 (78%) were male, and 92% were stage III-IV; MIPI was Low (41%), Intermediate (36%) and High (23%). Induction therapy was R-CHOP based (50%), B-R based (16%), HyperCVAD based (8%), 2-CDA based (11%), and other (15%). Median EFS of the cohort was 41 months (95% CI: 34-46). Median DTI was 26 days (IQR: 14-38) and 28% enrolled within 14 days of diagnosis, exhibiting a longer DTI than DLBCL patients enrolled in the MER during the same time period. Short DTI (0-14 days) was associated with adverse clinical factors including ECOG PS 2-4 (OR=5.74, 95% CI: 2.51-13.1, p<0.0001), elevated LDH (OR=2.30 95% CI: 1.25-4.22, p=0.0072), and higher MIPI score (OR=1.48, 95% CI: 1.04-2.07, p=0.025) but was not significantly associated with age, sex, B-symptoms, or stage (all p>0.30). Short DTI was also associated with inferior EFS (HR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.27-2.49, p=0.0008) which remained significant after adjusting for MIPI score (HR=1.72, 95% CI: 1.23-2.41, p=0.0016). In the validation cohort, 144 patients enrolled on 50403 within 100 days of diagnosis from 2006-2010. Median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range 29-69), 77% were male, and 97% were stage III-IV; MIPI was Low (51%), Intermediate (31%) and High (17%). Median PFS of the cohort was 84 months (95% CI: 50-109). Median DTI was 35 days (IQR: 22-46) and 11% enrolled within 14 days of diagnosis. Short DTI (0-14 days) was associated with PS (OR=9.00, 95% CI: 1.18-69.0, p=0.034) and) higher MIPI score (OR=2.09, 95% CI: 1.08-4.04, p=0.029) but not elevated LDH (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 0.43-3.74, p=0.66). Short DTI was associated with inferior PFS (HR=2.21, 95% CI:1.19-4.09, p=0.011) which remained clinically significant after adjusting for MIPI score (HR=1.85, 95% CI: 0.98-3.47, p=0.056). CONCLUSION A short diagnosis-to-treatment interval is strongly associated with adverse clinical factors and poor outcome in newly diagnosed MCL in the MER. Clinical trials are encouraged to facilitate enrollment of patients with short DTI to avoid potential selection bias. Support: U01 CA195568, P50 CA097274, U10CA180821, U10CA180882; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310037 (CALGB 50403) Figure. Figure. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Kaplan:Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Cohen:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding. Martin:Gilead: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kahl:Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett:ImaginAB: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding. Leonard:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy.