Citations 471

Poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase inhibitors induce autophagy‐mediated drug resistance in ovarian cancer cells, xenografts, and patient‐derived xenograft models

Cancer | November 12, 2019 | Volume: 126 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 894-907

10.1002/cncr.32600 | PMID 31714594

Background Poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors exhibit promising activity against ovarian cancers, but their efficacy can be limited by acquired drug resistance. This study explores the role of autophagy in regulating the sensitivity of ovarian cancer cells to PARP inhibitors. Methods Induction of autophagy was detected by punctate LC3 fluorescence staining, LC3I to LC3II conversion on Western blot analysis, and electron microscopy. Enhanced growth inhibition and apoptosis were observed when PARP inhibitors were used with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine (CQ), or LYS05 to block the hydrolysis of proteins and lipids in autophagosomes or with small interfering RNA against ATG5 or ATG7 to prevent the formation of autophagosomes. The preclinical efficacy of the combination of CQ and olaparib was evaluated with a patient‐derived xenograft (PDX) and the OVCAR8 human ovarian cancer cell line. Results Four PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib) induced autophagy in a panel of ovarian cancer cells. Inhibition of autophagy with CQ enhanced the sensitivity of ovarian cancer cells to PARP inhibitors. In vivo, olaparib and CQ produced additive growth inhibition in OVCAR8 xenografts and a PDX. Olaparib inhibited PARP activity, and this led to increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) and an accumulation of γ‐H2AX. Inhibition of autophagy also increased ROS and γ‐H2AX and enhanced the effect of olaparib on both entities. Treatment with olaparib increased phosphorylation of ATM and PTEN while decreasing the phosphorylation of AKT and mTOR and inducing autophagy. Conclusions PARP inhibitor–induced autophagy provides an adaptive mechanism of resistance to PARP inhibitors in cancer cells with wild‐type BRCA, and a combination of PARP inhibitors with CQ or other autophagy inhibitors could improve outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer.
Outcomes of Follicular Lymphoma Patients Treated with Frontline Bendamustine and Rituximab: Impact of Histologic Grade and Early Progression on Overall Survival

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 4146-4146

10.1182/blood-2018-99-118530

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: 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; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: 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; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: 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; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
Patterns of Care and Outcomes in Mantle Cell Lymphoma in the Modern Immunochemotherapy Era

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 4140-4140

10.1182/blood-2018-99-119595

Abstract Backgroud. The treatment landscape of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has significantly changed in last decades. Improvement in diagnosis and understanding of disease biology has been coupled with emergence of new therapeutic options, including targeted agents. While MCL outcome data comes primarily from clinical trials (CT), the impact of therapeutic advances on pattern of care (POC) and outcome in MCL in the general population is not well characterized. This study sought to characterize changes in pattern of care and outcomes of patients with MCL in a prospective observational series in the rituximab era. Methods. The study included consenting adult patients with newly diagnosed MCL that were prospectively enrolled into the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) Molecular Epidemiology Resource, from 09/01/2002 to 06/30/2015. Demographic, clinical and prognostic factors were abstracted, and all patients were actively followed for re-treatment, relapse and death. Since bendamustine-rituximab (BR) regimen starting to be used in 2010, we defined patients enrolled from 09/01/2002 to 12/31/2009 as era 1 and those enrolled 01/01/2010 to 06/30/2015 as era 2. Baseline characteristics and outcomes, evaluated in terms of event free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and cause of death, were analyzed and compared between the two eras identified. Results. 348 patients with newly diagnosed MCL were enrolled. Five patients had no available data for front-line treatment and were excluded. The analysis was thus conducted on 343 patients: 169 patients were diagnosed in era 1 with a median follow-up of 131.2 months vs. 174 in era 2 with a median follow-up of 58.9 months. Baseline clinical characteristics and MIPI score were similar across the two eras ( Table 1). Frontline induction treatment was significantly different in the two eras. BR use was 0 vs 49 (28.2% ), R-CHOP/CHOP like regimen in 89 (52.7%) vs 45 (25.9%), high-dose cytarabine (HiDAC)-based therapy in 1 (0.6%) vs 28 (16.1%), intensified regimens (HyperCVAD) in 16 (9.5%) vs 8 (4.5%), other regimens (including R-cladribine, R-fludarabine-mitoxantrone, rituximab monotherapy) in 35 (20.7%) vs 13 (7.5%) patients in era 1 vs era 2 respectively. Non-systemic treatment (observation, surgery or radiation only) was performed in 25 (14.8%) vs 31 (17.8%), while 9 (8%) vs 12 (7.7%) patients were enrolled in clinical trials, in era 1 vs era 2 respectively. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as consolidation of first line treatment or use of Rituximab maintenance was not different between Era 1 and Era 2. Among the entire cohort of 343 MCL patients, 3y-EFS and 3y-OS were 51.9% (95% IC 46.7-57.6) and 73.5 (95% CI 68.8-78.4), respectively (Figure 1). 3y-EFS was 45.9% (95% CI 39.0-54.1%) vs 58.4 (95% CI, 51.2-66.6%) in Era 1 vs Era 2 (HR 0.69 (0.51-0.92), p=0.006), 3y-OS was 70.9% (95% CI, 63.4-78.1%) vs 76.1% (95% CI, 69.7-83.1%) in Era 1 vs Era 2 (HR 0.87 (0.61-1.24), p=0.26), respectively (Figure 1). In a univariate analysis, high risk simplified MIPI was prognostic of lower EFS and OS in both the era groups. Conclusion. The BR regimen entered front line therapy of MCL resulting in decline of R-CHOP use in the MER. While rates of ASCT remain similar over the two eras, high dose cytarabine usage in induction therapy has increased. While POC in MCL continue to evolve, the introduction of bendamustine and high-dose citarabine based regimens resulted in an improvement in EFS but not OS in this observational cohort-based analysis. Findings in this study are important for design and planning of future clinical trials incorporating novel agents in induction therapy of MCL. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Cohen: Celgene: 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; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; 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; 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; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: 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.
Clinical Significance of Testicular FDG-PET/CT Uptake in Aggressive Lymphomas

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 5401-5401

10.1182/blood-2018-99-117711

Abstract Introduction Primary testicular lymphoma (PTL) and testicular involvement of systemic lymphoma (secondary testicular lymphoma, STL) are uncommon. Most testicular lymphomas are aggressive B-cell lymphomas and portend a high risk of extranodal relapse, including CNS relapse. As such, when testicular lymphoma is identified, the management strategy is often changed to include CNS prophylaxis. It is, therefore, essential to evaluate testicular involvement in diagnosis and staging. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG PET/CT) is a standard imaging modality to stage aggressive lymphoma. Physiologic testicular FDG activity can be challenging to distinguish from involvement by lymphoma given a wide range of normal. An imaging threshold for testicular PET uptake would be clinically relevant and would help guide management. We compare testicular FDG avidity in testicular lymphoma with physiologic testicular FDG avidity. Methods Records of patients (pts) diagnosed with PTL or STL from 2002-2018 enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource were reviewed, yielding 36 pts with testicular lymphoma. Physiologic testicular avidity by FDG PET/CT was determined from analysis of 70 randomly selected patients who received FDG PET/CT from 2013-2018 prior to treatment for non-lymphoma indications including pulmonary nodule, lung carcinoma, head & neck squamous cell carcinoma, gastrointestinal carcinomas, and metastatic melanoma, without known hematologic malignancy, testicular pathology, or history of testicular infection/surgery by medical chart review. Imaging parameters compared in this analysis were SUVmax and SUVmean. All FDG PET/CT exams were reviewed centrally by a nuclear medicine radiologist and a radiology resident. Results Of the 36 pts with testicular lymphoma, 19 had an orchiectomy prior to FDG PET/CT and 7 pts did not have a staging FDG PET/CT scan. Of the 10 pts with intact testes at the time of staging FDG PET/CT, 1 pt with low-grade lymphoma was excluded. 9 pts with aggressive lymphomas were included in this analysis: 7 pts with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and 1 pt each with Burkitt lymphoma and peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified. Testicular lymphoma was diagnosed by orchiectomy in 3 pts, and by percutaneous biopsy in 3 pts. 3 pts did not have tissue sampling of testes or scrotal contents, but had an overtly FDG-avid testicle highly suggestive of lymphomatous involvement. These 3 pts had biopsy-proven lymphoma in parotid, bone marrow, and stomach, respectively, with mean testicular SUVmax 6.8 among the 3 pts. The median age in this analysis cohort was 62 years (range 35-88). Of the 7 analyzed DLBCL pts, 6 were non-germinal center B-cell, and 1 was germinal center B-cell. The 70 control pts had a median age of 55 years (range 18-90). In known testicular lymphoma cases and control pts, SUVmax and SUVmean were assessed from the most FDG-avid testicle. Median SUVmax for the testicular lymphoma cases was 13.3 (range 5.5-29.9), compared to a median of 3.8 (range 2.1-5.5) for controls (Wilcoxon p <0.0001). Median SUVmean for testicular lymphoma was 9.2 (range 3.3-18.6), compared to a median of 3.1 (range 1.8-4.8) for controls (Wilcoxon p <0.0001) (Figure). Based on this dataset, an SUVmax cutoff of 5.0 has a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 66.3-100) and a specificity of 98.6% (98% CI 92.3-99.9) for the detection of testicular involvement by an aggressive lymphoma. Conclusions FDG PET/CT shows significantly greater FDG avidity for testicular aggressive lymphomas as compared with physiologic testicular FDG uptake in this single institution study with centralized radiology review of cases and controls. Testicular FDG avidity greater than an SUVmax 5.0 in staging aggressive lymphoma is highly suggestive for testicular involvement, warranting follow-up clinical exam and ultrasound, at a minimum. In addition, testicles with SUVmax <5.0 in a patient with known lymphoma but no symptoms or signs of testicular involvement should be considered negative for the purposes of staging and treatment planning. A pragmatic limitation of this study is that most patients with testicular involvement of lymphoma underwent orchiectomy prior to FDG PET/CT scan, which decreased our sample size. Larger, pooled studies would be helpful to validate these clinically relevant findings. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Witzig: Celgene: 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.
The Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study Reflects the Demographics and Subtypes of Patients Diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in the United States

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 1702-1702

10.1182/blood-2018-99-114281

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.
Bortezomib Maintenance (BM) or Consolidation (BC) Following Aggressive Immunochemotherapy and Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT) for Untreated Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL): 8 Year Follow up of CALGB 50403 (Alliance)

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 146-146

10.1182/blood-2018-99-112655

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.
Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of an Analysis of a Single Institution Experience of the 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Post-Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorders (PTLD)

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 456-456

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113667

Abstract Background: PTLD is the most common malignancy, other than non-melanoma skin cancer, complicating solid organ transplantation (SOT) and has been one of the most commonly observed fatal consequences in SOT. The clinical presentations, management strategies, histologies, causes of death and outcomes are diverse (Dierickx D, Habermann TM. N Engl J Med 2018;378:549-62). The 2017 WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues has redefined the categories as non-destructive PTLDs (plasmacytic hyperplasia, infectious mononucleosis, and florid follicular hyperplasia), polymorphic PTLD, monomorphic PTLD: B-cell neoplasms (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, high-grade B-cell lymphoma, plasmablastic lymphoma, plasma cell myeloma, plasmacytoma, and other) and T-cell neoplasms (peripheral T-cell lymphoma NOS, hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, other), and classic Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) PTLD. We report the outcomes and long-term follow-up of patients from a single institution based on these categories whose pathology was retrospectively reviewed and reclassified based on the WHO 2017 classification. Methods: Patients with SOT who were diagnosed with PTLD at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) were identified through the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Data base and the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER). The histology was re-reviewed in 80% of the cases (RLK) and classified according to the WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic an Lymphoid Tissues 2017. Cases were considered "PTLD, unclassified" if the histology could not be confidently classified based on pathology material available for review. Indolent small B-cell lymphomas were not included among the PTLDs except for EBV-positive marginal zone lymphoma. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association of clinical factors in overall survival (OS). Results: 233 patients diagnosed with PTLD between 1987 and 2017 were identified. The median age at the time of diagnosis of PTLD was 54 years (range 16 to 84) with 85 patients (36%) over the age of 60. 156 (67%) were male. The transplanted organs were kidney (41%), kidney/pancreas (5%), liver (29%), heart (9%), lung (7%), and other (8%). PTLD occurred late (more than one year after transplantation) in 66%. There were 69 stage I, 19 stage II, 8 stage III, and 128 stage IV patients. 84% presented with extranodal disease. 21% had involvement of the engrafted organ. 64% of the patients developed a PTLD that was EBV positive by in situ hybridization. Initial approaches to management included reduction of immunosuppression (N=55), chemotherapy/immunochemotherapy (N=71), reduction in immunosuppression with rituximab (N=58), single agent rituximab (N=14), and radiation therapy (N=5). At a median follow-up of 87 months (range 9-289), 139 (60%) patients had died. All six CHL-PTLD patients are alive, two of whom had an event. The median overall survival (OS) was 85 months (95% CI: 39-144) in 177 monomorphic B-cell lymphoma PTLD, 95.5 months (95% CI: 40-not reached) in 24 polymorphic PTLD, and 60 months in 8 non-destructive PTLD cases. In contrast, the median overall survival was 12 months (95% CI: 4-200) in 8 monomorphic T cell and 3 months (95% CI: 1-unreached) in 9 unclassified PTLD cases. Conclusion: PTLD is a heterogeneous group of immunodeficiency-associated lymphoproliferative disorders. The overall survival in non-destructive, polymorphic, and monomorphic PTLD were similar. Monomorphic T/NK cell types had inferior outcomes. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Ansell:Celldex: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board.
Epstein-Barr Virus Status in Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Post-Transplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 2979-2979

10.1182/blood-2018-99-116738

Abstract Background Diffuse large B cell lymphoma post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (DLBCL-PTLD) represents a fatal complication after a solid organ transplant (SOT). Approximately 50% of DLBCL-PTLD can be related to Epstein Barr Virus (EBV) infection. However, the EBV status is not taken into account in the DLBCL-PTLD categorization, although increasing evidence suggests its critical role in biological, clinical and prognostic aspects of the disease. In this single center retrospective study, we compared clinical and histological features, as well as outcomes of DLBCL-PTLDs by EBV status. Methods This study focused on patients with SOT who were diagnosed with DLBCL-PTLD at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). Patients were identified through the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Data base and the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), between 1989 and 2017. The histology was re-reviewed (RLK) and classified according to the WHO Classification or Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues 2017. Cell of origin (COO) was performed by Hans algorithm. EBV RNA in situ hybridization (EBER) was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association of clinical factors in overall survival (OS). Results 148 DLBCL-PTLD were identified. The median age at SOT and at the time of PTLD diagnosis were 50 years (range: 15-71) and 56 years (range: 18-82), respectively. The median time to PTLD diagnosis from SOT was 38 months (range: 1-499). The types of SOT included renal (44%), liver (36%), cardiac (9%), renal/pancreas (5%), pancreas (8%), lung (7%) and multiorgan (4%). 62% were stage III-IV, 30% had elevated LDH and 67% had an IPI >1. 88% of patients presented with extranodal disease, and 16% had involvement of the grafted organ. Eighty-three (56%) cases were EBV positive. The COO information was available on 35 cases. The non-GCB subtype was identified in 24 cases and GCB subtype in 11 cases. The initial treatment was as follows: reduction in immunosuppression (12%), immunosuppression reduction with rituximab (26%), rituximab alone (5%), chemotherapy with or without rituximab (35%). Patients with EBV positive PTLD were more likely to have grafted organ involvement (20% vs. 8%, p=0.047) and late PTLD (occurring after 12 months from SOT - 60% vs. 8%, p<0.001) than patients with EBV negative PTLD. There was no association between EBV status and age, sex, stage, LDH, and extranodal site involvement. At a median follow-up of 80 months (range 9-269), 83 patients (56%) had died. The 5-year survival rate from PTLD diagnosis was 56% (95% CI: 48-65%). The median OS was 85 months (95% CI: 37-148). There was no difference in OS in patients with EBV positive PTLD (median OS=84.7 months, HR=1.21, 95% CI: 0.77-1.92) versus patients with EBV negative DLBCL-PTLD (median OS=85.4 months, p=0.41). Conclusion Our study assessed the impact of EBV status on the presentation and clinical outcome of DLBCL-PTLD in a 148-patient single-institution cohort. 56% of cases were EBV positive. EBV positivity was associated with grafted organ involvement and late PTLD diagnosis. Patients with EBV-negative and EBV-positive disease had similar survival from PTLD diagnosis. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Cerhan:Nanostring: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding.
Association of Health Behaviors and Quality of Life in Lymphoma Survivors

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 4838-4838

10.1182/blood-2018-99-111738

Abstract Background: Lymphoma survivors are at risk for long term and late effects which may negatively impact quality of life (QOL). Few studies have assessed the impact of change in health behaviors (physical activity (PA), alcohol and smoking) on QOL, specifically in lymphoma survivors. Methods: Patients were prospectively enrolled <9 months of diagnosis into the Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource cohort. At baseline and 3-year follow-up (FU3), patients self-reported QOL, smoking, alcohol use and PA. At FU3, survivors reported change in health behaviors since diagnosis. The Godin Leisure Score Index (LSI) was calculated as a measure of PA (Pophali et al. ASH 2017); modeled by tertile. QOL was measured via FACT-G; the total and sub-scales [emotional (EWB), functional (FWB), physical (PWB), and social/family well-being (SFWB)] scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale. Patients who completed <80% of QOL questions were excluded. The association of QOL with health behaviors was evaluated using Kruskal-Wallis test (categorical) and Spearman's rank correlation (continuous). Results: At baseline, 2805 participants were evaluable for QOL of which 2025 were evaluable at FU3. The median age at diagnosis was 62 (IQR 52-69) years. Majority were males (N=1148, 56.8%), with advanced stage III-IV disease (N=941, 62%) and ECOG performance status <2 (N=1935, 96%). At baseline, smoking status was current (N=237), former (N=802), never (N=1310) or not available (NA, N= 456). Current smokers had a significantly lower median QOL scores compared to former and never smokers for EWB (75 vs 79 vs 79, p<0.01), FWB (71 vs 79 vs 79, p<0.01), PWB (86 vs 89 vs 89, p=0.02), SFWB (86 vs 90 vs 89, p=0.02) and total FACT-G (67 vs 82 vs 82, p<0.01). The median number of pack years smoked among current &former smokers was 15.6 (range 0.5-126). There was a significant negative correlation of pack years smoked with FWB (p=0.05), and total FACT-G (p=0.04). At FU3, current smokers had significantly lower median scores compared to former and never smokers for FWB (80 vs 86 vs 86, p=0.01), PWB (89 vs 93 vs 93, p<0.01) and total FACT-G (82 vs 86 vs 87, p<0.01). EWB (83 vs 88 vs 88, p=0.12) and SFWB (83 vs 86 vs 86, p=0.12) were also lower than never and former smokers but not statistically significant. Smoking status was decreased (N=30), increased (N=0) and unchanged (N=1439) at FU3. There was no association of change in smoking with change in QOL. At baseline, alcohol use status was current (N=1189), former (N=506), never (N=518) and NA (N=592). Current alcohol users had the highest FWB (79 vs 75 vs 75, p<0.01) vs former and never users. Former users vs current and never users had the lowest PWB (86 vs 89 vs 89, p<0.01), SFWB (88 vs 89 vs 92, p<0.01) and total FACT-G (80 vs 83 vs 82, p<0.01). EWB was similar in all 3 groups. Among current & former alcohol users, the average number of drinks/week was 3.4. There was no association of the number of drinks/week with QOL except positive correlation with PWB (p=0.01). At FU3, alcohol use was reported as increased (N=40), decreased (N=312) and no change (N=875). There was no association between change in alcohol use and change in QOL. At baseline, participants with PA in the high vs low LSI tertile had significantly better median scores for FWB (79 vs 75, p=0.01), SFWB (93 vs 89, p<0.01) and total FACT-G (83 vs 82, p<0.01). At FU3, participants in the high vs low LSI tertile had significantly better scores on all subscales and total FACT-G with a significant positive correlation between the continuous LSI and QOL (FACT-G total and subscales). PA was reported as increased (N=107), decreased (N=394) and no change (N=495). There was a significant association of increase in PA with change in PWB (p<0.01), EWB (p=0.01), FWB (p<0.01) and total FACT-G (p<0.01) from baseline to FU3, but not with change in SFWB (p=0.06). In a sensitivity analysis, QOL was modeled for health behaviors in the subset of patients with QOL assessed prior to treatment; results were consistent with the QOL in all patients. Conclusions: Health behaviors in lymphoma survivors are significantly associated with QOL: better QOL is associated with not smoking, more PA, and moderate alcohol use. Current alcohol consumption, as opposed to former alcohol use, may be related to overall health status. An increase in PA after lymphoma diagnosis is associated with an increase in the QOL. Thus, modification of health behaviors has the potential to impact QOL in lymphoma survivors. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Cerhan: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board.
Relapses after Achieving EFS24 in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the Rituximab Era

Blood | October 14, 2019 | Volume: 132 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 454-454

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113213

Abstract Introduction: The addition of Rituximab to chemotherapy has significantly improved the outcome of patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients treated with immunochemotherapy for DLBCL who achieve EFS24 (event-free for 2 years after diagnosis) have an overall survival equivalent to that of the age- and sex-matched general population. Relapses after achieving EFS24 have been considered to be unusual but have been understudied. We sought to define the rate, clinical characteristics, treatment pattern, and outcomes of such relapses. Methods: 1448 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL from March 2002 to June 2015 were included. Patients were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE, treated per physician choice (predominantly R-CHOP immunochemotherapy) and followed prospectively. An event was defined as progression or relapse, unplanned re-treatment after initial therapy, or death from any cause. Cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality after achieving EFS24 were analyzed as competing events using Gray's test in the EZR software. Post-relapse survival was defined as time from relapse to death from any cause and analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method in SPSS (V22). Results: Among the 1448 patients, 1260 (87%) had DLBCL alone at diagnosis, and 188 (13%) had concurrent indolent lymphoma (follicular lymphoma 115, marginal zone lymphoma 18, chronic lymphocytic leukemia 14, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma 4, unspecified 37) at diagnosis. After a median follow-up of 83.9 months, 896 patients achieved EFS24. For all 896 patients who achieved EFS24, the cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was 5.7%, 9.3% and 13.2%, respectively, at 2, 5 and 10 years after achieving EFS24. Patients with concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis had a higher CIR compared to those with DLBCL alone at diagnosis (10.2 vs 4.8% at 2 years, 15.7 vs 8.0% at 5 years, 28.8 vs 9.7% at 10 years, P<0.001; Figure 1). There were a total of 84 patients who relapsed after achieving EFS24. The median age at initial diagnosis was 66 years (range 35-92), and 48 (57%) were male. At diagnosis, 11 (13%) had ECOG PS >1, 37 (50%) had LDH elevation, 62 (74%) were stage III-IV, 14 (17%) had more than 1 extranodal site, and 26 (31%) were poor risk by R-IPI score. There were 58 patients with DLBCL alone at diagnosis who relapsed after achieving EFS24, and 38 (75%) relapsed with DLBCL, 13 (25%) relapsed with indolent lymphoma (predominantly follicular lymphoma), and pathology was unknown in 7 patients. In contrast, there were 26 patients with concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis who relapsed after achieving EFS24, and 9 (41%) relapsed with DLBCL, 13 (59%) relapsed with indolent lymphoma, and pathology was unknown in 4 patients. In the 47 patients who relapsed with DLBCL after achieving EFS24, 45% received intensive salvage chemotherapy, 19% received regular intensity chemotherapy, 9% received CNS directed chemotherapy, and 36% went on to receive autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). In the 26 patients who relapsed with indolent lymphoma after achieving EFS24, 27% were initially observed, 54% received regular intensity chemotherapy, 4% received intensive salvage chemotherapy, and 19% received ASCT after subsequent progression. The median post-relapse survival (PRS) for all patients with a relapse after achieving EFS24 was 38.0 months (95% CI 27.5-48.5). The median PRS for patients who relapsed with DLBCL and indolent lymphoma after achieving EFS24 were 29.9 (19.9-39.9) and 89.9 (NR-NR) months, respectively (P=0.002; Figure 2). Conclusions: Relapses after achieving EFS24 in patients with DLBCL were uncommon in the rituximab era. Patient with DLBCL alone at diagnosis can relapse with either DLBCL or indolent lymphoma (3:1 ratio). Patients with concurrent DLBCL and indolent lymphoma at diagnosis had a significantly higher CIR, and relapses with DLBCL and indolent lymphoma were similar (2:3 ratio). Even with high intensity salvage chemotherapy and consolidative ASCT, patients who relapsed with DLBCL had a significantly worse survival compared to those who relapsed with indolent lymphoma. Late relapses with DLBCL remain clinically challenging, with a median survival of 2.5 years after relapse. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding.