Johnston, Patrick B.

Abstract Background: The prognosis of patients with PTCL remains poor after standard CHOP therapy - the most commonly used combination regimen. Relapses occur in the majority of patients, and curability rates of the relapsed disease are very low. Hence, advances in front-line therapy of PTCL are long overdue. Pralatrexate, a second-generation antifolate, demonstrated a single agent activity in patients with relapsed and refractory PTCL with a response rate of 27%, including complete remissions in 11% of patients (O'Connor et al. J Clin Onc 2011). We conducted a Phase 1 multi-center dose-escalation study of pralatrexate in combination with standard CHOP (Fol-CHOP) in treatment-naïve PTCL patients. Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pralatrexate when administered with a standard CHOP regimen to patients with newly diagnosed PTCL. The secondary objectives included safety, tolerability, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of pralatrexate in combination with CHOP (Fol-CHOP). Methods: In Part 1 of this 3+3 dose-escalation study, pralatrexate was administered at 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 mg/m2 as an IV push on days 1 and 8 of a standard 21-day CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 [maximum 2 mg] on day 1 and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1-5). In Part 2 of the study patients were treated at the MTD of pralatrexate established in Part 1, with standard CHOP. In both parts of the study patients were treated with up to 6 cycles of therapy, or until toxicity or disease progression. Patients received antimicrobial prophylaxis, myeloid growth factor support, and "leucovorin rescue" throughout 6 cycles of therapy. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were considered during the 1st cycle of Fol-CHOP and included: Grade 4 infections, treatment-related non-hematological toxicity ≥Grade 3, platelet count < 25 X 109/L at any time, or ANC < 0.5 X 109/L for >7 days despite G-CSF administration. Responses were assessed by the investigator per the Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphoma (Cheson 2007). Results: A total of 31 patients have been enrolled (19 in Part 1; 12 in Part 2). MTD was not reached and pralatrexate dose of 30 mg/m2 in combination with CHOP was selected for Part 2 of the study as predefined by the protocol. The majority of patients were male, White, with the median age of 66 yrs (range, 18-78) at the time of enrolment. PTCL diagnoses included: anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphomakinase-negative (ALCL, ALK-, n=5), peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not-otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS, n=18), and angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL, n=5). Fol-CHOP was generally well tolerated with median RDI of 98%. Common (≥ 30%) adverse events (AEs) of any grade were fatigue (n=23), constipation (n=20), nausea (n=16), mucositis (n=14), diarrhea (n=12), anemia (n=9), vomiting (n=10) and oral pain (n=10). Most common (≥ 10%) AEs ≥ grade 3 were anemia (n=6), fatigue (n=4) and neutrophil count decreas (n=5). The only Grade >3 treatment-related AEs (≥10%) was neutrophil count decrease (n=4). SAEs were observed in 13 patients, treatment related SAEs were anemia, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, mucositis and nausea. Five patients withdrew from study: 2 due to disease progression, 1 due to AE and 2 due lapse >28 days between doses. In the 27 patients avaluable for response, the investigator assessed objective response (OR) and complete response (CR) rates were 89% wand 67%, respectively. Conclusions: The combination of pralatrexate and CHOP was well tolerated in treatment-naive PTCL patients. MTD of pralatrexate was not reached, and the protocol-defined maximum dose of 30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day CHOP cycle was recomended for future studies. The observed OR and CR rates warrant further evaluation of this regimen in newly diagnosed PTCL patients. Disclosures Shustov: Celgene: Other: Publication assistance; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Bhat: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Reddy: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment.

AbstractNeurolymphomatosis (NL) is a rare manifestation of lymphoma, with limited evidence for optimal management. The largest patient series, 50 cases of lymphoma and leukemia, was published in 2010 with limited rituximab exposure. This study aims to evaluate the clinical presentation, diagnostic testing, and outcomes of NL in the rituximab era. Forty biopsy-proven cases of NL, in association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), at the Mayo Clinic were retrospectively evaluated. B-cell NHL was associated with 97% of NL cases, of which diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was the most common (68%). Primary NL, defined as neural involvement present at the time of diagnosis of lymphoma, was noted in 52% cases. Seventy percent of patients presented with sensorimotor weakness and neuropathic pain. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was positive in 100% patients. Overall survival (OS) was significantly better for primary NL and NL associated with indolent lymphomas. Relapses were seen in 60% (24/40) of patients; 75% involved the peripheral or central nervous system at relapse. The use of rituximab in the frontline setting significantly impacted progression-free survival (PFS). Transplant consolidation was noted to be associated with improved OS. This study adds to the available literature on NL in the rituximab era. The overall outcomes have improved in recent years. In our experience, MRI and positron emission tomography/computed tomography may be required for accurate assessment of the extent of disease involvement and identification of an optimal biopsy site. The use of rituximab was associated with improvement in PFS, and autologous stem cell transplant was associated with OS.

AbstractIntroductionHypoalbuminemia is a known adverse prognostic factor in lymphomas. Yet, it is unknown if axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi‐cel) overcomes the adverse prognostic impact of hypoalbuminemia in relapsed/refractory large B‐cell lymphoma.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis across three Mayo Clinic centers to assess the relationship of hypoalbuminemia (defined as a serum albumin (SA) levels ≤ 3.5 g/dL) on outcomes of patients treated with axi‐cel.ResultsThis analysis included 81 patients. Two patients had no available SA levels preceding axi‐cel infusion. Eighteen patients (22.8%) had hypoalbuminemia with a median SA of 3.3 g/dL. Patients with normal SA had a statistically higher ORR than those without hypoalbuminemia (P = .018). There was no difference in 1‐year PFS and OS between the group with hypoalbuminemia and the group with normal SA levels (48% vs 49%, P = .81) and (74% vs 73%, P = .97), respectively. There was no difference in the severity or median duration of cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity between the two groups.ConclusionNotwithstanding the limitations related to the relatively small sample size, axi‐cel therapy appears to overcome the adverse effect of hypoalbuminemia on OS and PFS. Large multicenter clinical studies are certainly needed to validate these findings.

Background: Infection during the period of neutropenia following chemotherapy represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancy.(Freifeld, et al, 2011, Baden LR, et al, 2012) Several guidelines recommend granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) to reduce the duration and severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and abate infection risk.(Lyman, et al 2018, Aapro, et al, 2011, Smith, et al, 2015). Optimal GCSF administration following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy remains undefined and requires characterization. Methods: The Mayo Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective, single-center study. Electronic medical records for patients prescribed axicabtagene ciloleucel were reviewed until disease relapse, death, or a maximum of 60 days after infusion. Baseline characteristics and laboratory values were abstracted prior to lymphodepleting chemotherapy. GCSF support was originally prescribed when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) declined below 500 cells/mm3 and discontinued when the ANC exceeded 1000 cells/mm3 (neutropenia) for 2 consecutive days. A practice change was made where GCSF was recommended only in those with febrile neutropenia and an increased concern for infection. The primary endpoint was the difference in the total days of neutropenia for patients receiving and not receiving GCSF. Secondary outcomes compared total days of severe neutropenia, number of neutropenia episodes, infection rates by GCSF use, and outcomes by protocol change. Neutropenia and severe neutropenia were defined as an ANC below 500 cells/mm3 and 100 cells/mm3, respectively. Updated data with more patients will be presented at the conference. Results: The 60 included patients had a median age of 59 (IQR: 44, 63) years, 38 (63%) were male and 53 (88%) were Caucasian. Significantly fewer patients were prescribed GCSF according to infection-related concerns compared to ANC-based indication, 18% vs. 94%, p<0.001. Because only 3 subjects received GCSF based on infection-related concerns, results based on GCSF use versus no use is shown here. GCSF was prescribed to 35 (58%) patients for a median of 8 (IQR: 6, 12) doses with a median cumulative dosage of 3840 mcg (IQR 2100-5400) and median time to first dose of 3 days (IQR: 1, 4) post CAR T-cell infusion. Table 1 displays additional baseline characteristics and laboratory parameters according to GCSF support utilization. GCSF prescribed: Table 2 displays outcomes by GCSF use. Total days of neutropenia were similar between groups (13 vs. 16, p=0.52) with a trend towards significantly fewer days of severe neutropenia when prescribed GCSF (6 vs. 9, p=0.129). Patients prescribed GCSF were more likely to experience multiple episodes of neutropenia (83% vs. 43% p=0.002) with a significantly greater median number of episodes (3 vs. 1, p=0.002) when compared to those not prescribed GCSF. GCSF use significantly decreased the median days of the first neutropenia episode (6 vs. 12, p=0.001). There was a trend for decreased median days of severe neutropenia in the first episode with GCSF (5.0 vs. 8.0, p=0.236). Figure 1 displays a trend towards a lower overall risk of infection (HR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.16-1.87, p=0.34) and lower risk of bacterial infection (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18-1.31, p=0.15); however, these were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Patients prescribed GCSF according to ANC-based indication were significantly more likely to experience multiple neutropenia episodes; however, duration of first neutropenic episode and days of severe neutropenia during the first neutropenic episode were significantly reduced. Interestingly, the total days of neutropenia and severe neutropenia were similar between groups. It is possible that using the parameter of ANC more than 1000 cells/mm3 for 2 consecutive days is not the optimal criteria for stopping GCSF. Risk of overall and bacterial infection was lower with ANC-based initiation of GCSF, although non-significant likely due to small sample size. The potential benefit for using CSF and the optimal timing after CAR T-cell infusion requires further, rigorous, prospective investigation. Disclosures Ansell: ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Bennani:Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Lin:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Richter transformation (RT) refers to transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or other aggressive lymphomas. The incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of RT with CNS involvement remain undefined. Methods: Biopsy-confirmed RT diagnosed from 4/1993 to 4/2018 was identified from the Mayo Clinic CLL database. RT cases with CNS involvement were further reviewed, with clinical characteristics, treatment and follow-up data abstracted. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from CNS involvement to death from any cause and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among 204 CLL patients with biopsy-proven RT, 15 patients had documented CNS involvement by imaging (parenchymal n=11, ocular n=1, parenchymal and ocular n=1, leptomeningeal n=1, cranial and spinal nerve roots n=1). Biopsy confirmation of CNS involvement was available in 11 patients. Of these 15 patients, 10 had CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis, and 5 patients developed CNS involvement at RT progression, with a median time from RT diagnosis to CNS involvement of 14.9 months (range 2.8-41.1). Prior to RT, 11 patients (73.3%) received no treatment for CLL, 3 (53.4%) received chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) only (1-3 lines), and 1 patient (6.7%) received CIT (1 line) and ibrutinib. CLL FISH results were available in 9 patients, with del(17p) in 2, trisomy 12 in 2, del(13q) in 3, and normal results in 2. One patient had TP53 mutation (FISH result unavailable). IgHV mutation status was known in 3 patients and 1 was unmutated. The median time to RT was 4.4 years (range 0-11.4). The median age at RT diagnosis was 70 years (range 59-78), and 9 (60%) were male. The histology of RT was DLBCL in all 15 patients (diagnosed by CNS biopsy in 8 and other biopsies in 7), with GCB subtype in 6 and non-GCB subtype in 3. MYC rearrangement was detected in 4 of 6 patients tested, and 2 of those also had BCL-2 rearrangement (MYC/BCL-2 double hit). Of the 10 patients with CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis, 4 had isolated CNS involvement (confirmed by brain biopsy [n=2] or vitreous biopsy [n=2]). All 4 patients were treated with high dose (HD) methotrexate (MTX) based regimen, and 3 patients achieved complete remission (CR) and underwent autologous stem cell transplant with continued CR, while 1 patient achieved partial remission and received whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) at disease progression. Six patients had both systemic and CNS involvement (confirmed by brain biopsy [n=2] or CSF examination [n=2] in 4; the other 2 were diagnosed by imaging). All 6 patients received CNS directed therapy (HD MTX [n=5] or WBRT [n=1]) as well as systemic therapy (R-CHOP [n=5] or HyperCVAD [n=1]), with varied short duration of disease control (Figure 1A). Of the 5 patients who developed CNS involvement at RT progression (after 1-2 lines of therapy including first-line R-CHOP), 2 had isolated CNS involvement (1 was confirmed by CSF examination and the other was by imaging only). Both were treated with HD MTX based regimen, and 1 achieved a durable remission of 2 years but eventually had CNS relapse, while the other had no response and received WBRT with limited benefit. Three patients had both systemic and CNS involvement (2 were confirmed by CSF examination and the other was by imaging only), and all 3 patients were treated with HD MTX based regimen but all had CNS disease progression within 3 months (Figure 1A). The OS after CNS involvement for all 15 RT patients was 9.4 months (95% CI 2.3-19.1). Patients with CNS involvement at initial RT diagnosis had numerically longer OS compared to patients who developed CNS involvement at RT progression (median OS 13.0 vs 4.1 months, P = 0.137; Figure 1B). Patients with isolated CNS involvement had better OS compared to patients with both CNS and systemic involvement (median OS 32.0 vs 5.3 months, P = 0.009; Figure 1C). Three of the 4 patients who only had isolated CNS involvement at the time of RT diagnosis have ongoing long term remission and survival (Figure 1A). Conclusions: In this large series of RT, approximately 1 in 14 patients had CNS involvement. Patients with isolated CNS involvement appeared to have favorable long term outcome; however, RT patients with both systemic and CNS involvement had extremely poor survival. The incidence, molecular characteristics, and optimal management of RT with CNS involvement in the novel agent era warrant future multicenter studies. Disclosures Wang: Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Parikh:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria. Kay:Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig:AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Immune Design: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Nowakowski:MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kenderian:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding.

Background: Anti CD-19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is approved to treat relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive NHL after 2 or more lines of therapy. Randomized clinical trials are ongoing comparing CAR-T and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in second line. In standard of care practice, patients refractory to second line chemotherapy are sometimes treated with third line chemotherapy and taken to ASCT if disease is chemo-sensitive. Current study aims to evaluate the impact of prior lines of therapy on the efficacy of CAR-T and ASCT. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who received ASCT and/or axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) for R/R aggressive NHL from June 2016 - January 2020 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester was performed. The lymphoma types included in the study were DLBCL, transformed lymphoma (TFL), high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL), and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). Response to all lymphoma-directed therapy was evaluated using 2014 Lugano criteria. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from CAR-T or ASCT infusion to death, and progression free survival (PFS) was defined as time from CAR-T or ASCT infusion to disease progression, or next treatment. Categorical data was analyzed as Chi-square or fishers exact test as appropriate. Continuous variables were analyzed using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Analysis was performed in R3.6.3. Results: A total of 105 patients underwent ASCT and 53 patients underwent CAR-T therapy in the study period with at least 6 months follow-up. Of the 105 ASCT patients, 87 received ASCT after 2 lines of chemotherapy, ASCT(2), and 18 received ASCT after 3 lines of chemotherapy, ASCT(3). Twenty six of the ASCT [n=19, ASCT(2) and n=7, ASCT(3)] patients received CART in subsequent therapy. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups except ASCT(3) had higher percent of refractory disease after first line (table 1). With a median follow up of 17.4 months, the PFS was significantly longer for the ASCT(2) group with a trend toward longer OS (Figure 1; PFS @ 1 year: ASCT(2) 67%, 95%CI 58-79%; ASCT(3) 27%, 95%CI 27-74%; p = 0.036). Among the CAR-T recipients, only 18 (33%) patients received CAR-T in the earliest possible indication, CAR-T(2): after 2 lines of chemotherapy (n=12) and/or after ASCT(2) (n=6), table 1. Compared to patients who received CAR-T in later lines (CAR-T 3+), OS was significantly longer for patients who received CAR-T(2), with a trend toward longer PFS (Figure 1; OS @ 1 year: CAR-T (2) 82%, 95%CI 65-100%; CAR-T later lines 62%, 95%CI 47-82%; p = 0.05). Additionally, 12 (23%) of patients received CAR-T immediately after ASCT (9 after ASCT(2), 3 after ASCT(3)). Baseline demographics in these 12 patients, CAR-T(ASCT), were comparable to the others who had chemoimmunotherapy as the last salvage therapy prior to CAR-T [CAR-T(chemo)], except a smaller proportion received bridging therapy (33% vs. 73%, p = 0.01). The CAR-T (ASCT) group had significantly prolonged PFS (median PFS - not reached [95%CI 3-not reached (NR)] vs. 3 months [95% CI 3-4 months]), and OS (median OS - NR, [95%CI 10.34-NR] vs. 15.1 months, [95%CI 11.9 - NR], p = 0.03). Updated analysis will be presented at the meeting with longer follow up (Figure 1). Conclusion: CAR-T use at the earliest current approved indication may confer survival advantage. Referral for earlier use of CAR-T remains low at only one third of our CAR-T practice volume. CAR-T use for relapse immediately after ASCT appear to have longer PFS and OS than after other systemic salvage therapy, although contributing parameters such as the need for bridging therapy requires further study. While patients who are chemo-refractory to second line chemotherapy may demonstrate chemo sensitivity with third line chemotherapy, PFS is shorter for ASCT(3). Comparison between ASCT(3) and CAR-T (2, chemorefractory) require larger cohorts with longer follow-up. Disclosures Bennani: Affimed: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding. Lin:Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction Day 15 absolute lymphocyte count (ALC-15) recovery after autologous peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (APBHSCT) is recognized as a prognostic factor for survival. ALC-15 recovery is directly dependent on the amount of collected and infused autograft-absolute lymphocyte count (A-ALC). Our group published a double-blind phase III study which showed that patients infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg experienced superior survival post-APBHSCT. Based on the results from our phase III study, on April 1, 2017, our Bone Marrow Transplant Program changed our standard clinical practice to collect an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg in addition to stem cells for lymphoma patients undergoing APBHSCT. To continue to assess the prognostic ability of A-ALC, we evaluated the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients that underwent APBHSCT after April 1, 2017 compared with a matched-control group in a 1:1:1 ratio with DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC < 0.5 x 109 cells/kg or an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg prior to April 1, 2017. Methods Eight-five consecutive DLBCL patients after our practice changed on April 1, 2017 received an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg. For each DLBCL patient infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg after April 1, 2017, the set of potential controls was restricted to those DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC < 0.5 x 109 cells/kg and an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg prior to April 1 2017 . Within this group of potential controls, the subjects were chosen who best matched for the cases in terms of clinical risk variables, including gender, age, stage, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), performance status, extra-nodal disease, International prognostic index (IPI), and disease status prior to APBHSCT (complete or partial response), using the GREEDY algorithm. Cases were defined as DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg starting from April 1 2017. Control 1 was defined as DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC < 0.5 x 109 cells/kg prior to April 1 2017. Control 2 was defined as DLBCL patients infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg prior to April 1 2017. We truncated the survival follow-up to 3 years starting from the date of transplant to match follow-up time between cases and controls. Both matched cases and control groups patients received BEAM conditioning. This retrospective study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board according to the regulation of the Declaration of Helsinki. Results Cases, control 1 and control 2 were balanced to the clinical risk variables; age (p = 0.8); gender (p = 0.9); LDH (p = 0.6); stage (p = 0.3); performance status (p = 0.5); extra-nodal disease (p = 0.2); IPI (p = 0.6); and clinical status prior to transplant (p = 0.2). Figure 1A showed the OS and figure 1B the PFS. Both the cases and control 2 showed superior OS and PFS in comparison to control 1. Cases and control 2 showed overall similar OS and PFS. Multivariate analysis including all patients continue to depict the A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg as an independent predictor for OS (HR = 0.382, 95%CI=0.241-0.605, p < 0.0001) and PFS (HR = 0.437, 95%CI = 0.279-0.629, p <0.0001). Subgroup analysis, including all patients, shows superior OS and PFS for patients infused with an A-ALC ≥ 0.5 x 109 cells/kg for each of the following clinical variables: age [> 60 years: OS (p <0.0001); PFS (p <0.0001) or ≤ 60 years: OS (p <0.01); PFS (p , 0.02)]; extra-nodal disease [> 1: OS (p <0.008); PFS (p <0.01) or ≤1: OS (p < 0.001): PFS (p <0.0005)]; IPI [> 2: OS (p <0.01); PFS (p <0.02) or ≤ 2: OS (p <0.0008); PFS (p <0.0006)]; LDH [abnormal: OS (p <0.006); PFS (p <0.005) or normal: OS (p <0.002); PFS (p <0.002)]; performance status [> 1: OS (p <0.04); PFS (p <0.03) or ≤ 1: OS (p <0.0001); PFS (p <0.0001)]; stage [I/II: OS (p <0.006); PFS (p <0.006) or III/IV: OS (p <0.002); PFS (p <0.001)]; response prior to transplant [complete response: OS (p <0.0007); PFS (p <0.0001) or partial response: OS (p <0.01); PFS (p <0.02)]. Conclusion Our match-control study continues to support the results of our Phase III study showing that the infusion of A-ALC is a prognostic factor for survival of DLBCL patients undergoing APBHSCT. Our studies support the practice of not only collecting enough stem cells (i.e., CD34) for hematologic engraftment, but also enough immune effector cells (i.e., A-ALC) to improve clinical outcomes in DLBCL patients post-APBHSCT. Figure 1 Disclosures Ansell: Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

Introduction: Standard of care for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (RR) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is salvage therapy (tx) followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, most pts with high-risk RR HL will relapse after HCT. The AETHERA study demonstrated that post-HCT consolidation with brentuximab vedotin (BV) in high-risk HL pts improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo, particularly in pts with 2+ risk factors (Moskowitz, 2018). Pts with prior BV exposure were excluded from AETHERA, and BV is increasingly used prior to HCT in HL. PD1 blockade is effective in pts with RR HL and PD1 monotherapy as post-HCT consolidation in HL resulted in promising 18 mo PFS (Armand, 2019). Combined BV and nivolumab (Nivo) is a safe and effective salvage tx in HL, therefore we conducted a multicenter phase 2 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BV-Nivo post-HCT consolidation in high risk RR HL. Methods: After HCT, adult pts with high-risk HL defined as having ≥ 1 of the following modified AETHERA risk factors were eligible: primary refractory HL, relapse < 1 year of completing initial tx, extranodal disease (dz) at relapse, B symptoms (sx) at relapse, requiring > 1 salvage tx, not in CR at HCT. Prior BV or PD1 blockade were allowed if pts were not refractory. Pts underwent HCT according to institutional standards at the 5 centers. Starting between day 30-75 after HCT, pts received 1.8 mg/kg of BV and 3mg/kg nivo q21 days for a planned 8 cycles. If 1 drug was discontinued due to toxicity, the other could be continued. Investigators assessed response and progressive disease (PD) according to the 2014 Lugano classification. The primary endpoint was 18 mo PFS from study tx initiation. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), safety, and the response rate in pts not in complete response (CR) at baseline. Results: 59 pts were enrolled and treated with at least one dose of study tx. Baseline characteristics are listed in Table 1. 18 (31%) pts were primary refractory, 35 (59%) had early relapse, 23 (39%) had extranodal dz and 14 (24%) had B sx at relapse, 15 (25%) received > 1 salvage tx before HCT, and 48 (81%) were in CR at HCT. 21 (36%) had 1 modified AETHERA risk factor, 23 (40%) had 2 and 14 (24%) had 3+ risk factors. The median follow-up time from study tx initiation was 15.7 months (range, 2.8-35.5). Patients initiated BV-nivo a median 54 days from HCT (range, 34-75) and received a median of 8 cycles (range, 1-8). 29 (49%) pts completed all 8 cycles of BV and nivo and 45 (76%) patients completed 8 cycles of one drug. 14 (24%) pts discontinued both BV and nivo early, including 6 for adverse events (AE), 6 pt withdrawals, 1 pt lost to follow-up, and 1 pt death from PJP pneumonia unrelated to study tx. BV was discontinued in 8 (14%) pts - due to grade (gr) 3 peripheral neuropathy (PN) in 2 pts, gr 2 PN in 2 pts, carpal tunnel syndrome in 1 pt, gastrointestinal AEs in 2 pts, and infusion related reaction in 1 pt. Nivo was discontinued in 7 (12%) pts - due to pneumonitis in 2 pts, and colitis, elevated bilirubin, abnormal transaminases, pneumonia with elevated creatinine, and hypotension with fever in 1 pt each. BV was dose reduced to 1.2mg/kg in 11 (19%) pts, 9 pts for PN, and 1 each for neutropenia and arthralgia. The most common AEs related to BV-Nivo consolidation were PN (51%, 3% gr 3), neutropenia (42%, 31% gr 3-4), fatigue (37%), diarrhea (29%, 3% gr 3), nausea (25%, 2% gr 3), arthralgia (24%), AST elevation (24%, 2% gr 3). The most frequent gr 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (31%), pneumonitis (7%), and ALT elevation (5%). Immune-related (ir) AEs requiring systemic corticosteroids occurred in 18 (31%) patients. Most common Gr 2 or higher irAEs included: pneumonitis (12%), AST or ALT elevation (8%), hypothyroidism (5%), and rash (3%). 6 pts were not in CR at baseline after HCT (all PR). 5 pts converted to CR with study tx and 1 pt remained in PR without PD. There were only 2 PFS events, 1 pt with relapse at 15 months and PJP-related death after prophylaxis was self-discontinued. The estimated 18 mo PFS and OS in all patients were 95% and 98%, respectively. The estimated 18 mo PFS in pts with 2+ and 3+ risk factors were 92% and 89%, respectively. Conclusions: Post-HCT consolidation with BV-Nivo in pts with high-risk RR HL is a promising approach, with only 1 relapse observed in our cohort with short follow-up thus far. Post-HCT BV-Nivo was tolerable, though IrAEs were observed more frequently than in the pre-HCT setting and PN and neutropenia were common. Disclosures Herrera: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Nieto:Affimed: Consultancy, Other: Grant Support; Secura Bio: Other: Grant Support; Novartis: Other: Grant Support; Astra Zeneca: Other: Grant Support. Holmberg:Sanofi: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Millenium-Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties: Royalties; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Mei:Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chen:Autolus Therapeutics: Current Employment. Rosen:Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; NeoGenomics: Consultancy; Aileron Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pebromene: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; paradigm Medical Communications: Speakers Bureau. Kwak:CJ Healthcare: Consultancy; Xeme Biopharma/Theratest: Other: equity; Sellas Life Sciences Grp: Consultancy; Enzychem Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigenics: Other: equity; InnoLifes, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pepromene Bio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion Healthcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy. Feldman:Portola: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trillium: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Viracta: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Nivolumab is not FDA-approved for use as consolidation after autologous stem cell transplantation

Background: Real world multi-institutional data of anti-CD19 CAR-T therapy from across the US shows similar response rates and toxicities as that of the registration trials. For axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), bridging therapy (BT) during CAR-T manufacturing was not allowed. Real world data shows that patients who received BT had lower complete remission (CR) rates, duraiton of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Whether the poorer outcome is due to the effect of the BT or the aggressive biology of the disease is unknown. Patients with lower disease burden had higher response rate in the registration study ZUMA-1 for axi-cel. We examined the impact of response to BT on CAR-T outcome. Specifically, we also describe our experience using polatuzumab vedotin, bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR), also a recently approved therapy for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), prior to CAR-T as salvage (ST) and BT. Methods: A retrospective review of 63 patients who received axi-cel for NHL from June 2016 - March 2020 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester was performed. ST was defined as the last therapy prior to leukapheresis and grouped into categories - autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), and non-ASCT (chemotherapy and immunotherapy) . BT was defined as lymphoma-directed therapy given between leukapheresis and CAR-T infusion. Response to all lymphoma-directed therapy was evaluated using 2014 Lugano criteria. Event free survival (EFS) was defined as time from axi-cel infusion to progression, next treatment, or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from axi-cel infusion to death. Results: Patients received BT if there were concerns for symptomatic progression of disease during CAR-T manufacturing that would reduce the likelihood of eligibility to receive CAR-T. The decision and choice of BT was at the discretion of the treating physician. Sixty-eight percent (n=43) of the patients received BT (19 chemo, 24 immunotherapy). Demographics of the patients based on their response to BT are shown in table 1. More patients in the BT responder group had received chemotherapy as type of bridge (58% vs. 33%). With a median follow up of 12-months for those still alive, significant improvement in EFS was seen in patients who had partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) to BT than patients who continued to progress (median 12 months vs. 3 months, p = 0.01) [Figure 1A]. OS however, was not significant between the two groups (median OS 18 months - responders vs. 12 months non-responders, p = 0.19) [Figure 1B]. We also describe in the case series below 11 patients who received Pola-BR in salvage setting (ST) and/or BT (Table 2). Due to the lymphopenic effects of bendamustine, it was avoided before T-cell collection if possible. Two patients, however, received bendamustine as part of Pola-BR for salvage therapy as its need was determined per the managing physician. Axi-cel was successfully manufactured for all 10 patients. One patient did not have measurable disease after Pola-BR BT and remains on observation. A second patient died before CAR-T infusion from progressive disease. Four of the nine patients treated with CAR-T remained in response. Updated outcome will be presented. Conclusion: While patients who received BT have worse EFS than those who didn't, having some control of lymphoma after BT was associated with better EFS compared to patients who continued to have progressive disease after BT. Preliminary data from Pola-BR case series shows 60% (6/10) patients achieved PR/SD before CAR-T infusion, but requires longer follow up for its impact on survival. Disclosures Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell:AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Lin:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy.