Johnston, Patrick B.

Abstract Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) are a heterogeneous group of mature T-cell and natural-killer-cell aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas associated with poor prognosis with current therapies. Numerous studies have reported poor survival for PTCL patients with a median Overall Survival (OS) shorter than 2 years and 5-year survival rates of <30%. Traditionally, patients with PTCL have been treated with a cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP)-like first-line chemotherapeutic regimen. Unfortunately, the prognosis remains poor with most patients relapsing within 2 years. Thus, improved front line treatment strategies are needed. Pralatrexate (Folotyn) is a folate analogue metabolic inhibitor that was the first drug approved in the US for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL (R/R PTCL). Approval was based on results from the pivotal Phase 2 PROPEL study (O'Connor et al, JCO, 2011) of pralatrexate in R/R PTCL, in which pralatrexate monotherapy demonstrated a durable clinical benefit (objective response rate of 29%). Pralatrexate is administered intravenously (IV) at a dose of 30 mg/m2 weekly for 6 weeks of a 7-week treatment cycle. Since pralatrexate and each of the components of the CHOP regimen target different aspects of tumor cell growth and proliferation, there is a potential for synergistic anti-tumor effect, and limited additive toxicities. Objectives: The primary endpoint of the study is the determination of the MTD of pralatrexate in combination with CHOP (Fol-CHOP) in previously untreated PTCL patients. Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability and ORR (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) and pharmacokinetics. Methods: In this study, patients with PTCL received CHOP in combination with pralatrexate, repeated every 3-weeks for up to 6 cycles. Part 1 of the study was to determine the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) of the Fol-CHOP combination. Once the MTD was determined, an additional 10 patients were treated in the Expansion Phase (Part 2). The cohort schema followed a traditional "3+3" design. Pralatrexate was to be administered as 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 mg/m2 IV push over 3 to 5 minutes on Days 1 and 8 of each cycle. The starting cohort was CHOP + 10 mg/m2 of pralatrexate. Patients received prophylaxis with acyclovir and sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim during the study and primary prophylaxis with growth factor (filgrastim or pegfilgrastim) support. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were considered during the 1st cycle and included: Severe infections, study treatment-related non-hematological toxicity Grade 3-4, platelet count < 25 X 109/L at any time or ANC < 0.5 X 109/L lasting more than 7 days despite G-CSF administration. Results: A total of 12 patients have been enrolled in Part 1 of the study at the time of abstract submission. Nine patients have completed Cycle 1 and no DLT was reported. Among these nine patients, three patients each were treated at CHOP + 10 mg/m2, 15 mg/m2 and 20 mg/m2 of pralatrexate. One patient (11%) treated with CHOP + 10 mg/m2 had one serious adverse event (SAE) of febrile neutropenia that was deemed unrelated to any study drug. Only four Grade 3 AEs (anemia, constipation, mucosal inflammation, and nausea) were reported, in one patient (11%). The enrollment into the study continues. Conclusions: These interim results demonstrate that the combination of pralatrexate with CHOP (Fol-CHOP) is well tolerated, with all components of CHOP as well as pralatrexate being given at close to or at standard doses. The rates of AEs are comparable to those typically reported with CHOP alone. The study is ongoing to confirm the MTD and to assess preliminary efficacy of the Fol-CHOP combination. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Oki: Novartis: Research Funding. Barta:Celgene, Merck, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Sharma:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Song:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Mourya:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Employment.

Abstract Introduction: Immune suppression is a major component of lymphoma pathogenesis. Recent advances in lymphoma treatment have been immunotherapy. We present the preliminary results of our clinical trial testing 2 vaccine strategies in patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The primary objective is to determine the safety and feasibility of the vaccine approaches and secondary objectives are to describe clinical responses and identify corresponding immune changes. Methods: Autologous mature dendritic cells (mDC) were manufactured from leukapheresed cells of NHL pts. For patients with tumor lymph nodes deemed amenable to cryoablation by interventional radiologist (arm A), they received cryoablation of a node and injection of mDC into the cryoablated node followed by another 1 to 7 intratumoral mDC injections. Remaining patients had a tumor excised to generate tumor lysate ex vivo. mDC were pulsed with tumor lysate during DC maturation (arm B; DC-TL). The DC-TL vaccines were injected intradermally for 4 to 8 doses. Patients are monitored for one year after vaccines for adverse events and systemic tumor response. Correlative studies include cellular immune phenotype of peripheral blood and T cell intracellular cytokine productions. Planned accrual is 10 patients per arm (total = 20). Results: To date, 10 patients have accrued to arm A and 5 patients to arm B (Table 1). All pts tolerated vaccine treatments without major adverse events. Of the 10 evaluable patients, there were 1 CR (arm B: 1 / 4; total: 1/6) and 4 PR (arm A: 3/6; arm B: 1 / 4; total: 4/10) for an ORR of 50% for both arms (Figure 1). Time to next treatment ranged from 6.5 to 25 months (Figure 2). Correlative studies suggest that immune changes can be used as prognostic biomarkers to predict response. These include changes in vaccine induced cytokine secretion, and in the number and composition of the immune system. In addition, preliminary analysis of >40 immune phenotypes using flow cytometry and hierarchical clustering suggest there are characteristic immune system responses in patients responding to vaccine. Conclusions: Both cryoablation and intratumoral mDC vaccination are feasible and safe in NHL. Treatment responses may correlate with immune system changes. Biosystems analysis method can be used to develop novel assays as predictive biomarkers of treatment response and used to develop novel protocols that allow treating to response. Table 1. Patient Demographics Arm A (n = 10) Arm B (n = 5) Total (n = 15) Age (median, rage) 64 (55 – 80) 60 (31 – 86) 63 (31 – 86) Gender (M/F) 6/4 2/3 8/7 Histology (n, %) Follicular Marginal zone DLBCL 10 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (60%) 1 (20%) 1(20%) 13 (86.6%) 1 (6.7%) 1 (6.7%) Stage (N, %) II III IV 1 (10%) 1 (10%) 8 (80%) 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 3 (20%) 2 (13.3%) 10 (66.7%) No of prior Tx (mean, range) 2.4 (0-8) 3.2 (0-7) 2.7 (0-8) FLIPI (n, %) 0-1 2 ≥ 3 1 (10%) 2 (20%) 7 (70%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%) 2 (45%) 2 (13.3%) 4 (26.7%) 9 (60%) Positive GELF criteria (n, %) 4 (40%) 1 (20%) 5 (30%) Figure 1. Waterfall plot. Figure 1. Waterfall plot. Figure 2. Time to next treatment. Figure 2. Time to next treatment. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction Outcomes have improved in treating lymphoid malignancies but relapse remains an ongoing issue. The mTOR inhibitor, everolimus (RAD) and lenalidomide (LEN) have both shown clinically significant activity as single agents in patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) Hodgkin (HL) and non-Hodgkin (NHL) lymphomas. The low toxicity and differing mechanisms of action were explored further by combining these active agents. A phase I/II clinical trial of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (RAD) and lenalidomide (LEN) was designed to explore the tolerability, toxicity and to determine the MTD of this combination for Phase II study. The phase I data is reported here. Methods This Phase I/II trial for patients with R/R lymphoid malignancy opened at Mayo Clinic between January 2011 and May 2013 and utilized a standard cohort of 3+3 design to determine the MTD of the combination. Eligibility required age≥18, biopsy proven relapsed or refractory NHL or HL, ECOG PS 0, 1 or 2, measurable disease, Hb >9g/dl, ANC ≥1200/uL, platelet ≥ 50,000/uL, creatinine ≤1.5xULN and willingness to sign informed consent. Women of child bearing potential had pregnancy testing and all patients followed recommendations for contraception. Dose limiting toxicity was defined in cycle 1 as Gr 4 neutropenia ≥7days or platelets ≤ 25,000 ≥7days, grade 4 infection or grade ≥3 non-Heme toxicity at least possibly related to treatment per CTCAE v4.0. The starting dose (level 0) was RAD 5mg daily + LEN 10 mg/d X 21d in a 28-day cycle. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled on the phase I portion and 23 are evaluable for analysis. The median age was 63 years (23-82) and 18 (78%) were male. Sixty-five percent had stage IV disease and 43% had 4 or more prior treatments (1- ≥5) including stem cell transplantation in 39%. Histologies included HL (n=3) and NHL (n=20)(DLBCL = 11, FL-III = 2, LPL = 3, MCL = 1, MF = 1, and other = 2). Two DLTs (rash, Gr4 neutropenia) were reported at the starting dose (level 0) and the protocol was amended for DLT definition change. At dose level -1 (RAD 5mg daily + LEN 5mg/d X 21d) a DLT (Gr4 neutropenia) was seen in only 1 of 6 patients so the study was re-opened to dose level 0 and 3 additional patients were treated without developing a DLT. At dose level +1 (RAD 5 mg daily + LEN 15mg/d X 21d) 1 Gr3 rash occurred and 2 patients experienced Gr4 neutropenia. Therefore the MTD was determined to be RAD 5mgdaily + LEN 10 mg/d X 21d. At least 1 Gr≥3 adverse event was seen in 91% of patients. The most common Gr≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (57%), leucopenia (52%), thrombocytopenia (39%), fatigue (22%), and anemia (13%). Eight of 23 patients (35%) had Gr≥3 infection. Five patients discontinued study due to adverse events. One death on study occurred due to disease progression. Three patients continue on therapy. Responses have been seen in 4 patients and 10 patients have stable disease, encouraging signs in this heavily pretreated population. Conclusions This phase I/II trial of everolimus and lenalidomide in malignant lymphoma shows the combination to be tolerable with neutropenia as the main dose limiting toxicity. The MTD of this combination is RAD 5mg daily and LEN 10 mg/d X 21 d. Encouraging responses were seen. The phase II study has opened with 2 patients accrued to date. Updated results will be presented. This trial is sponsored by Novartis and Celgene Disclosures: Reeder: Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding. Off Label Use: lenalidomide and everolimus are not approved for treatment of lymphoma. Nowakowski:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract The peripheral blood absolute lymphocyte/monocyte ratio at diagnosis (ALC/AMC-DX) predicts survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, a limitation of the ALC/AMC-DX is its inability to sequentially assess the host/tumor interaction during treatment. Therefore, we studied the ALC/AMC ratio, as a surrogate marker of host immunity (i.e., ALC) and tumor microenvironment (i.e., AMC), at each RCHOP treatment cycle as a predictor for clinical outcomes. From 2002 until 20011, 107 DLBCL patients originally diagnosed, treated with six cycles of RCHOP, and followed at Mayo Clinic qualified for the study. Using the receiver operating characteristic and internally validated using the k-fold cross validation; an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 was identified as the cut-off value at each RCHOP treatment cycle to discriminate for the binary clinical outcome of death/survival. Univariate analysis revealed the ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 at each RCHOP treatment cycle was a predictor for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). To explore whether the patterns of ALC/AMC ratio recovery during the RCHOP treatment cycles had a prognostic value, we performed an unsupervised hierarchical clustering on the studied ALC/AMC ratio and identified four patient clusters, A-D. Eighty percent of patients in cluster C had an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 during all the cycles, the other 20% had an ALC/AMC ratio ≥1.1 in one cycle; in cluster D patients, the ALC/AMC ratio was ≥ 1.1 between cycles 2 and 5 and none had an ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1; in cluster A patients, 73% of patients only had an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 in one cycle and 27% in two cycles; and cluster B patients had 85% of patients with an ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 during all the cycles. Inferior OS and PFS were progressively observed in clusters of patients with fewer cycles achieving an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1. Patients in clusters C had superior outcomes compared with patients in clusters B. Thus, we dichotomized patients into patients with an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 during any cycle versus patients with an ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 during all cycles. By multivariate analysis, the stratification of patients into ALC/AMC ≥ 1.1 during any cycle versus ALC/AMC < 1.1 during all cycles was an independent predictor for OS [Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.02, 95% CI (0.006-0.08), p< 0.0001], and PFS [HR = 0.06, 95% CI (0.02-0.15, p< 0.0001] when compared with the International Prognostic index The median OS for patients with an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 during any cycle versus patients with an ALC/ACM ratio < 1.1 during all cycles was not reached versus 1.7 years with 5 years OS rates of 97% (95% CI, 90%-99%) versus 0%, p< 0.0001, respectively. The median PFS for patients with an ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 during any cycle versus patients with an ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1during all cycles was not reached versus 0.9 years with 5 years PFS rates of 83% (95% CI, 72%-90%) versus 0%, p< 0.0001, respectively. The ALC/AMC ratio during RCHOP treatment cycles is a predictor for survival and provides a platform to develop therapeutic modalities to manipulate the ALC/AMC ratio during chemotherapy to improve clinical outcomes in DLBCL. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Introduction Non-Hodgkin lymphoma responds to single agents such as cyclophosphamide, combination therapy such as CVP and immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab. There is no consensus on the optimal treatment for relapsed low grade or mantle cell lymphoma. Based on the success and tolerability of combining alkylating agents with proteasome inhibitors in multiple myeloma, a phase II clinical trial of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (R-CyBor-D) was designed to explore the efficacy and safety of this combination in relapsed low grade and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Methods This trial enrolled relapsed patients at Mayo Clinic from October 2008 to March 2014. Eligibility required age≥18; biopsy proven follicular grades 1 or 2 lymphoma (FL), MCL, small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukemia, marginal zone B-cell lymphoma, or Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (WM); life expectancy >3 months; ECOG PS 0, 1 or 2; measurable disease; Hb ≥8g/dl, ANC ≥1200/uL, platelet ≥75,000/uL, creatinine ≤1.5xULN, total bilirubin ≤1.5xULN, alkaline phosphatase ≤3xULN, AST ≤3xULN; and willingness to sign informed consent. Women of child bearing potential had pregnancy testing and all patients followed recommendations for contraception. Treatment included rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV on day 1 and oral cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2, IV bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2, and oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in a 28-day cycle. Treatment was continued two cycles beyond best response or a maximum of 12 cycles. Allopurinol 300 mg on days 0-14 for the first cycle was strongly recommended. Results 21 patients were enrolled prior to study closure due to slow accrual. Bortezomib was initially given on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 in the first 16 patients, but was subsequently modified to days 1, 8, 15, and 22 due to significant peripheral neuropathy (PN). Median age was 69 years (range 51-80) and 13 (62%) were male. 62% had stage IV disease and 17 (81%) had 2 or more prior treatments with 3 (14%) having prior autologous stem cell transplantation. Histologies included FL-I (n=6), FL-II (n=2), MCL (n=8), and WM (n=5). Patients completed a median of 4 cycles of treatment (range 1-12), discontinuing due to 9 (43%) completion per protocol, 4 (19%) progression, 5 (24%) adverse events, 1 (5%) patient refusal, and 2 (10%) other reasons. Median follow-up is 32.8 months (0.9-54.8). CR or PR as best response was observed in 13 (62%, 95% CI 38-82%; 4 CR [19%], 9 PR [43%]) patients. By histology, CR or PR was observed in 7 (88%) FL patients (4 CR, 3 PR); 2 (25%) MCL patients (both PR), and 4 (80%) WM patients (all PR). CR or PR was observed in 10/16 (62%; 4 CR, 6 PR) before and 3/5 (60%; all PR) after the change in bortezomib schedule. Among 13 patients with CR or PR, median duration of response was 25.9 months (95% CI 8.0-not reached). Median PFS and OS were 11.6 months (95% CI 3.8-not reached) and 54.8 months (95% CI 24.6-54.8), respectively. At least one Gr≥3 adverse event at least possible related was observed in 14 (67%) patients, the most common being leucopenia (7, 33%), neutropenia (7, 33%), thrombocytopenia (6, 29%), anemia (5, 24%), PN (5, 24%), and fatigue (3, 14%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy at least possibly related was Gr1, Gr2, and Gr3 in 5 (24%) patients each, with a lower rate observed for patients after the change in bortezomib schedule (before 13/16 [81%] Gr≥1, after 2/5 [40%] Gr≥1). Among 14 patients who completed a baseline and at least one post-baseline FACT/GOG-NTX additional concerns questionnaire, 10 (71%) reported clinically meaningful (≥3-point) worsening in patient-reported neurotoxicity (8/11 [73%] before and 2/3 [67%] after the change in bortezomib schedule). Conclusions Our results suggest R-CyBor-D is a safe and effective combination in patients with relapsed low grade and mantle cell lymphomas. High response rates were seen in FL and WM. The majority of significant AE’s were hematologic. However, sensory neuropathy was common with twice weekly dosing of bortezomib and lessened with weekly dosing. Determination of optimal treatment regimens in this population remains an unmet need. Additional clinical trials including larger patient numbers are necessary to confirm these observations. This trial was sponsored by Millennium Disclosures Off Label Use: bortezomib was used in combination therapy to treat relapsed low grade lymphomas and Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Bergsagel:Novartis: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; OncoEthix: Research Funding; MundiPharma: Research Funding. Tiedemann:Janssen: Honoraria. Reeder:Millennium, Celgene, Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 689 Background: Lenalidomide was demonstrated to have significant single agent activity in relapsed aggressive B cell lymphoma (J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4952–7, Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1622–7). In a phase I study, we previously demonstrated that Lenalidomide 25 mg day 1–10 of the cycle can be combined with RCHOP21 and this combination does not result in dose delays or increased toxicity (Leukemia 2011;12:1877–81). We now present phase 2 results of R2CHOP in treatment of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Methods: Eligible patients were adults with newly diagnosed CD20 positive diffuse large B cell (DLBCL) or grade 3 follicular lymphoma (FL). The response was evaluated using PET/CT by standard criteria (J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–586). The progression free survival (PFS) was defined as time from diagnosis to disease progression or death. Results: 51 patients - 6 enrolled at the MTD in phase 1 portion of the study and 45 in phase 2 portion were included in the analysis. The median age was 65 years (range, 19–87). 35% of patients were 70 and older. 63% (32/51) were males. 47 patients (92%) had DLBCL and 4 (8%) patients had FL grade 3. The international prognostic index (IPI) was low, low-intermediate, high-intermediate and high in 8 (15%), 18 (35%), 18 (35%) and 7 (14%) patients respectively. 31 patients (60%) had stage 4 disease. Hematological toxicities were: grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia (20% and 20% of patients respectively); grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (18% and 71% of patients respectively). Overall 27% of patients experienced a grade 3 or higher non-hematological toxicity at least possibly related to treatment. The most frequent were febrile neutropenia (10%), nausea (4%), urinary tract infection (4%), vascular access complication (4%), and dehydration (4%). 1 patient (2%) developed thrombosis. There was one death (2%) secondary to bowel perforation/sepsis. For 47 patients evaluable for response, the overall response (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates were 98% and 83% respectively. The PFS was 73% at 12 months (Figure). Since the enrolled patients represented a relatively high-risk group (49% intermediate high or high IPI, significant proportion of elderly male patients), the PFS in R2CHOP was compared to PFS in a contemporary cohort of 87 consecutive patients with DLBCL participating in Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Database and treated with standard RCHOP alone. The PFS was 62% at 12 months in this cohort and was inferior to R2CHOP (Figure). Conclusion: Lenalidomide combined with standard R-CHOP21 chemotherapy (R2CHOP) demonstrates predictable safety profile. The ORR and CR rates and PFS are encouraging in elderly high IPI patients, and compared favorably to the R-CHOP treated historical cohort with similar clinical characteristics. A randomized trial will be needed to confirm the benefits of this novel combination. Disclosures: Off Label Use: lenalidomide in treatment of NHL. Reeder:Celgene: Research Funding. Ansell:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy.

Abstract Infused autograft absolute lymphocyte count (A-ALC) is a prognostic factor for survival post-autologous peripheral hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (APHSCT) for lymphoma. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) affect tumor growth by suppression of host anti-tumor immunity. Thus, we set out to investigate if the infused autograft lymphocyte /monocyte ratio (A-LMR), as a biomarker of host immunity (i.e., lymphocytes) and MDSCs (i.e., monocytes), affects survival post-APHSCT in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Only patients that collected their stem cells through the peripheral blood were included in the study. From 1994 to 2012, 183 cHL patients qualified for the study. The 183 patients were randomly divided into a training set (n = 122) and a validation set (n = 61). Receiver operating characteristic and area under the curve (AUC) identified an A-LMR ≥ 1 as the best cut-off value (AUC = 0.8, p < 0.01) and validated by the k-fold cross-validation (AUC = 0.8) in the training set. Multivariate analysis showed A-LMR to be an independent prognostic factor for survival in the training set. Patients with an A-LMR ≥ 1.0 experienced a superior overall survival (OS) versus patients with an A-LMR < 1.0 (median OS was not reached vs 40.4 months, 5-year OS rates of 86% (95 CI, 72%-93%) vs 43% (95 CI, 28-58 %), p < 0.0001, respectively) in the training set. In the validation set, an A-LMR ≥ 1 showed a median OS of not reached vs 41.8 months for an A-LMR < 1, 5 year OS rates of 90% (95 CI, 73%-97%) vs 48% (95 CI, 29-68%), p < 0.0001, respectively. A-LMR provides a platform to engineer an immunocompetent autograft to improve clinical outcomes in cHL patients undergoing APHSCT. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 600 Background: Both MM and AL are plasma cell neoplasms. The underlying clone in both diseases appears to be different not only in terms of “tumor burden” but also in terms of their underlying biology. The overall “fitness” of patients with these two diseases is also different, with AL patients having more major organ dysfunction. Therapy for both diseases is directed at killing the underlying clone. ASCT is one method of reducing the clone size and thereby improving overall survival. Post-ASCT outcomes between the two diseases have never been formally compared. Methods: We compiled all patients with a diagnosis of AL or MM who received ASCT at the Mayo Clinic Rochester between June 1996 and January 2011 to compare outcomes. Patients were retrieved from two prospectively maintained clinical transplant data bases (M.A.G.). Differences between groups were compared using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon tests. Survival was calculated using the method of Kaplan-Meier, and differences between survival outcomes were calculated by log rank. Cox regression modeling was done to determine how non-disease specific variables—i.e. age, time period of ASCT, number of prior regimens, time to ASCT from diagnosis and acquisition of complete response (CR)—affected outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using JMP (SAS, NC) software. This study was approved by the Mayo IRB. Results: The data set was comprised of 454 patients with AL and 1116 patients with MM. There were significant differences between the two respective groups of patients in terms of number of prior regimens (0 vs 1, p<0.0001), time to ASCT (3.95 months vs 7.20 months, p<0.0001), intensity of conditioning regimen (non-attenuated in 69.4% vs 89.1%, p<0.0001), serum creatinine (1.1mg/dl vs 1mg/dl p<0.0001), creatinine clearance (72.5 ml/minute vs 80 ml/minute p<0.0001), albumin (2.61g/dl vs 3.50g/dl, p<0.0001) CRP (0.40mg/dl vs 0.63mg/dl p<0.0001), LDH (196 U/l vs 182U/l, p<0.0001), and bone marrow plasmacytosis at transplant (6% vs 9%, p<0.0001). Hematologic response rates were also significantly different between the groups, with higher overall hematologic response in the MM group (90.9% vs 79.5%, p<0.0001) and higher complete response (CR) rates (40.1% vs 29.4%, p<0.0001) in the AL group. With a median follow-up of surviving patients of 68 months, the respective median overall survival (OS) for the AL and MM patients was 113 and 59.5 months, p<0.0001. Notably, the 5-year OS of AL and MM patients achieving CR were 91.4% and 57.7%, respectively, p<0.0001. If only those patients who were transplanted within 1 year of their diagnosis are included in the analysis, the respective 5-year OS of AL and MM patients achieving CR were 90.4% and 61.3%, p<0.0001 (Figure 1). To correct for imbalances in non-disease specific parameters, 3 multivariate analyses were performed using: 1) all patients; 2) only those achieving CR; and 3) only those who achieved a CR and were transplanted within 12 months of their diagnosis (Table 1). Among those patients achieving CR, MM patients had nearly a 4-fold risk of death as compared to patients with AL. Conclusion: Although ASCT is not available to all patients with either AL or MM, there is a significant difference in outcomes based on the diagnosis. Patients with AL who undergo ASCT enjoy a superior survival as compared MM patients undergoing the same procedure. This difference is most notable among those patients who achieve CR suggesting very different plasma cell biology between the two diseases. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Erdheim-Chester Disease (ECD) is a rare hematologic disease manifesting as granulomatous or fibrotic infiltration of long bones and non-skeletal tissues by non-Langerhans foamy histiocytic (CD68+, CD1a-, S100-) cells. The clinical presentation can be diverse and any organ can be affected. It is estimated that less than 500 cases have been reported in the literature. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients evaluated at Mayo Clinic from January 2001 to May 2014. A tissue biopsy review by pathologists at Mayo Clinic was necessary for inclusion in the study. In all cases, the diagnosis of ECD was confirmed using clinical criteria in conjunction with histopathologic findings. Clinical data such as patient characteristics, disease presentation, management strategies, treatment responses, and survival time were collected. RESULTS: Forty-five patients with confirmed ECD were included in our study. The median age at diagnosis was 53 years (range, 32-78), while the median age of onset of symptoms prior to diagnosis was 24 months (range, 1-180). There was a male predilection with a male to female ratio of 2.4. The duration of follow-up ranged from 1-168 months (median, 20). At the time of last follow-up, 38 patients were alive and 5 were dead, while the vital statuses of 2 patients were unknown. The median and mean survival times from the time of diagnosis were 150 and 130 months respectively. The median survival time from the time of symptom onset was not reached and mean time was 154 months (Figures 1A and 1B). Bone pain was the most common presenting symptom (27%). Other common presentations included diabetes insipidus (24%), abdominal pain (22%), B symptoms (13%), visual changes (13%), renal failure/obstruction (11%), pleural effusion (9%), other neurologic symptoms (9%), ataxia (7%), pericardial effusion (7%), edema (7%), dyspnea (7%), and hypertension (7%). The organs/sites involved were bone (80%), central nervous system (59%), kidneys (56%), lungs (38%), retroperitoneum (33%), heart (22%), sinuses (22%), bone marrow (14%), adrenal glands (13%), liver (11%), spleen (11%), and skin (16%). Only 18 (40%) patients had the diagnosis established by the first biopsy. The rest required multiple biopsies before the diagnosis was confirmed (median, 2; range, 1-5). Testing for BRAF V600Ewas performed in 12 patients and 8 (67%) tested positive for the mutation. Eight patients have not required ECD-specific treatment so far. Of the 37 patients who required treatment, the median number of treatments received was 2 (range, 1-7). The systemic treatments received and their response rates are summarized in Table 1. Four patients received radiotherapy but none responded. At the time of the last follow up, 5 patients with BRAFV600E were receiving treatment with vemurafenib or dabrafenib. However, follow-up is insufficient for proper assessment of response. CONCLUSIONS: ECD is an extremely rare diagnosis as exemplified in our retrospective analysis. The diagnosis is often challenging due to protean and diverse clinical presentation as well as frequent inconclusive initial biopsies. There is usually a long-latency period of smoldering symptoms leading to definitive diagnosis. A high level of suspicion is essential in order to make the diagnosis and BRAFmutation analysis should be considered an integral part of work up even if biopsy is non-diagnostic. Traditional oncologic systemic therapies and even novel rheumatologic anti-inflammatory agents generally have limited objective activity. BRAF inhibitors offer a novel treatment option and results of prospective studies are eagerly awaited. Abstract 1405. Table 1: Summary of Response to Various Treatment Modalities in Patients with ECD Therapeutic Agent Number of Patients Treated Response (%) Complete Response Partial Response Stable Disease No response Corticosteroids 11 0 0 9 91 Methotrexate 9 0 0 11 89 Cyclophosphamide 4 0 0 25 75 2-CDA 12 8 17 25 50 Interferon-α 8 0 29 14 57 Vinorelbine 4 0 50 0 50 Tumor necrosis-α factor Inhibitors 7 0 0 14 86 Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonists 6 17 17 0 67 Tamoxifen 2 0 50 0 50 Radiotherapy 4 0 0 0 100 Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Off Label Use: We report among all treatments utilized at our institution for ECD including the use of steroids, immunosupressants, TNF blockers, interleukin-1 receptor antagonists, and BRAF inhibitors in patients with Erdheim Chester Disease. These treatments, though supported by other reports in the literature, have not been explicitly approved by the FDA for ECD..

Abstract Abstract 140 Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) have poor outcomes, and there is a lack of prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets to guide treatment. We recently proposed that the transcription factor, interferon regulatory factor-4 (IRF4, also called multiple myeloma oncogene-1 [MUM1]), might be oncogenic in PTCLs based on its expression in association with translocations between IRF4 and the T-cell receptor gene, TRA@. IRF4 is a therapeutic target in multiple myeloma, where high expression is a poor prognostic factor. In addition, at least two germline IRF4 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs12203592 and rs872071, are associated with IRF4 expression and disease risk and progression in various lymphoid neoplasms. However, the prognostic effects of IRF4/MUM1 expression and IRF4 SNPs in PTCLs are unknown. Methods: Forty seven newly diagnosed PTCL patients with available tissue were identified from the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource. There were 5 anaplastic large cell lymphomas, 14 cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs), 6 cytotoxic T-cell lymphomas (cytTCLs: 4 extranodal NK/T-cell and 2 enteropathy type), and 22 PTCLs, not otherwise specified (NOS). Patients were diagnosed between September 2002 and February 2008 and systematically followed through March 2010 for overall survival (OS). Tumor cell IRF4/MUM1 expression was examined by immunohistochemistry on paraffin tissue sections (MUM1p clone; Dako). Positivity was defined as >30% of tumor cells with nuclear staining, as in previous studies. rs12203592 and rs872071 were genotyped in peripheral blood DNA. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both IRF4/MUM1 expression and SNPs with OS. Chi-squared tests were used to assess the relationship between IRF4/MUM1 expression and IRF4 SNPs. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range, 24–88). At a median follow-up of 62 months (range, 29–89), 22 (47%) of the patients had died. Fifteen (32%) of the 47 T-cell patients had IRF4/MUM1 positive tumors. IRF4/MUM1 positivity was associated with poorer overall survival (HR=4.3; 95% CI: 1.8–10.2; p=0.0008). This association was seen across PTCL subtypes, including PTCL, NOS (HR= 6.5; 95% CI: 1.5–27.7; p=0.01), CTCL (HR=13.4; 95% CI: 1.2–150.1; p=0.03), and cytTCL (HR=5.8; CI: 0.5–65.9; p=0.15). The minor allele (T) in SNP rs12203592 was positively associated with IRF4/MUM1 positivity in a dominant model, with IRF4/MUM1 expression in 60% of patients with CT or TT genotypes compared to 19% of patients with CC genotype (p=0.01). Patients with the CT/TT genotype at rs12203592 also had inferior overall survival (HR=3.7; 95% CI: 1.4–9.5; p=0.007). The rs872071 SNP showed no significant association with either IRF4/MUM1 expression (p=0.38) or overall survival (p=0.71). Conclusions: This study is the first to demonstrate that IRF4/MUM1 expression is poor prognostic factor in PTCLs. This association was observed across PTCL subtypes, including the most common subtype, PTCL, NOS. IRF4/MUM1 expression and poor survival in our patients also were associated with the minor allele (T) in the IRF4 SNP rs12203592; these findings are consistent with previous in vitro data showing the major allele (C) represses IRF4 promoter activity. Interestingly, rs872071 was not associated with IRF4/MUM1 expression or prognosis, similar to findings in multiple myeloma. In contrast, rs872071 is a risk and prognostic factor in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and classical Hodgkin lymphoma, diseases in which IRF4/MUM1 expression has been associated with favorable prognosis. IRF4/MUM1 expression is a poor prognostic factor in PTCLs. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.