Slager, Susan L.

Monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis (MBL) has been shown to be the precursor condition that precedes overt diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Whereas CLL is classified with greater than or equal to 5 × 109/L B lymphocytes in the peripheral blood, MBL is a clonal expansion of B-cells below this threshold. MBL can be further divided into high- or low-count based on whether the B-cell count is above or below 0.5 × 109/L. Approximately 10% of the population over 40 is estimated to have MBL, increasing to >50% over the age of 90. While low-count MBL is unlikely to progress, 1-2% of high-count (HC) MBL individuals progress to CLL requiring therapy per year. It is debatable if all patients with detectable MBL should be classified as an entity requiring monitoring by a hematologist, especially for low-count MBL. In addition, the diagnosis of leukemia is distressing to patients; therefore, it is important to identify HC MBL patients that are more likely to progress to disease requiring treatment and thus should be monitored more closely. As the majority of MBL cases phenotypically resemble CLL, established prognostic markers including recurrent chromosomal aberrations, beta-2 microglobulin levels, and the mutational status of the Immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region locus (IGHV) have been shown to predict time to treatment (TTT) and overall survival (OS) in a large retrospective study of MBL1. CLL patients can also be divided into three distinct epigenetic subtypes that reflect progressive DNA methylation changes that occurs during B cell development. These 'epitypes' termed low-programmed (LP), intermediate-programmed (IP), and high-programmed (HP) independently predict clinical outcomes irrespective of disease stage and treatment2. LP-CLL patients follow a generally unfavorable clinical course compared to the more indolent HP-CLL patients, while IP CLL patients display an intermediate outcome. Here we sought to determine if epitype forecasts progression to CLL and eventual clinical outcome for individuals with MBL. We analyzed 66 individuals diagnosed with HC MBL at the Mayo Clinic with a median follow-up of 6.3 years. Developmental epitype was determined using our novel Methylation-iPLEX technique that interrogates 34 CpGs and assigns epitype using a random forest model2. Seventy-seven percent of the MBL cases were assigned to one of the three epitypes: 42.4% HP, 19.7% IP, and 15.2% LP. The residual 23% remained unclassified due to ambiguous (low confidence) epigenetic patterns or insufficient purity (Figure 1A). The overall proportion of HP and IP epitypes in MBL were significantly greater than proportions observed in CLL cohorts (P<0.01). Epitypes remained stable over time as 20/21 cases for which we obtained a high-confidence epitype classification at multiple time points remained unchanged. Epitype significantly predicted MBL individuals progressing to treatment (P=0.001) with LP individuals progressing in a median of 5.6 years (P=0.049 and P=0.0002 versus IP and HP, respectively); median was not reached in HP or IP (Figure 1B). Epitype also predicted overall survival (OS) in MBL (P=0.04), with LP individuals having a significantly shorter OS (median of 11 years versus not reached in IP and HP; P=0.056 and P=0.048 versus IP and HP, respectively). In this study we evaluated a cohort of 66 HC MBL cases and determined that classification using developmental DNA methylation epitypes can be employed in HC MBL to aid in risk stratification. HC MBL patients classified as LP are more likely to progress to requiring treatment and have a significantly reduced OS. The epigenetic classification may help clinicians decide how closely and frequently a HC MBL individual needs to be monitored. Figure 1: (A) Breakdown of the epigenetic subtype assigned to 66 HC MBL samples. (B) Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to treatment and (C) overall survival of MBL patients separated by epitype. 1. Parikh, S. A. et al. Outcomes of a large cohort of individuals with clinically ascertained high-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis. Haematologica103, e237-e240 (2018). 2. Giacopelli, B. et al. Developmental subtypes assessed by DNA methylation-iPLEX forecast the natural history of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood blood.2019000490 (2019). doi:10.1182/blood.2019000490 Disclosures Byrd: Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding. Shanafelt:Patent: Patents & Royalties: US14/292,075 on green tea extract epigallocatechin gallate in combination with chemotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Merck: Research Funding; Polyphenon E International: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Glaxo-SmithKline: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Parikh:Genentech: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding. Kay:Agios: Other: DSMB; MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board.

Background: The 2008 International Working Group for CLL (IWCLL) criteria define MBL as a clonal B-cell disorder with a peripheral blood B-cell count of <5 x 109/L, in the absence of cytopenias(s), lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly on physical examination, and no other concomitant lymphoproliferative disorder. In the presence of palpable lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly, and a B-cell count of < 5 x 109/L, a diagnosis of small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) is established. A study by Gentile et al (Am J Hematol. 2013) reported that 29 out of 62 individuals with clinically identified MBL (42%) had lymphadenopathy identified on CT imaging. Notably, however, after a median follow-up of 35 months, the rate of progression among cases of MBL with lymphadenopathy identified on CT imaging was only 6.9% (2/29 patients), which was no different than in cases of MBL without lymphadenopathy on CT imaging (rate of progression, 9%; 3/33 patients). Our study sought to 1) determine if lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly detected by imaging studies performed for unrelated reasons in individuals with MBL can identify a subset with shorter time to first CLL therapy (TFT) and overall survival (OS); and 2) compare outcomes of individuals with MBL who have incidentally detected lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly and SLL patients. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic CLL Database to identify individuals with high-count MBL (absolute B-cell count: 0.5 - 4.9 x 109/L) and divided them into the following three cohorts: a) Cohort A: no imaging studies available at MBL diagnosis; b) Cohort B: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with no evidence of lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly; and c) Cohort C: imaging studies done within one year of MBL with lymphadenopathy and/or organomegaly, attributable to MBL. All individuals with MBL were first seen at Mayo Clinic after 1/1/2002; those with a concomitant lymphoproliferative disorder within 3 months of diagnosis were excluded. Patients with SLL seen during the same time interval were identified as a comparison cohort. We compared the baseline characteristics (Kruskal Wallis for continuous and Chi-square for categorical variables) and TFT and OS across the three MBL cohorts, and patients with SLL. Cumulative incidence of TFT was adjusted for the competing risk of death. Age- and sex-adjusted OS was analyzed using inverse weights methods. Results: 657 individuals with high-count MBL with a median follow-up of 6.7 years were identified: 415 (63%) individuals were in Cohort A, 142 (22%) in Cohort B, and 100 in (15%) Cohort C. Compared to Cohort B, individuals in Cohort C were more likely to have unmutated IGHV, high expression of CD38, and higher beta-2 microglobulin level (Table 1). SLL patients were younger, had higher rate of unmutated IGHV, and had high expression of CD49d compared to MBL individuals in Cohort C (Table 1). There was suggestive evidence of a difference in TFT between Cohorts B and C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 28.3% vs. 41.6%; p=0.16; HR 1.62 95% CI 0.84-3.15). TFT was significantly shorter in SLL patients compared to those with Cohort C (estimated 10-year treatment rate 71% vs. 41.6%, respectively, P<0.001; Figure 1A). There was a trend toward shorter OS in Cohort C compared to Cohort B (estimated 10-year OS rate 53.7% vs. 64.2%, respectively, P=0.09; Figure 1B). In contrast, there was no difference in OS among MBL individuals in Cohort C compared to those with SLL (estimated 10-year OS rate 56.9% vs. 62.6%, P=0.72). Summary/Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that individuals with MBL who have incidentally identified lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at diagnosis are more likely to have an unfavorable risk profile, shorter TFT and OS compared to patients who did not have lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly at MBL diagnosis. Additionally, these individuals have a longer TFT but similar OS compared to SLL patients seen during the same time interval. If externally validated, these findings have significant implications for individuals with newly diagnosed MBL. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. Parikh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding.

Background: While there is evidence in the literature of increased prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), there are no studies evaluating the prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or the relationship between hypogammaglobulinemia and presentation or outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients and to test the hypothesis that DLBCL patients with baseline hypogammaglobulinemia have a distinct clinical profile and outcome. Methods: We obtained banked frozen sera from 200 newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve, DLBCL patients from the Lymphoma SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), a prospective cohort study conducted at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa. IgG/A/M levels were measured using immunoturbidimetric assay whereas IgE level was measured using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay; deficiency was defined using standard reference ranges. IgE levels were considered deficient if &lt;2 UI/ml. The associations between Ig deficiencies and clinical factors were evaluated with Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-squared (Fisher's exact, where appropriate) tests. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, retreatment, or death, and EFS24 was defined as EFS at 24 months after diagnosis (achieve or failure to achieve EFS24). The association of Ig levels with EFS24 was estimated using odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression, and with EFS, overall survival (OS), and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI from Cox regression. Results: The mean age (SD) of the cohort was 65.6 (13.4) years, 54% were males and 98% of the patients were white. Over a median follow-up of five years, there were 59 (29.5%) deaths. The prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia, defined as any deficiency, in newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve DLBCL was 22.1% (44/199) in our cohort, and the most common Ig deficiency was for IgG (&lt;700 mg/dL, 13.5%), followed by IgM (&lt;40 mg/dL, 9.0%), IgE (&lt;2 UI/ml, 7.5%) and IgA (&lt;70 mg/dL, 4.0%) (Table1). There were no statistically significant differences between Ig deficient and non-deficient patients in terms of age at diagnosis, gender, stage, cell of origin, or MYC double hit status. However, median LDH levels were higher in Ig deficient patients (228 vs 194, p&lt;0.01). Any immunoglobulin deficiency was associated with inferior EFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.16-3.24) (Figure 1) and OS (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.17-3.49), and these associations were not attenuated after adjustment for the international prognostic index (IPI). Any Ig deficiency was also associated with failure to achieve EFS24 (OR=2.13, 95% CI 1.00-4.60) after adjusting for IPI. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report the prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in treatment naïve DLBCL. We found that any Ig deficiency was not uncommon in our cohort and it was associated with an inferior EFS and OS in DLBCL patients. The prevalence of hypogammaglobulinemia in DLBCL patients seems to be lower than has been described in CLL patients. While the underlying relationship between these two immunologic disorders deserves further study, our findings highlight the interaction between global immune dysfunction and emergence of a clonal B cell process. Disclosures Nowakowski: Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Cerhan:NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: New Diffuse Large B-cell (DLBCL) treatments remain a clinical need despite the success of rituximab combined with CHOP chemotherapy (RCHOP), which results in durable responses in 60-70% of patients. Those refractory to, or who relapse following, first-line therapy have a very poor outcome, with only 20% surviving beyond 5 years. Rationally-targeted frontline strategies are needed, especially for those with high-risk disease. Significant advances have been made in the genomic classification of DLBCL, but none have impacted the design of phase III trials for untreated DLBCL patients. Building on new genetic profiling studies to personalize clinical treatment, an NCI initiative, could allow clinicians to add targeted therapies to the RCHOP backbone based on individual tumor signatures. The phase II ECOG-ACRIN1412 trial, which compared RCHOP combined with lenalidomide (R2CHOP) versus RCHOP showed significantly superior event free survival (EFS) and overall survival benefits for those treated with R2CHOP. Herein, we report the profile of a high-risk ABC/non-GCB subset of DLBCL driven by genomic alterations in inflammatory genes that are susceptible to front-line R2CHOP, but continue to experience poor outcome with RCHOP alone. Methods: We studied a total of 196 DLBCL patients. 47 were treated with R2CHOP from an investigator-initiated, open-label, single-arm phase II study (NCT00670358). 149 were newly diagnosed DLBCL cases treated with RCHOP, or R-immunochemotherapy (herein called RCHOP), and followed prospectively through the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE that served as a contemporary cohort. Patients from each treatment group were divided based on their event free survival at 24 months (EFS24). DNA alterations within these populations were identified through whole exome sequencing (WES). Variants were analyzed for their presence in EFS24 achievement or failure groups in both RCHOP and R2CHOP. Both tumor and germline sequencing was performed for 47/47 R2CHOP cases and 49/149 RCHOP cases. Gene expression data from the PanCan panel of 730 B-cell-related genes was analyzed to determine gene expression profiles characteristic of the high-risk/R2CHOP-profile on 59 available non-GCB DLBCL cases (45 RCHOP; 14 R2CHOP). A two-sided comparative marker analysis T statistic test was applied to assess what genes displayed differential expression based on achieving EFS24 in both R2CHOP and RCHOP populations. Positive values represented associations with achieving EFS24 and negative values were associated with cases of EFS24 failure. Results: Three genes were enriched in the RCHOP cases that failed EFS24 but achieved EFS24 with R2CHOP among non-GCB patients: PIM1, SPEN, and MYD88 (L265P), herein referred to as Responder Alterations. In R2CHOP cases, patients with a Responder Alteration had a better overall EFS (P = 0.051) compared to wild type patients. In contrast, RCHOP treated patients with a Responder Alteration in their tumor had a significantly worse overall EFS (P = 0.0004) compared to patients without a mutation. Together, PIM1, SPEN, or MYD88 (L265P) mutations were present in 38.0% (30/79) of all non-GCB cases. Collective R2CHOP and RCHOP EFS24 differential gene expression T values were significantly different for 18 previously-defined signatures. The R2CHOP cases that achieved EFS24 were enriched for genes involved in cell cycle, JAK-STAT, cytokine signaling, and NF-κB pathways based on these signatures and ontology analyses. Lastly, cases with WES and PanCan data were analyzed together to observe differential gene expression patterns between cases with and without signature mutations. These data suggest that R2CHOP disrupts tumors reliant on IRF4, NF-κB, and STAT transcription factors, leading to a loss of proliferative feedback systems. Conclusions: Our combined analysis of DNA and RNA across R2CHOP and RCHOP treatment cohorts identifies a high-risk non-GCB phenotype that encompasses approximately 38% of non-GCB patients, is capable of sustaining JAK-STAT and NF-κB signaling, and is sensitive to R2CHOP. Our study lays the groundwork for a precision therapy approach in DLBCL in which DNA or RNA profiles can be used to identify patients early in treatment who may not benefit from the current standard of care, RCHOP, and who would benefit from the addition of lenalidomide or other targeted agents. Disclosures Gandhi: Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski:Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Novak:Celgene Coorperation: Research Funding.

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has advanced considerably with proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and, most recently, monoclonal antibodies. However, treatment response is quite heterogeneous, and many patients still progress even with novel combination therapies. Thus, understanding the factors that underlie response to treatment is a priority. Several somatic genomic aberrations and mutations predict poor response to therapy. However, germline variation has not previously been investigated as a predictor of treatment response in MM. We used genome-wide association and transcriptome-wide association approaches to identify germline genetic predictors of treatment response in MM. Methods: We included 510 MM patients from Mayo Clinic and 324 MM patients from UCSF diagnosed from 1999-2015. Basic demographics, laboratory values and pathology at diagnosis, type of initial therapy, duration of therapy, and follow-up were ascertained by chart review. Patients were grouped into categories of treatment based on their first line therapy: proteasome inhibitor-based regimen, IMiD based regimen, combination proteasome and IMiD based regimen, or other. Response was assessed using International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria after 4-6 cycles of induction. As such, response was categorized into progressive disease (PD), minimal response (MR), partial response (PR), very good partial response (VGPR), or complete response (CR). Germline samples were genotyped using Illumina or Affymetrix arrays and were imputed based on the Haplotype Reference Consortium (HRC). For the genome-wide association study (GWAS), we included all SNPs with minor allele frequency >0.01 and imputation r2 of >0.5. We tested each SNP for association with treatment response using a linear regression model that adjusted for age, gender, and genetic ancestry (from principal components analysis (PCA)). To perform the transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS), we calculated predicted gene expression data using PREDIXCAN software on a reference cohort of 922 individuals with genotype and RNA expression data from peripheral blood. We then tested the association between predicted gene expression and response to therapy using linear regression models. Both the GWAS and TWAS were performed on subgroups of patients who received either proteasome inhibitors or IMiD therapies. The analyses of patients on proteasome inhibitors were adjusted for IMiD use as a covariate and analyses of patients on IMiDs were adjusted for proteasome inhibitor use. The threshold for genome-wide significance loci was set at P = 5 x 10-8 and the threshold for suggestive loci was set at P = 10-6. The threshold for significance for TWAS was set at P = 4 x 10-6 by using a Bonferroni correction for the number of genes for which genetic models of expression could be developed by PREDIXCAN. Results: Overall, 42.7% (59 of 138) of patients on proteasome inhibitors alone, 32.5% (66 of 203) of patients on IMiDs alone, and 58.1% (50 of 86) of patients on combination achieved at least a VGPR. There were no significant differences in response across centers in analyses that adjusted for age, sex and types of therapy. There were no genome wide significant loci to predict for response. We identified 8 suggestive SNPs associated with proteasome inhibitor response and 4 suggestive SNPs associated with IMiD response. TWAS identified ZNF622 as a candidate genetic modifier of proteasome inhibitor effect that was significant after correction for multiple hypothesis testing (P = 1.6 x 10-6). Higher genetically predicted expression was associated with improved response to proteasome inhibitor therapy. Among patients above the median of predicted expression of ZNF622 on proteasome inhibitors, 62.6% achieved at least VGPR; among patients at or below the median of expression, only 37.6% achieved at least VGPR. Conclusions: We identified an association between predicted expression of ZNF622 and clinical response to proteasome inhibitor therapy among MM patients. ZNF622 is a zinc finger binding protein which is known to be co-activator of B Myb activity and to affect apoptosis in response to oxidative stress. Our work highlights the potential importance of pharmacogenetic modifiers of treatment response in MM. Disclosures Shah: Nkarta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Indapta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; University of California, San Francisco: Employment; Celgene, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Seattle Genetics, Oncopeptides, Karoypharm, Surface Oncology, Precision biosciences GSK, Nektar, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Poseida: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teneobio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wong:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding. Martin:Roche and Juno: Consultancy; Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Purpose The development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a relatively rare but a clinically important adverse event in the treatment of lymphoma, particularly in individuals receiving anthracyclines. There are few studies assessing the role of germline genetic susceptibility as a predictor of CVD in this setting. We evaluated the association of 24 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from candidate genes involved in anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity, CVD, and venous thromboembolism with new-onset CVD in a prospective cohort of lymphoma patients treated in the modern era. Methods All patients were from the Mayo component of the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. Enrollment from 2002-2015 was offered to patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma who were age ≥18 years. Clinical, pathology and treatment data were abstracted using a standard protocol, and participants provided a peripheral blood sample, from which DNA was extracted. All patients were prospectively contacted every 6 months for the first 3 years from diagnosis and then annually thereafter to assess disease status, re-treatment and development of new morbidities, including CVD. Reported CVD events included congestive heart failure (CHF), coronary heart disease (CHD), arrhythmia, valvular heart disease (VHD), and other CVD. These events were identified during follow-up and validated against medical records. Genotyping was conducted using a custom Illumina iSelect platform with rigorous quality controls. For each SNP, Cox regression was used to estimate Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with time to first CVD, using death without CVD as a competing risk. HRs were also obtained for time to CHF, using death without CVD as a competing risk. We also modeled these events for all patients and for patients receiving frontline anthracyclines. Each SNP was modeled as having a log-additive (per minor allele) effect in the regression model. An ordinal test was used to assess the trend, with a nominal P<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results There were a total of 3,063 newly diagnosed lymphoma patients (excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia) with no history of CVD at time of lymphoma diagnosis, of which 1280 had genotype data available for analysis. The median age at diagnosis was 59 years (range, 18-95) and 56% were male. The most common subtypes were follicular (26.3%), diffuse large B-cell (23.2%), Hodgkin (11.3%), marginal zone (11.2%), mantle cell (6.3%) and T-cell (5.4%) lymphoma. Anthracycline-based chemotherapy as initial therapy was used in 52% of individuals. At a median follow-up of 6.9 years (range, 0.1-17.1), 363 (30.7%) patients died, and 173 (13.5%) had new-onset CVD after lymphoma diagnosis. There were 234 incident CVD events in the 173 patients: 49 CHD, 50 CHF, 27 VHD, 103 arrhythmias, and 5 other CVD. Results are shown in the Table. When assessing all CVD, F5 (rs4524) (HR=1.28, 95% CI=1.03-1.58) and F11 (rs4253399) (HR=1.30, 95% CI=1.06-1.61) were associated with CVD at P<0.05; both associations attenuated slightly when restricted to anthracycline-treated patients (F5 HR=1.18, 95% CI=0.89-1.57; F11 HR=1.23, 95% CI=0.92-1.65). F11 was more strongly associated with CHF (HR=1.55, 95% CI=1.03-2.34) and CHF in anthracycline-treated patients (HR=1.64, 95% CI=0.98-2.76). NCF4 (rs1883112) was marginally associated with lower risk of CVD overall (HR=0.81, 95% CI=0.66-1.00), and this association strengthened when restricted to anthracycline-treated patients (HR=0.67, 95% CI=0.49-0.91) and showed similar trends in HRs for CHF (HR=0.77, 95% CI=0.51-1.16) and CHF in anthracycline-treated patients (HR=0.72, 95% CI=0.41-1.28), although neither estimate was statistically significant at P<0.05. Finally, while XDH (rs2236168) was not associated with all CVD (HR=1.00, 95% CI=0.81-1.23), it was associated with CHF (HR=0.66, 95% CI=0.47-0.93) overall, but attenuated in anthracycline-treated patients (HR=0.81, 95% CI=0.55-1.18). Conclusions In this exploratory study of candidate SNPs from the literature, we found limited evidence for a role of germline genetic variability in predicting risk of CVD or CHF in a cohort of lymphoma patients, especially after accounting for multiple testing. To fully address this hypothesis, future studies will need larger sample sizes and more comprehensive genetic assessment. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Nowakowski:NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

INTRODUCTION Complete staging via bone marrow assessment is standard of practice for most newly diagnosed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, though the methods and patterns of bone marrow assessment vary in clinical practice. The 2014 Lugano Classification recommends that in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) alone can designated advanced-stage disease in many, but not all cases. For most other NHL subtypes, obtaining bone marrow biopsy (BMB) remains recommended. We aimed to assess clinical practice patterns of marrow assessment and the performance of PET/CT in the clinical setting. METHODS The Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort is a prospective cohort from 8 academic medical centers. All patients were enrolled in the cohort within 6 months of diagnosis, and prospectively followed. Patients with lymphoma enrolled in the cohort between July 2015 and June 2017 were included for study. Baseline clinical characteristics at diagnosis, whether BMB and/or PET/CT were performed, and the result of these assessments were extracted from the database. Bone marrow involvement on PET/CT was abstracted via review of radiology reports. No central review of images was utilized. RESULTS In total, 3,251 patients were included, consisting of the following subtypes: DLBCL (n=1,098), follicular lymphoma (FL n=730), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL n=302), T-cell lymphoma (TCL n=278), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL n=269), other NHL (n=505) and composite lymphoma (n=69). Other clinical characteristics are shown in table 1. Staging BMB was obtained in 78% of patients, PET/CT was obtained in 56%, both BMB and PET/CT were obtained in 46% while neither were obtained in 9% (table 1). There were significant differences in lymphoma subtype between patients having any bone marrow assessment vs no bone marrow assessment (p<0.0001). MCL (96%) and DLBCL (94%) most frequently had any bone marrow assessment, while MZL was least frequently assessed (84%). Patients undergoing any bone marrow assessment had higher median lactate dehydrogenase (247 U/L vs 206 U/L, p=0.0002). Among the 8 enrolling medical centers, the frequency of bone marrow biopsy at diagnosis ranged from 53% to 86%, and the frequency of PET/CT at diagnosis ranged from 34% to 94% (p<0.0001, table 1). Among patients with DLBCL who had positive bone marrow by either PET/CT or BMB (N=107), 41% (44/107) were positive by BMB only, 19% (20/107) were positive by PET/CT only, and 40% (43/107) were positive by both. Figure 1 shows results of similar analyses for FL, MCL, MZL, and TCL. Using BMB as a gold standard for marrow involvement, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PET/CT for marrow assessment in DLBCL is 49%, 90%, 68% and 91%, respectively. Data for other subtypes are shown in table 2. Patients undergoing both PET/CT and BMB had lower median LDH (231 U/L vs 254 U/L, p=0.0032) than those undergoing one or neither assessments. CONCLUSION Overall, 91% of all patients with newly diagnosed NHL had bone marrow assessments via either PET/CT, BMB or both. The significant variation in the frequency of BMB and PET/CT use among the 8 centers reflects a lack of clear consensus on staging practices regarding bone marrow assessment. The sensitivity of PET/CT for detection of marrow involvement was less than 50% across all subtypes. It is possible the sensitivity of PET/CT could be improved via a centralized review process of the images, as is performed in some clinical trials, however practical approaches for implementing such reviews in clinical practice have not been developed. Between 92-100% of all positive bone marrows were detected by BMB, except in cases with DLBCL in which 19% of positive bone marrows were missed by BMB but detected by PET/CT. Thus, in our analysis, BMB more reliably captured marrow involvement that PET/CT in all subtypes in which both assessments were performed. However, neither PET/CT nor BMB alone were able to identify all cases of bone marrow involvement and use of both modalities may be necessary in cases where marrow involvement would have clinically important implications. Disclosures Rutherford: Juno Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Heron: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Lossos:Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Friedberg:Acerta: Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data & Safety Monitoring Committee. Casulo:Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodation, expenses. Cohen:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nastoupil:TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Flowers:Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cerhan:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Martin:Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy.

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.

Abstract Introduction: Richter transformation (RT) refers to transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to an aggressive lymphoma, most commonly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Most studies on the management of RT were either small retrospective series or early phase non-randomized trials before the era of novel agents. The natural history, prognostication and optimal treatment of patients with RT remain undefined. Here we report the clinical characteristics and outcomes of a large series of RT from a single center. Methods: Biopsy-confirmed RT (limited to non-Hodgkin lymphoma) diagnosed from 4/1993 to 4/2018 were identified from the Mayo Clinic CLL database. Clinical characteristics, treatment information and follow-up data were abstracted by chart review. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from RT diagnosis to death from any cause and analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analysis was done in SAS 9.4. Results: A total of 204 patients with CLL who developed RT were identified. The median age at CLL diagnosis was 62 years (range 22-85), and 148 (73%) were male. The median time to transformation was 4.7 years (range 0-34.5). Prior to RT, 68 (33.3%) patients received no treatment for CLL, 109 (53.4%) received chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) only, and 27 (13.2%) received at least one novel agent (idelalisib, ibrutinib, or venetoclax) for CLL. The median lines of CLL therapy prior to RT was 2 (range 0-13). The median age at RT diagnosis was 69 years (range 30-88). Pathology of RT was DLBCL and high grade B-cell lymphoma in 193 (94.6%) and 11 (5.4%) patients, respectively. The median LDH was 306 IU/L (range 99-9000). 62/125 (49.6%) patients had bulky disease (≥ 5 cm), and the median PET SUVmax was 13.9 (range 2.9-30.0). 45/131 (34.4%) patients had del(17p) or TP53 mutation, 12 (9.2%) had del(11q), 21 (16.0%) had trisomy 12, 27 (20.6%) had del(13q), and 25 (19.1%) had normal FISH. The CLL and RT were clonally related in 12/21 (57.1%) patients. For the transformed lymphoma, cell of origin by Han's algorithm was germinal center B cell-like (GCB) and non-GCB in 31/100 (31.0%) and 69/100 (69.0%) patients, respectively. EBV was positive in 14/52 (26.9%) patients. The median Ki-67 was 80% (range 10-100). Myc and Bcl-2 were positive by IHC in 31/43 (72.1%) and 83/103 (80.6%) patients, respectively; 27/56 (48.2%) were double-expressors. MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 rearrangement was positive by FISH in 18/68 (26.5%), 10/34 (29.4%), and 4/31 (12.9%) patients, respectively; 8/66 (12.1%) were double/triple-hit. The most common first-line treatment (Table 1 notes) of RT was R-CHOP-like regimen (n=114, 65.5%). Other treatments included R-EPOCH-like (n=6, 3.4%), high-intensity chemotherapy (n=15, 8.6%), novel agents (eg, ibrutinib, venetoclax, pembrolizumab; n=19, 10.9%), other chemotherapy (n=12, 6.9%), and palliative therapy (n=8, 4.6%). Response to first-line treatment was CR in 57 (38.0%), PR in 33 (22.0%), SD in 18 (12.0%), and PD in 42 (28.0%) patients. The median OS of the entire cohort after RT diagnosis was 12.0 months. The median OS for patients who received no prior CLL treatment, CIT only or at least one novel agent for CLL were 65.5, 7.3, and 12.0 months, respectively (P<0.0001; Figure 1). Of note, in patients who received CIT only for CLL, ~10% and 60% received high-intensity and R-CHOP/R-EPOCH-like chemotherapy, respectively, as first-line RT therapy. In contrast, in patients who had prior novel agents for CLL, 56% and 26% were treated with novel agents and R-CHOP/R-EPOCH-like chemotherapy, respectively, as first-line RT therapy. Patients with or without del(17p)/TP53 mutation had a median OS of 8.3 and 12.8 months, respectively (P=0.046). Patients who were treated with high intensity chemotherapy, R-CHOP/R-EPOCH-like regimens, novel agents, and other therapies for RT had a median OS of 35.1, 14.4, 10.9 and 6.1 months, respectively (P=0.02; Figure 2). OS comparisons by CLL/RT clonal relationship, double expressor or double/triple-hit status are shown in Table 1, with no significant differences noted. Conclusions: Over two thirds of RT were the non-GCB subtype, and about half were Myc/Bcl-2 double expressors. Patients who developed RT without prior CLL therapies had a significantly better OS. In contrast, patients who had received prior CLL therapies had poor outcomes. Myc/Bcl-2 double expressor and MYC/BCL2/BCL6 double/triple hit status had no impact on OS. Disclosures Kenderian: Humanigen: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Kay:Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Parikh:Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding.

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.