Citations

AbstractOur phase III trial reported that autograft‐absolute lymphocyte count (A‐ALC) improved survival post‐autologous peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (APBHSCT) for a short‐term follow‐up of 2 years. We evaluated retrospectively in our phase III trial patients that the A‐ALC still confers survival benefit with a longer follow‐up. With a median follow‐up of 127.6 months, patients infused with an A‐ALC ≥ 0.5 × 109 cells/kg experienced better overall survival (HR = 0.392, 95% confidence of interval [CI]: 0.224–0.687, p < 0.001) and progression‐free survival (HR = 0.413, 95% CI: 0.253–0.677), p < 0.0004). This study supports that A‐ALC provides long‐term survival benefit post APBHSCT.

Clinical success with intravenous (IV) oncolytic virotherapy (OV) has to date been anecdotal. Here, we conducted a phase 1 clinical trial of systemic OV therapy and investigated the mechanisms of action in responding T-cell lymphoma (TCL) patients. A single IV dose of VSV-IFNβ-NIS was administered to patients with relapsed refractory hematologic malignancies to determine safety and efficacy across 4 dose levels (DL). Correlative studies were undertaken to evaluate viremia, virus shedding, virus replication and immune responses. Fifteen patients received VSV-IFNβ-NIS (7 multiple myeloma, 7 TCL, 1 acute myeloid leukemia); 3 patients were treated at each DL1 through DL3 (0.05, 0.17, and 0.5 x 1011 TCID50), and 6 at DL4 (1.7 x 1011 TCID50). There were no dose limiting toxicities. 3 of 7 patients with TCL had RECIST responses: a 3-month PR at DL2, a 6-month PR and a durable CR ongoing at 20 months at DL4. Viremia peaked at the end of infusion and no infectious virus shedding was detected. Plasma interferon-β levels, a biomarker of VSV-IFNβ-NIS replication, peaked between 4h and 48h post infusion. The patient with CR had robust viral replication with increased ell free DNA in her plasma, a very high peak IFNβ level of 18,213 pg/ml, a strong anti-VSV neutralizing antibody response, and increased numbers of tumor reactive T-cells. VSV-IFNβ-NIS as a single agent was effective in patients with TCL resulting in durable disease remissions in heavily pretreated patients. Correlative analyses suggest that responses may be due to a combination of direct oncolytic tumor destruction and immune-mediated tumor control. Further clinical testing is warranted. (This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03017820).

Abstract Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) is an important clinical endpoint in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 with frontline immunochemotherapy have minimal loss of lifetime compared to age- and sex-matched general population. However, the prognostic role of EFS24 in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has not been well studied, possibly due to the perception of continued relapse pattern and poor survival outcome of MCL historically. A recent study from our group demonstrated evolving frontline therapy pattern from 2002-2009 ("Era 1") to 2010-2015 ("Era 2") which was associated with improved EFS and overall survival (OS) in Era 2. In the current study, we sought to explore the prognostic role of EFS24 in the two eras. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from 9/2002 through 6/2015 were identified from Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), a prospective cohort study of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. OS was defined as time from diagnosis (or the EFS24 defining event where applicable) to death from any cause and was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Expected OS accounting for age and sex was generated in R by using the general US population as the reference group. Observed versus expected OS was summarized by using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of observed to expected deaths. Cumulative incidence of lymphoma-specific death was analyzed using Gray's test, with deaths from all other causes treated as competing events. Results: A total of 343 patients were included, 175 from Era 1 (median follow-up 13.0 years) and 168 from Era 2 (median follow-up 6.9 years). Age, sex and simplified MIPI score were similar between the 2 groups. Patients diagnosed in Era 2 had better OS, with a 5-year OS of 68.4% vs 59.2% (simplified MIPI-adjusted hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93). Patients diagnosed in both eras had inferior OS compared to the general population, with an SMR of 3.26 (95% CI 2.70-3.89, P&lt;0.001) in Era 1 and 2.63 (95% CI 2.03-3.36, P&lt;0.001) in Era 2. Patients diagnosed in Era 1 who achieved EFS24 (n=98) still had inferior OS compared to the general population, with an SMR of 2.23 (95% CI 1.67-2.92, P&lt;0.001) (Figure 1A). In contrast, for patients diagnosed in Era 2 who achieved EFS24 (n=99), no evidence of OS difference was found compared to the general population, with an SMR of 1.31 (95% CI 0.78-2.07, P=0.31) (Figure 1B). The primary cause of death after diagnosis was lymphoma-related for patients diagnosed in both eras. The 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 28.8% in Era 1 and 20.5% in Era 2. In patients who were diagnosed in Era 1 and achieved EFS24, the primary cause of death after achieving EFS24 remained to be lymphoma-related, with a 5-year rate of 19.8% compared to 6.2% for lymphoma-unrelated causes (Figure 1C). In contrast, in patients who were diagnosed in Era 2 and achieved EFS24, the rate of lymphoma-related death was no longer higher than that of lymphoma-unrelated death, with a 5-year rate of 2.1% vs 5.5%, respectively (Figure 1D). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to only patients who received standard frontline immunochemotherapy, similar results were obtained. For example, in patients who achieved EFS24, the SMR compared to the general population was 2.89 (95% CI 2.00-4.04, P&lt;0.001) in Era 1 and 0.89 (95% CI 0.43-1.64, P=0.82) in Era 2. The 5-year rates of deaths due to lymphoma-related vs lymphoma-unrelated causes were 20.7% vs 6.2% in Era 1 and 1.3% vs 4.9% in Era 2. Conclusions: MCL survival outcome has improved for patients first diagnosed in the more recent era (2010-2015, compared to 2002-2009), likely due to improved frontline therapy as well as better salvage treatments (such as lenalidomide and BTK inhibitors). In the more recent treatment era, patients who achieved EFS24 had survival approaching the age- and sex-matched general population. In addition, these patients had a low risk of dying from lymphoma and were more likely to die from other causes. Longer follow-up (e.g., in Era 2) and external validation in other series are necessary to confirm the prognostic role of EFS24. With more efficacious salvage treatment options and likely continued improvement of OS in MCL, EFS24 may become an important clinical endpoint in frontline therapy of MCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Link: Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy. Farooq: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: While extranodal involvement by mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is relatively common, involvement of the central nervous system (CNS) is rare (&lt;5% of cases), with limited treatment options. We report the outcomes of 36 patients (pts) with CNS involvement compared to 72 matched control MCL pts without CNS involvement. Methods: MCL pts with CNS involvement seen at Mayo Clinic between 1/1995-9/2020 were identified using the Mayo Data Explorer tool. CNS involvement was defined by tissue biopsy confirmed CNS MCL, CSF analysis demonstrating lymphoma cells, and/or neuroimaging findings compatible with CNS involvement. A 2:1 control group of MCL pts without CNS involvement, matched by age (+/- 2 years) and year of diagnosis (+/- 1 year), was selected among all MCL cases. Medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, treatment modalities, and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time to event analysis. Wilcoxon test was used to compare continuous variables and Chi square test was used for categorical variables. Results: Out of 1,753 pts with MCL, 36 (2%) had evidence of CNS involvement, including 4 pts with CNS involvement at initial MCL diagnosis. Baseline characteristics of pts with CNS involvement (CNS MCL group) and those without CNS involvement (control group) are shown in Table 1. At MCL diagnosis, non-CNS extranodal involvement was seen in 30 (83%) pts in the CNS MCL group (24 pts with 1 site and 6 pts with ≥ 2 sites), with bone marrow being the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=24, 67%). For the control group, 54 (75%) pts had extranodal involvement (44 pts with 1 site and 10 pts with ≥ 2 sites), and bone marrow was also the most common extranodal site of involvement (n=50, 69%). Notably, advanced stage disease (stage 3-4) was more commonly seen in the CNS MCL group (n=32, 97%) than in the control group (n=59, 83%) (p=0.04) at MCL diagnosis. Blastoid variant was present in a higher proportion of pts in the CNS MCL group (n=11, 31%) compared to the control group (n=8, 11%) (p=0.02). The CNS MCL group also presented with a higher median serum LDH at diagnosis (239 U/L [range 153-1901] vs. 187 U/L [range 124-588], p=0.02), and higher Ki-67 (40% [range 15-100] vs. 30% [range 10-90], p=0.04) compared to the control group. The most common frontline treatment regimen was anthracycline-based therapies (i.e. R-CHOP, Nordic regimen, R-hyperCVAD) for both groups (58% in CNS MCL group and 56% in control group). 14 (39%) pts in the CNS MCL group underwent autologous stem cell transplant in CR1 vs. 31 pts (43%) in the control group. Similar use of rituximab maintenance was seen in both groups (31% in CNS MCL group and 25% in control group). Median total lines of therapy from initial MCL diagnosis was 3 (range 1-9) in CNS MCL group and 2 (range 1-9) in the control group. The median follow-up from MCL diagnosis was 134 months (95% CI:119-163) for the entire cohort. Median OS from MCL diagnosis was 50.3 months (95% CI: 20.9-71.1) for the CNS MCL group compared to 97.1 months (95% CI: 82.6-192.7; p=&lt;0.001) for the control group (Figure 1). Median time from MCL diagnosis to CNS involvement was 25 months (range 0-167). Median OS from CNS involvement was 4.7 months (95% CI: 2.3-6.7). At last follow up, 31 (86%) pts were deceased from the CNS MCL group, compared to 38 (52%) pts in the control group. For the CNS MCL group, the causes of death were CNS lymphoma in 10 (32%) pts, systemic lymphoma in 9 (29%) pts, treatment-related complication in 7 (23%) pts, and other/unknown in 5 (16%) pts. For the control group, the causes of death were systemic lymphoma in 15 (39%) pts, treatment-related in 2 (5%) pts, and other/unknown in 21 (55%) pts. Conclusion: In pts with MCL, CNS involvement is associated with worse outcomes as evident by a shorter median OS from initial MCL diagnosis (50 months vs. 97 months). Involvement of the CNS by lymphoma is an important contributor for the shorter OS as suggested by the median OS of only 5 months from CNS involvement. Advanced stage, blastoid variant, elevated LDH, and elevated Ki67 at MCL diagnosis were features more commonly seen in the CNS MCL cohort. Validation of risk factors at initial MCL diagnosis associated with CNS involvement and exploring the role of CNS prophylaxis are important topics for further investigation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Backgrounds: Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been the standard treatment approach for patients with relapsed or high-risk lymphoma for several decades. Despite the improvement in supportive care, age has remained one of the critical factors that determines transplant eligibility and outcomes. Herein, we explored the transplant-related outcomes of patients with lymphoma aged 70 years or older at our institution and compared to those with younger ages. Methods: In this retrospective single center study, we include all patients with diagnosis of lymphoma who underwent ASCT between January 2000 and February 2021 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. In addition to data obtained from the transplant database, we abstracted data from electronic medical record. We described relevant clinical characteristics and transplant associated outcomes including engraftment, transplant related mortality, relapse incidence, and survival outcomes. We compared the key transplant related outcomes with patients at the younger age group between 65 and 70 years old. Results: A total of 196 patients with lymphoma aged 70 years or older underwent ASCT between January 2000 and February 2021. The median age of patients at the time of ASCT was 72.4 (70.0-78.7) years with 24 patients (12.2%) being older than 75 years old. Of 196 patients, 76 (38.8%) had Charlson comorbidity index of 3 or higher and 10 (5.1%) had performance status of 2 or higher at the time of ASCT. Table 1 summarizes the relevant baseline clinical characteristics of 196 patients in this cohort including the comparison with younger patients (age 65-70 years old, n=296). The most common transplant indication in this cohort was relapsed diffuse large B cell lymphoma. The majority of patients (91.3%) received peripheral blood graft with a median CD34+ cell dose of 5.14x10 6 cells/kg which was significantly lower than younger patients (P=0.01). The rate of neutrophil and platelet engraftment was 99.0% and 98.8% with corresponding median time to engraftment of 13 days for both cell lineages. The 30- and 100-day non-relapse mortality (NRM) of the entire cohort was 1.5% (95%CI 0-3.2%) and 4.6% (95%CI 1.6-7.5%) not statistically different between 70-75 years old and 75 years or older cohorts. With the median follow-up duration of 48 months, the 2-year event free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) was 55.9% (95%CI 49.2-63.5%) and 67.4% (95%CI 61.0-74.5%), respectively. Patients from the 70 years old or older cohort had similar EFS but inferior OS compared to the 65-70 years old cohort. However, there was no difference in EFS and OS between 70-75 and &gt;75 years old cohorts. There was overall an improved trend of 30-day NRM, 2-year EFS and 2-year OS over the 3 different transplant periods (Figures). Although not statistically significant, patients who underwent ASCT between 2000 and 2006 had a trend towards higher 30-day NRM compared to patients who were transplanted at later time points (7.3% vs 0%, P=0.06). The major causes of death included progressive lymphoma, infection, and conditioning regimen related organ toxicities. Conclusion: Outcomes of ASCT in older patients with lymphoma have improved over time with an excellent 30-day NRM (0%) in the past recent years. The major cause of treatment failure after ASCT was progressive disease. With appropriate patient selection, ASCT in older patients is feasible and provides acceptable outcomes comparable to the patients from younger age group. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: DNA mismatch repair (MMR) is a major mechanism cells use to repair erroneous insertion or deletion of bases during DNA replication. MMR deficiency (MMR-d), including rare germline mutations (Lynch syndrome) and somatic inactivation, has been extensively studied in solid tumors, such as colon, endometrial, pancreatic, and ovarian cancers. The prevalence of MMR-d in solid tumors ranges from 1% - 20% of somatic defects, and patients with MMR-d tumors have a longer overall survival. It is also well-known that MMR is an integral part of activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID)-mediated somatic hypermutation and immunoglobulin class switch processes in normal mature B lymphocytes, while mice deficient in the MMR genes are prone to develop T and B cell lymphomas. It is also known that follicular lymphoma (FL) carries a high degree of somatic hypermutation with some heterogeneity induced by AID. Our understanding of MMR status in human blood cancers, especially in FL remains very limited. One could hypothesize that MMR-d status could permit cells to acquire and sustain high-degree of mutation rates, better sensitivity to DNA damaging chemotherapy while hindering rapid cell proliferation, which could manifest to a better prognosis in patients. Herein, we conducted an exploratory analysis to understand the frequency of MMR-d status and its prognostic significance in FL. Methods: Following approval of the Institution Review Board, we assessed the expression of MMR proteins; MLH1, PMS2 and MSH6 on formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) lymph node tissue obtained from patients with FL by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using standard methods on Ventana Benchmark XT automated stainers (Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ). Dako (clone ES05), Cell Marque (clone EPR3947) and Biocare (clone BC/44) antibodies were used to stain MLH1, PMS2 and MSH6, respectively. Fifty cases of FL with existing FFPE blocks were selected randomly. The expression of MLH1, PMS2 and MSH6 proteins in the tumor cells was scored as 0, +1 or +2, (Figure 1A). Cases with absence of the IHC signal (score of 0) in any one of the three proteins were classified as MMR-d. Progression free survival at 12 months (PFS12) or 24 months (PFS24) was defined as being free from disease progression or death at 12 or 24 months, respectively. All time-to-event analyses were done from the time of diagnosis. Results: Fifty patients with FL were included in the study. The median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range 34-85) and 58% were females. At initial diagnosis, 36 (72%) patients had advanced stage (stage 3, n=8, stage 4, n=28) disease. Of the 50 patients, 26 (52%) required treatment; chemotherapy (n=14), radiation treatment alone (n=9), surgery alone (n=3). Out of the 50 patients, 23 (46%) were classified as MMR-d due to lack of expression of one of the three assessed proteins: MLH1 (n=1, 2%), PMS2 (n=11, 22%) and MSH6 (n=19, 38%). The patient who had MLH1 loss had concomitant PMS2 loss. Stage IV disease was observed in 52% of the MMR-d patients and 59% in the MMR proficient (MMR-p) patients, p=0.77. Median age at diagnosis was 62 (range: 34-84) years and 67 (range: 34-85) years in MMR-d and MMR-p patients, respectively, p=0.1. FLIPI score was similar between the MMR-d [low n=10 (43%), intermediate n=9 (39%), high n=4 (18%)] and MMR-p [low n=5 (18%), intermediate n=14 (52%), high n=8 (30%)] patients, p=0.16. Fourteen (61%) of MMR-d patients required initiation of therapy upon diagnosis compared to 12 (44%) of MMR-p patients, p=0.27. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 17 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.7-29.4]. The median overall survival (OS) of MMR-d patients was 10 years (95%CI: 7.8-20.7) compared to 6 years (95%CI: 4.5-NR) in MMR-p patients, p=0.036, Figure 1B. In patients with MMR-d and MMR-p, 83% and 55% achieved PFS12, p=0.04 and 65% and 41% achieved PFS24, p=0.08, respectively. After adjusting for FLIPI score, MMR status remained associated with OS (MMR-d HR: 0.51, 95%CI: 0.2-1.02, p=0.05). Discussion and Conclusion: In this pilot study, MMR-d in the FL tumors was common (46%) and, as predicted, was associated with a favorable OS. Association of MMR-d status with PFS in general and patients with early progression (short PFS12 and PFS24) and relationship of MMR-d with types of therapy need further study in large FL datasets. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. King: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: The clinical presentation of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is heterogeneous, ranging from indolent disease that does not require immediate treatment to rapidly progressive disease that responds poorly to aggressive immunochemotherapy. Several small retrospective studies suggested that active surveillance or delayed treatment is feasible in select patients with an indolent disease course. A shorter diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) is a strong predictor for inferior survival in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas such as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), which likely correlates with an aggressive disease biology and clinical presentation. However, the impact of DTI on survival has not been well studied in patients with MCL. In this study, we utilized the National Cancer Database to investigate the feasibility of active surveillance or delayed treatment in patients with MCL and to explore the potential impact of DTI on survival of MCL patients requiring treatment. Methods: The National Cancer Database was used to identify adult patients (≥ 18 years) with MCL diagnosed from 2004 through 2017. Patients were divided into three groups based on their time to initial treatment: early treatment [ET] (treatment started within 3 months), delayed treatment [DT] (treatment started after 3 months) and surveillance [SUR] (watch and wait without treatment). Baseline clinical characteristics were compared between the 3 groups using Chi-square test. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25. Results: A total of 27,867 patients with newly diagnosed MCL were included in this study, 995 patients (4%) in the SUR group, 21,425 patients (77%) in the ET group, and 1,052 patients (4%) in the DT group. There were no major differences in the baseline characteristics among the three groups including demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (annual income, insurance status, place of residence), comorbidity scores, and Ann Arbor stage. Compared to patients in the SUR and DT groups, patients in the ET group were more likely to have B symptoms (ET=27% vs DT=16% vs SUR=8%, p&lt;0.001) and were less likely to be managed at an academic center (ET=40% vs DT=53% vs SUR= 51%, p&lt;0.001) (Table 1). The median follow-up was 38.2 months for the entire cohort. There was a significant difference in OS among the three groups, with a median OS of 107 months (95% CI = 92.7-122.7) in the SUR group, 84.9 months (95% CI = 74.2-95.7) in the DT group, and 68.9 months (95% CI = 66.8-70.9) in the ET group (p=0.001) (Figure 1A). Among patients in the DT group, a shorter DTI was associated with a trend of inferior OS, with a median OS of 82 months (95% CI = 73.2-90.8) for those with a DTI of 3-12 months and not reached (95% CI not calculable) for those with a DTI &gt; 12 months (p=0.095) (Figure 1B). Among the ET group, a shorter DTI was associated with shorter OS, with a median OS of 53 months (95% CI = 50.2-55.8) for patients with a DTI ≤ 15 days, 71.7 months (95% CI = 67.1-76.3) for those with a DTI of 16-30 days, and 87.1 months (95% CI= 82.8-91.4) for patients with a DTI of 31-90 days (p&lt;0.001) (Figure 1C) Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, patients with newly diagnosed MCL who were managed with an active surveillance strategy or delayed therapy had a better survival compared to patients who underwent early therapy. These findings validate the feasibility of delayed therapy in select patients with MCL. In patients who undergo early therapy, a shorter DTI is associated with an inferior survival outcome, mirroring findings in DLBCL and PTCL. A shorter DTI is likely associated with more aggressive disease biology and clinical presentation. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Nowakowski: Nanostrings: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) was approved by US FDA for relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) on July 24, 2020 based on results from the pivotal ZUMA-2 (NCT02601313) study, in which an objective response rate (ORR) of 93% and a complete response (CR) rate of 67% were achieved among the 60 treated patients with at least 7 months of follow-up. The study had stringent eligibility criteria, including prior treatment with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi), and only allowed BTKi and/or corticosteroid for bridging therapy. We report here the safety and efficacy of brexu-cel in standard of care practice among centers in the US Lymphoma CAR-T Consortium. Methods: Fourteen centers participated in this retrospective study. Patients who underwent leukapheresis by 6/15/2021 with an intent to manufacture brexu-cel were included. Baseline clinical characteristics, bridging therapy, adverse events after brexu-cel infusion, and post-infusion outcome data were collected. Eligibility for ZUMA-2 was retrospectively determined based on characteristics at the time of leukapheresis. Duration of response (time from initial response to disease progression or death from any cause), progression-free survival (PFS; time from infusion to disease progression or death from any cause) and overall survival (OS; time from infusion to death from any cause) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: At the data cut-off date of 7/9/2021, 107 patients underwent leukapheresis, among whom 93 (87%) completed brexu-cel infusion, 2 (2%) were waiting for infusion, and 12 (11%) did not receive infusion (manufacture failure n=6, organ dysfunction n=1, death n=5). Baseline clinical characteristics of the 93 infused patients are shown in Table 1. The median age was 67 years and 81% were male. 32% had high risk simplified MIPI, 77% had Ki-67≥30%, 45% had blastoid or pleomorphic variant, 46% had TP53 alteration, 29% had complex karyotype, and 7% had CNS involvement. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3. Eighty-two percent had prior BTKi treatment, and 44% had refractory disease to the last line of therapy. Sixty-eight (73%) patients would not have met ZUMA-2 eligibility criteria. Reasons for ineligibility included ECOG PS ≥2 (n=8), CNS involvement by lymphoma (n=6), prior therapies (n=33), cytopenia (n=11), renal or hepatic dysfunction (n=13), other medical conditions (n=18), and active infection (n=2). Sixty (65%) of the 93 patients received bridging therapy, which included BTKi (n=27), venetoclax (n=14), chemotherapy (n=19), CD20 antibody (n=26), lenalidomide (n=3), corticosteroid (n=9), and radiotherapy (n=13). Only 13 (14%) patients received BTKi or corticosteroid alone as in ZUMA-2. Among 93 infused patients, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) rate was 88% (8% grade ≥3), and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) rate was 58% (33% grade ≥3). No grade 5 CRS or ICANS occurred. Medications used to manage CRS and ICANS were 71 (76%) for tocilizumab, 64 (69%) for steroid, and 16 (17%) for anakinra. Twenty-four (26%) patients required ICU admission, 9 patients required vasopressors, and 4 patients required mechanical ventilation. With a median follow-up of 3.0 months (range 0.1-9.6), day 30 response was evaluable in 81 patients, and the ORR was 86%, with 64% CR (Table 2). The ORR/CR rates were 94%/70% for blastoid or pleomorphic variants, 82%/50% for TP53 altered, 84%/61% for BTKi-exposed, 94%/76% for BTKi-naïve, and 88%/67% for those not meeting ZUMA-2 eligibility criteria. The ORR/CR rates were 87%/69% for patients who received bridging therapy and 85%/56% for those who did not. For patients who achieved a response at day 30, the rate of continued response at 3-month was 83.7% (95% CI 68.3%-92.0%). The 3-month PFS rate was 80.6% (95% CI 68.6%-88.4%), and the 6-month OS rate was 82.1% (95% CI 67.7%-90.5%). Conclusions: This multicenter retrospective study demonstrated encouraging safety and efficacy data of brexu-cel in R/R MCL in the real world practice. The CRS and ICANS incidences were comparable to those reported in ZUMA-2, but use of tocilizumab and steroid was more frequent than in ZUMA-2. Although 73% of the patients would have been ineligible for ZUMA-2, the ORR and CR rate were comparable to those reported in ZUMA-2. Longer follow-up is necessary to confirm long term safety and efficacy. YW, PJ and FLL are co-first authors, and YL, MW and MDJ are co-senior authors. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Jain: Kite: Consultancy; Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Munoz: Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Celgene, Merck, Portola, Incyte, Genentech, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, and Millennium: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seagen, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Targeted Oncology, OncView, Kyowa Kirin, Physicians' Education Resource, and Seagen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kyowa Kirin, Alexion, Fosun Kite, Innovent, Seagen, BeiGene, Debiopharm, Epizyme, Karyopharm, ADC Therapeutics, Servier, and Genmab: Consultancy, Other: advisory role; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Other: Study investigator. Maurer: BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Beitinjaneh: Kite/Gilead: Other: Ad Board Event Attendee. Frank: Allogene Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding. Dahiya: Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. McGuirk: Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy. Goy: Vincerx pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Michael J Hennessey Associates INC: Consultancy; Elsevier's Practice Update Oncology, Intellisphere, LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; Phamacyclics: Research Funding; Vincerx: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rosewell Park: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Hoffman la Roche: Consultancy; LLC(Targeted Oncology): Consultancy; Xcenda: Consultancy, Honoraria; OncLive Peer Exchange: Honoraria; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Genentech/Hoffman la Roche: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; Xcenda: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Elsevier PracticeUpdate: Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genomic Testing Cooperative: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; Physicians' Education Resource: Consultancy, Other: Meeting/travel support; MorphoSys: Honoraria, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; COTA (Cancer Outcome Tracking Analysis): Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Leadership role; Hackensack Meridian Health, Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment. Vose: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Research Funding. Hill: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oluwole: Pfizer: Consultancy; Curio Science: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Deol: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy. Shah: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; Servier Genetics: Other; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Miklos: Pharmacyclics: Patents & Royalties; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Novartis, Juno/Celgene-BMS, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pharmacyclics-AbbVie, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AlloGene, Precision Bioscience, Miltenyi Biotech, Adicet, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics, Amgen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Becton Dickinson, Isoplexis, Miltenyi, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Biosciences, Adicet, Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company, Amgen, Atara, Wugen, Celgene, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Bioscience, Adicet, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive Biotechnologies and Miltenyi Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Ghobadi: Wugen: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Neelapu: Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene Therapeutics, Cell Medica/Kuur, Incyte, Precision Biosciences, Legend Biotech, Adicet Bio, Calibr, Unum Therapeutics and Bluebird Bio: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals and related to cell therapy: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene, Kuur, Incyte, Precision BioSciences, Legend, Adicet Bio, Calibr, and Unum Therapeutics: Other: personal fees; Kite, a Gilead Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Poseida, Cellectis, Celgene, Karus Therapeutics, Unum Therapeutics (Cogent Biosciences), Allogene, Precision BioSciences, Acerta and Adicet Bio: Research Funding. Lin: Legend: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wang: Moffit Cancer Center: Honoraria; Chinese Medical Association: Honoraria; InnoCare: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Hebei Cancer Prevention Federation: Honoraria; Newbridge Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; OMI: Honoraria; Physicians Education Resources (PER): Honoraria; Clinical Care Options: Honoraria; CAHON: Honoraria; VelosBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; CStone: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioInvent: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma (Cayman) Limited: Consultancy; BGICS: Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Imedex: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH: Consultancy, Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Oncternal: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Anticancer Association: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; The First Afflicted Hospital of Zhejiang University: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Scripps: Honoraria; Mumbai Hematology Group: Honoraria; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jain: BMS, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, Precision Biosciences, Takeda: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Low-grade B-cell lymphomas (LGBCL), aside from follicular lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, account for approximately 10% of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and consist of several subtypes. While a majority of LGBCL cases have an overall favorable prognosis, we have previously shown that cases who have an event (relapse or progression, transformation, or re-treatment) within 24 months of diagnosis (EFS24) have an inferior overall survival (OS) compared to those achieving EFS24 (Tracy et al., AJH 2019;94:658-66). However, the underlying biological characteristics associated with early failure and aggressive disease across LGBCL subtypes are unknown. In this study, we used matched transcriptomic, genomic, and immune profiling data from LGBCL cases, the largest cohort to date, and asked whether there were unique biological phenotypes across different LGBCL subtypes and whether we could identify signatures associated with aggressive LGBCL. Validation of the prognostic utility of this signature was performed on a previously published, independent cohort of 63 pre-treatment LGBCL cases. Methods: Tumors from 64 newly diagnosed LGBCL patients from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence were included in this study (SMZL (n = 48), NMZL (n = 6), LPL (n = 5), B-NOS (n = 3), EMZL (n = 2)). RNA sequencing (RNAseq) data from 61 LGBCL tumors and 5 benign CD19+CD27+ memory B samples was subjected to NMF clustering to define groups. Differential expression and pathway analysis were used to identify biological characteristics of each cluster. CIBERSORT was used to identify immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on 61 tumor-normal pairs. Singscore was used to assign a single score per patient representing gene expression of the survival-associated transcriptomic signature identified in this study. Results: NMF analysis of RNAseq data identified 5 clusters of patients, denoted LGBCL1-5 (Fig 1A). Patients from the same diagnostic subtype did not exclusively cluster together, with all LGBCL clusters comprised of patients from multiple subtypes (Fig 1B). Exploring the association between patient cluster and outcome, we observed significantly inferior event-free survival (EFS) (HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.01-4.98) and overall survival (OS) (HR 5.59; 95% CI 2.00-15.63) in LGBCL5 patients compared to LGBCL1-4 (Fig 1C). In addition, 80% of the transformation cases in our cohort were classified as LGBCL5 (Fig 1D). Differential expression and pathway analysis showed distinct processes significantly upregulated in each cluster (FDR &lt; 0.05), with LGBCL5 demonstrating enrichment of cell cycle and mitosis pathways. CIBERSORT identified increased immune cell content in LGBCL3 and LGBCL5 compared to other clusters, with high frequencies of mast cells in both (p = 0.0002), increased CD8 T cells in LGBCL3 (p &lt; 0.0001), and increased T follicular helper cells in LGBCL5 (p = 0.004). WES identified previously reported alterations in NOTCH, NFkB, and chromatin remodeling pathways and novel variants in LGBCL, including mutations in HNRNPK, CLTC, HLA-A, HLA-B and HLA-C. Assessment of alterations by cluster showed significant enrichment of TNFAIP3 (OR 5.54; 95% CI 1.20-28.14) and BCL2 alterations (OR 5.49; 95% CI 1.07-32.02) in LGBCL5 cluster. Finally, we identified a cell cycle-related transcriptomic signature of 108 genes upregulated in LGBCL5 and EFS24 failure cases. Cases with high expression of this signature showed significantly inferior EFS (HR 14.25; 95% CI 4.90-41.38) and OS (HR 7.82; 95% CI 2.40-25.44) compared to cases with low expression in our discovery cohort. This observation was reproduced in an independent validation cohort, where patients with high expression of this signature demonstrated significantly inferior EFS (HR 5.70; 95% CI 1.49-21.79) and OS (HR 10.07; 95% CI 2.00-50.61). Conclusions: In this study, we are the first to define mechanisms of pathogenesis in LGBCL with shared transcriptomic, genomic, and immune profiles present across LGBCL subtypes. We then further defined a gene expression signature associated with inferior patient outcome, with application of this signature to an independent validation cohort demonstrating proof of concept and utility of this signature as a prognostic marker in LGBCL patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Habermann: Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding. Rimsza: NanoString Technologies: Other: Fee-for-service contract. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Cerhan: Genentech: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding. Novak: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding.