Citations

e19583 Background: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (BA) is an FDA approved therapy for relapsed/refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), based on results from ZUMA-2 study. We report the safety and efficacy of BA in standard of care practice among centers in the US Lymphoma CAR-T Consortium. Methods: 16 centers participated in this retrospective study. Patients (pts) who underwent leukapheresis by 12/31/2021 with an intent to manufacture BA were included. Baseline clinical characteristics, bridging therapy, adverse events after BA infusion, and post-infusion outcome data were collected. Eligibility for ZUMA-2 was retrospectively determined. Survival outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: At the data cut-off date, 189 pts underwent leukapheresis, among whom 167 (88%) completed BA infusion, 22 (12%) did not receive infusion. The median age was 67 years. 16% had high risk simplified MIPI, 57% had Ki-67≥50%, 41% had aggressive histology, 49% had TP53 alteration, 51% with POD24 and 10% had CNS involvement. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-10). 86% had prior BTKi treatment (89% refractory). 130 (78%) pts would not have met ZUMA-2 eligibility criteria. 113 (68%) pts received bridging therapy, which included BTKi, venetoclax, chemotherapy. Median time from leukapheresis to lymphodepletion chemotherapy: 28 days (range 17-140). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) rate was 90% (8% grade ≥3; 1 grade 5), and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) rate was 61% (32% grade ≥3). Grade 5 ICANS (n = 0). Medications used to manage CRS and ICANS were 125 (76%) for tocilizumab, 112 (68%) for corticosteroid, and 27 (16%) for anakinra. 32 (20%) pts required ICU admission, 18 pts required vasopressors, and 5 pts required mechanical ventilation. Day 30 response was evaluable in 155 pts (89% ORR, 70% CR). The best ORR was 89%, with 80% CR, 9% PR. The ORR/CR rates were 88%/79% for aggressive histology, 89%/77% for high Ki-67% (> 50%), 90%/72% for TP53 altered, 81%/75% for CNS involved, 89%/79% for BTKi-exposed, 91%/83% for BTKi-naïve, and 89%/78% for those not meeting ZUMA-2 eligibility criteria. The median duration of response was not reached and at 6-month was 67% (95% CI 57-75). With a median follow-up of 5.6 months (range 0.2-15.3), median PFS was not reached, the 6-month PFS rate was 63% (95% CI 54-71), and median OS was 15.3 months and the 6-month OS rate was 85% (95% CI 77-90). Conclusions: This multicenter retrospective study demonstrated encouraging safety and efficacy data of BA in R/R MCL in the real-world practice. Despite 78% of the pts being ineligible for ZUMA-2, the responses, CRS, ICANS and outcomes were comparable to ZUMA-2 data. Long term safety and efficacy will be reported.

7573 Background: While most patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) usually have favorable outcomes, those with refractory disease after first-line anti-CD20 based immunochemotherapy (IC), or progression within 24 months of diagnosis (POD24) have higher risk of premature death. There are no standard approaches for treating this vulnerable group and studies testing novel agents are ongoing in this setting. We sought to investigate clinical practice treatment choices and efficacy for pts with POD24 that align with eligibility criteria for the randomized SWOG1608 which compares IC with novel agents in this population. Methods: This was a multicenter observational cohort study from the LEO Consortium. Eligible pts had grade 1-3a FL diagnosed between 1/1/2002 and 2/1/2019, and initiated therapy after POD24 to first-line bendamustine or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) based IC. Observation, radiotherapy, or rituximab monotherapy were permitted prior to IC and pts with transformation prior to the subsequent therapy after IC were excluded as per S1608. Outcomes of interest were overall and complete response rate (ORR/CR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 196 eligible pts with early progression to IC (39% antiCD20 Benda; 61% antiCD20 CHOP) who received subsequent therapy. Median age at post IC treatment was 57 years, 78% grade 1-2 FL. Treatments for pts with POD24 included CHOP- or Benda-based in 31%, salvage/hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in 27%, novel therapies in 10% (including phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors), antiCD20 monotherapy in 9%, and lenalidomide-based treatment in 8% (table); 21% of pts were treated on clinical trials. Across all treatments, ORR (CR) was 63% (37%) (95% CI: 55-70). At a median follow up of 6.2 years, 2 year PFS was 22% (95% CI: 17%-29%) and 5 year OS was 71% (95% CI: 65-79). Outcomes by regimen are shown in the table. Conclusions: Pts with FL experiencing POD24 following first-line IC are treated heterogeneously, with many pts still receiving IC as subsequent therapy. Despite modest CR rates and low 2-year PFS, 5-year OS appear to be improving compared to historical outcomes. This supports the ongoing need to investigate novel treatments in this population. [Table: see text]

The availability of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors has brought about a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with B-cell lymphomas and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. BTK was clinically validated as a target by the efficacy of the first-in-class inhibitor ibrutinib. The extended survival conferred by BTK inhibitors has brought long-term tolerability to the foreground. To minimize toxicities thought to be attributable to off-target kinase inhibition, a next generation of BTK inhibitors with greater selectivity was developed. In the United States, zanubrutinib, a next-generation BTK inhibitor, has been approved for treating adults with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least one prior therapy, for adults with Waldenström macroglobulinemia, and for adults with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma who have received at least one anti-CD20–based therapy. Because few head-to-head comparative trials of BTK inhibitors have so far been reported, no BTK ‘inhibitor of choice’ can be identified. Zanubrutinib has promising efficacy in its approved indications and appears to have reduced cardiac toxicities, particularly atrial fibrillation, which may influence the choice of BTK inhibitor treatment by prescribers. Further studies are needed to inform on optimal treatment sequencing of zanubrutinib and its combination with other agents. Here, we summarize existing clinical evidence for its efficacy and safety in mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, marginal zone lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and other B-lymphoproliferative indications. Plain Language Summary Zanubrutinib is a drug that was shown to effectively treat cancer of B cells without causing excessive serious side effects Patients with certain B-cell malignancies (cancers of white blood cells) benefit from treatment with Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, drugs that block the BTK protein and keep cancer from growing and spreading. Patients experience extended survival with ibrutinib, the first-generation BTK inhibitor approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); however, one in five patients quit treatment because of harmful side effects. Ibrutinib-related side effects such as increased risk of bleeding, atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm), and high blood pressure are thought to be caused by ibrutinib blocking other proteins besides the intended target protein BTK. To reduce these side effects, zanubrutinib, a next-generation BTK inhibitor, was designed to block BTK more specifically than ibrutinib. Results of clinical studies on zanubrutinib treatment appear promising in patients with several types of B-cell malignancies, including mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and small lymphocytic lymphoma. There are not yet enough clinical data to determine which BTK inhibitor is most effective in treating B-cell malignancies without causing harmful side effects. Early data from the phase 3 ALPINE clinical study suggest that zanubrutinib works better than ibrutinib, and fewer patients experience side effects and quit treatment. Zanubrutinib is currently approved for use for treatment of adult patients with MCL who have received at least one prior therapy, for adults with WM, and for adults with MZL who have received at least one anti-CD20–based therapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have dramatically changed the landscape of cancer therapy. Both remarkable and durable responses have been observed in patients with melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other malignancies. However, the PD-1/PD-L1 blockade has demonstrated meaningful clinical responses and benefits in only a subset of patients. In addition, several severe and life-threatening adverse events were observed in these patients. Therefore, the identification of predictive biomarkers is urgently needed to select patients who are more likely to benefit from ICI therapy. PD-L1 expression level is the most commonly used biomarker in clinical practice for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. However, negative PD-L1 expression cannot reliably exclude a response to a PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Other factors, such as tumor microenvironment and other tumor genomic signatures, appear to impact the response to ICIs. In this review, we examine emerging data for novel biomarkers that may have a predictive value for optimizing the benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy.

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<0.001) in Era 1 and 2.63 (95% CI 2.03-3.36, P<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<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<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 (<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=<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 Background: Covalent Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitors (BTKi) have transformed the management of relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), but these treatments are not curative and the majority of patients will require additional treatment. Covalent BTKi share pharmacologic liabilities (e.g. low oral bioavailability, short half-life) that collectively may lead to suboptimal BTK target coverage especially in rapidly proliferating tumors with high BTK protein turnover such as MCL. To address these limitations, pirtobrutinib, a highly selective, non-covalent BTKi that inhibits both wild type (WT) and C481-mutated BTK with equal low nM potency was developed. In the phase 1/2 BRUIN study, pirtobrutinib achieved pharmacokinetic exposures that exceeded its BTK IC96 at trough, was well tolerated, and demonstrated promising efficacy in heavily pretreated, poor-prognosis MCL patients, most of whom had prior treatment with a covalent BTKi (Mato et al. Lancet 2021;397,10277:892-901). The purpose of this randomized study is to demonstrate the superiority of pirtobrutinib compared to investigator's choice of covalent BTKi in patients with previously treated MCL. Study Design and Methods: BRUIN MCL-321 is a randomized, open-label, global phase 3 study comparing pirtobrutinib monotherapy versus investigator's choice of covalent BTKi monotherapy (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or zanubrutinib) in patients with previously treated, BTKi naïve MCL. Approximately 500 patients will be randomized 1:1. Randomization will be stratified by sMIPI risk (low/intermediate vs high), comparator BTKi (ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib/ zanubrutinib), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs ≥ 2). Eligible patients are adults aged ≥18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of MCL (cyclin D1 overexpression, and ≥ 1 B-cell marker) who have received ≥ 1 prior line of systemic therapy for MCL that did not include a prior BTKi. Patients must have measurable disease per Lugano criteria and must have progressed on or relapsed following the most recent line of therapy prior to study enrollment. Key exclusion criteria include a history of current or prior CNS involvement, significant cardiovascular disease, stroke, or intracranial hemorrhage within 6 months of randomization, and allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT), autologous SCT or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy within 60 days of randomization. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) per Lugano criteria assessed by an independent review committee (IRC), with the goal of demonstrating superiority of pirtobrutinib over investigator's choice of covalent BTKi. Secondary endpoints include overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), investigator-assessed PFS per Lugano criteria, overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), time to next treatment (TTNT), time from randomization to disease progression on next line of treatment or death from any cause (PFS2), safety and tolerability, and patient reported outcomes. This global study is currently enrolling patients (NCT04662255). Disclosures Eyre: Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria. Shah: Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Lily: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dreyling: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Consultancy; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Vandenberghe: Jansnens: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Jurczak: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Celtrion, Celgene, Debbiopharm, Epizyme, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Sandoz, Roche,: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cheah: Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding. Gandhi: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria. Sharman: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Centessa: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Andorsky: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding. Yin: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment; AstraZeneca: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Balbas: Nektar Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kherani: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang: AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, BeiGene, CSTone, DTRM Biopharma (Cayman) Limited, Epizyme, Genentech, InnoCare, Janssen, Juno, Kite Pharma, Loxo Oncology, Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, VelosBio: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BioInvent, Celgene, Innocare, Janssen, Juno, Kite, Pharma, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Molecular Templates, Oncternal, Pharmacyclics, VelosBio: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma, Anticancer Association, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, CAHON, Chinese Medical Association, Clinical Care Options, Dava Oncology, Epizyme, Hebei Cancer Prevention Federation, Imbruvica, Imedex, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Miltenyi Biomedicine GmbH, Moffit : Honoraria.

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<0.001) and were less likely to be managed at an academic center (ET=40% vs DT=53% vs SUR= 51%, p<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 > 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<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.