Citations

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is a heterogeneous disease, commonly described by cell-of-origin (COO) molecular subtypes. We sought to identify novel patient subgroups through an unsupervised analysis of a large public dataset of gene expression profiles from newly diagnosed de novo DLBCL patients, yielding two biologically distinct subgroups characterized by differences in the tumor microenvironment. Pathway analysis and immune deconvolution algorithms identified higher B-cell content and a strong proliferative signal in subgroup A and enriched T-cell, macrophage, and immune/inflammatory signals in subgroup B, reflecting similar biology to published DLBCL stratification research. A gene expression classifier, featuring 26 gene expression scores, was derived from the public dataset to discriminate subgroup A (classifier-negative, immune-low) and subgroup B (classifier-positive, immune-high) patients. Subsequent application to an independent series of diagnostic biopsies and replicated the subgroups with immune cell composition confirmed via immunohistochemistry. Avadomide, a CRL4CRBN E3 ubiquitin ligase modulator, demonstrated clinical activity in relapsed/refractory DLBCL patients, independent of COO subtypes. Given the immunomodulatory activity of avadomide and need for a patient selection strategy, we applied the gene expression classifier to pretreatment biopsies from relapsed/refractory DLBCL patients receiving avadomide (NCT01421524). Classifier-positive patients demonstrated an enrichment in response rate and progression-free survival of 44% and 6.2 months versus 19% and 1.6 months for classifier-negative patients (HR=0.49 [0.280, 0.86]; P=.0096). The classifier was not prognostic for R-CHOP or salvage immunochemotherapy. The classifier described here discriminates DLBCL tumors based on tumor and non-tumor composition and has potential utility to enrich for clinical response to immunomodulatory agents including avadomide.

Abstract Background. Recent clinical trials based on immunotherapies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway have shown striking durable responses in a subset of patients with solid cancers. The Programmed death 1 (PD-1) protein is a key immune checkpoint inhibitor expressed by activated T cells. Its ligand, PD-L1, was reported highly expressed by tumor cells in some diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) of non-Germinal Center phenotype. We recently reported on the French multicenter GOELAMS075 trial that pre-treatment soluble PD-L1 (sPD-L1) in plasma was elevated in DLBCL patients compared to controls, and that elevated sPD-L1 was associated with inferior overall survival (OS), independent of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and other clinical factors (Rossille et al., Leukemia 2014). Here, we replicate and extend these findings in two independent studies from Australia and the US. Methods. The protein expression of sPD-L1 was evaluated using a commercial ELISA kit. The French discovery cohort consisted of 288 adults with newly diagnosed aggressive DLBCL, age 18 to 60 years, and treated with R-CHOP or high dose chemotherapy plus rituximab followed by autologous stem cell support (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00561379); there were also 60 controls. The Australian study consisted of 51 DLBCL patients age 18 to 71 years, all stages, treated with R-CHOP14, along with 57 controls. The US study was an observational cohort from the Iowa/Mayo Lymphoma SPORE and consisted of 225 DLBCLs, age 19 to 92 years, all stages, treated with immunochemotherapy, along with 98 controls. Plasma samples were collected pre-treatment using EDTA tubes for the Australian and the US cohorts, BDª P100 tubes for the French cohort. sPD-L1 expression was measured in Rennes, France (French & US samples) and in Brisbane, Australia (Australian samples).The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression were used to model the association of sPD-L1 with OS. The 95th percentile of the sPD-L1 levels in each matched control group was used as the cutoff point to define elevated sPD-L1 levels. Results. Replicating the French findings, sPD-L1 levels were significantly higher for DLBCL patients compared to controls in both the US (P<0.0001) and Australian (P<0.0001) studies (Figure 1). The odds ratios for elevated sPD-L1 among patients compared to controls were 10.7 (95% CI 3.3-22.0), 8.9 (95% CI 3.1-25.3) and 12.6 (95% CI 2.7-28.0) for the French, US and Australian studies, respectively. In the French cohort, elevated sPD-L1 levels were associated with inferior OS (Hazard Ratio (HR)=2.05; 95% CI 1.18-3.57), and this was replicated in the US cohort (HR=1.71; 95% CI 0.97-3.01) (Figure 2). Due to the similarity of the results, we next pooled the French and US cohorts to increase power for multivariate and subset analyses. The median age at diagnosis of the 513 patients was 54 years; 29% were more than 60 years old; 69% of the patients had stage III-IV disease; 56% were IPI intermediate-risk and 9% were IPI high-risk patients. The median follow-up was 48 months (range, 0.5-126) overall, and 66 months for the patients still alive; there were 102 deaths. Using a cutpoint of 1729 pg/mL from the combined studies, patients with elevated sPD-L1 had inferior OS compared to patients without elevated sPD-L1, with 3-year OS rates estimated at 78% (95% CI 71.8-84.9) vs. 87.8% (95%CI 84.5-91.4) (P<0.01). In multivariate analysis, elevated sPD-L1 (HR=1.75; 95%CI 1.16-2.64), age (HR=1.03; 95%CI 1.02-1.05), high-risk IPI score (HR=3.71; 95%CI 1.91-7.21) and ALC ² 1 G/L (HR=2.19; 95%CI 1.44-3.33) were all significant at P<0.01. In analyses stratified by IPI, the 3-year OS rates among high-risk patients (IPI 4-5) was 40.9% (95% CI 23.6-71.0) for elevated sPD-L1 vs. 82.1% (95% CI 69.1-97.6) for not elevated sPD-L1 (P<0.01). There was no association of sPD-L1 with 3-year OS among low risk (IPI 0-1) or intermediate-risk (IPI 2-3) patients. Conclusion. We confirmed that sPD-L1 levels are higher in pre-treatment plasma samples of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients compared to controls, and that elevated levels of sPD-L1 are associated with inferior OS in DLBCL patients treated with immunochemotherapy, and this is independent of IPI and other clinical factors. Among high risk patients, we identified a subgroup with less than 50% survival. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: EBV+ DLBCL not otherwise specified (EBV+ DLBCL NOS) is defined by the 2016 WHO Classification of Tumors of Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues as EBV+ DLBCL in patients without a history of known immunosuppression. Among Asian patients, adverse outcomes have been associated with EBV+ vs EBV- DLBCL, and circulating EBV has been found in the majority of patients. Outcome studies of unselected North American patients are few and non-confirmatory. No formal assessment of immunosuppression status has been incorporated into these analyses, leading to the variable inclusion of patients with a history of immunocompromised states. We sought to determine the prevalence, presenting clinical and pathology characteristics, and outcomes of DLBCL by EBV and immunosuppression status in an unselected prospective cohort study of North American patients. Methods: From 2002-2012, we enrolled consecutive, newly diagnosed patients with lymphoma who were ≥ 18 years and HIV negative into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER). Clinical, laboratory, and treatment data were abstracted from medical records. All DLBCL patients with available tissue microarrays (TMAs), excluding primary mediastinal DLBCL and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders, were included. Medical records were reviewed using a standard protocol to classify patients as immunocompromised based on a documented history of primary immunodeficiency or iatrogenic immunosuppression. DLBCL cell of origin was classified as germinal center (GCB) vs non-GCB using the Hans algorithm. CD30 was determined using immunohistochemistry; positivity cutoff was 20% of neoplastic cells. EBV testing was performed by in-situ hybridization for EBV encoded small RNAs (EBERs), and scored by an expert hematopathologist. Event free survival (EFS) was defined as time from diagnosis until recurrence, retreatment, or death due to any cause. Associations with EFS and Overall Survival (OS) were obtained using the methods of Kaplan-Meier (KM). Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from Cox regression models. Results: 1,100 patients with DLBCL were enrolled into the MER; 362 had TMAs available for this analysis. Median age was 63 years (range 20-89) and 59% were male. 89.5% of patients were treated with immunochemotherapy. 16 cases (4.4%) were EBV+, and 39 cases (10.8%) were considered immunocompromised. EBV positivity was more common in immunocompromised vs immunocompetent patients, with a trend towards significance (10.3% vs 3.7%; P = 0.08). The non-GCB subtype was more frequent in EBV+ vs EBV- DLBCL (62.5% vs 34.1%; P < 0.01), but similar between immunocompromised vs immunocompetent patients (48.7% vs 33.7%; P = 0.10). CD30 positivity was also more frequent in EBV+ vs. EBV- DLBCL (25.0% vs 8.1%; P < 0.01), but similar between immunocompromised vs immunocompetent patients (12.8% vs 8.4%, respectively; P = 0.45). With a median follow-up of 59 months (range 0.7-155.2) there were 151 events and 119 deaths. KM curves by EBV and immunosuppression status are shown in the figure. There was no association of EBV positivity with EFS (HR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.34-1.72) or OS (HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.43-2.25). A history of immunosuppression was not associated with EFS (HR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.72-1.89) or OS (HR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.58-1.78). In the subset of immunocompetent patients, there was no association of EBV positivity with EFS (HR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.17-1.70) or OS (HR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.23-2.25). Similar results were obtained after adjustment for the International Prognostic Index. Circulating viral DNA was detected in 2/5 EBV+ and 4/49 EBV- DLBCL patients. Conclusions: The prevalence of EBV+ DLBCL NOS is <5% among patients in a large North American cohort, similar to other western populations. There was no evidence of an association of EBV or immunosuppression status with EFS or OS, with low power for detecting associations with EBV. Circulating viral DNA was infrequent among either EBV+ or EBV- DLBCL patients. While immunosuppression has been previously shown to be a risk factor for DLBCL, it was not found to be associated with EFS or OS. Overall, these results suggest divergent outcomes among EBV+ DLBCL patients between western and non-western populations, underscoring differences in host factors or circulating viral strains. Disclosures Ansell: BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) has been associated with inferior outcomes in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) treated with chemotherapy and an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (immunochemotherapy; IC), but whether this association holds for other FL treatment strategies is not known. Furthermore, the subset of FL patients who experience clinical failure (progression, treatment failure) within 12 months of diagnosis have an inferior outcome compared to those achieving event-free status at 12 months (EFS12). We tested the hypothesis that VDI is predictive of early clinical failure (failure to achieve EFS12), overall survival (OS), and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS) among FL patients overall and in subgroups who were initially observed, treated with IC, rituximab monotherapy, or other therapies. Methods: We evaluated this hypothesis in a prospective cohort study of 642 newly diagnosed patients with grade 1-3a FL enrolled from 2002-2012 in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource of the Iowa/Mayo Lymphoma SPORE. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy, and VDI was defined as serum total 25(OH)D <20 ng/mL (per Institute of Medicine criteria) determined within 120 days of diagnosis. We used logistic regression to estimate Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. We adjusted for FLIPI, body mass index, and month of blood draw; for the full cohort, we additionally adjusted for treatment. Results: The mean age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 23-93); 19% of patients had VDI. The median follow-up period was 59 months (range 1-144), with 297 events and 78 deaths (42 due to lymphoma). Treatment included IC (N=252), observation (N=218), rituximab monotherapy (N=76), or other (N=96). OS and EFS curves are shown in figures 1 and 2. In the full cohort, VDI was associated with inferior EFS12 (OR=2.05; 95% CI 1.18-3.54), OS (HR=2.35; 95% CI 1.37-4.02), and LSS (HR=2.97; 95% CI 1.52-5.80). In the IC subset, VDI was associated with inferior EFS12 (OR=3.00; 95% CI 1.26-7.13), OS (HR=2.86; 95% CI 1.39-5.85), and LSS (HR=2.96; 95% CI 1.29-6.79). VDI was associated with inferior OS in patients who were observed (HR=2.25; 95% CI 1.20-6.76) or received other therapies (HR=3.06; 95% CI 1.01-9.24). VDI was positively but not statistically significantly associated with inferior EFS12 in the patients who were observed (OR=1.71; 95% CI 0.70-4.17) or received other therapies (OR=2.31; 95% CI 0.41-13.07), with low power for these associations; LSS could not be estimated due to lack of deaths. There were too few events (N=10) and deaths (N=5) in the R-monotherapy group for analysis. Conclusions: We confirm previous findings that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with adverse long-term prognosis among patients with FL treated with IC, and extend these findings to patients who are initially observed or treated with other therapies. For the first time, we observed an association of vitamin D insufficiency with early clinical failure, suggesting a potentially modifiable factor to address in this subset of patients with poor outcomes. Whether treating VDI improves outcomes in FL warrants assessment. Disclosures Ansell: BMS, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Celldex and Affimed: Research Funding. Nowakowski:Celgene: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Non-endemic Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is a rare and highly aggressive B-cell malignancy, of whom a substantial number are adolescents and young adults (AYAs). In this particular group of patients, the balance between efficacy and long-term toxicities is of major concern, due to the long expected remaining lifetime. In this study, we investigated the outcomes for AYA patients treated with intensive immunochemotherapy. Patients and methods: Patients were identified through queries to clinic based and population-based lymphoma registries from six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and USA). All diagnoses were confirmed by local investigators; patients with classical BL histology plus detectable MYC translocation, were included. Patients between 18 and 39 years of age at diagnosis treated with intensive immunochemotherapy (DA-EPOCH-R or more intensively) were evaluated in pre-specified age groups. All treatment protocols included rituximab. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until death from any cause or censoring, while event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until unplanned re-treatment, progression/relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Response evaluation was assessed using established response criteria based on CT and/or PET/CT imaging. Survival curves were computed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The cumulative incidence of relapse in patients reaching complete remission (CR) or CR unconfirmed (CRu) was computed by Aalen-Johansen estimator. The 5-year restricted loss of lifetime (RLOL) was defined as the area between the patient and general population survival curves until 5-years. The general population survival was retrieved from publicly available lifetables stratified on age, sex, calendar year, and country. Results: In total, 108 AYA BL patients were included. The median age was 30 years, ranging between 18 and 39 and 82% were male. The majority had advanced stage disease (Ann Arbor stage III-IV, 76%), extranodal involvement (87%), and elevated LDH (67%). Seven patients (6%) had CNS involvement at the time of diagnosis. The chemotherapy regimens used were CODOX-M/IVAC (51%), BFM/GMALL (34%), hyper-CVAD (7%), DA-EPOCH (5%), and others (3%). Among 74 patients for whom data on tumor lysis were available, 10 (14%) developed clinical tumor lysis upon start of chemotherapy, all presenting with advanced stage and extranodal disease. The response rate was 91% (89 in CR/CRu and 2% in partial remission). At a median follow-up of 53 months, 15 had an event and 10 died. The 2-year OS and EFS for the total population was 92% (87-97%, Figure 1) and 88% (82-94%), respectively. For 13 patients aged 18-21 2-year OS and EFS were both 100%, while 2-year OS and EFS for 43 patients aged 22-30 were 98% (93-100%) and 93% (85-100%), respectively. The 2-year OS and EFS for patients aged 31-39 were 86% (76-96%) and 80% (69-91%), respectively. For patients in CR/CRu and available date of response evaluation, the 2-year post-remission OS was 99% (97-100%) and the 2-year relapse risk was 2% (0-5%), with no relapses after 6 months. Compared to the general population, the RLOL was 0.8 months (-0.5-2.2 months). Nine patients did not respond to primary treatment (SD or PD), all which belonged to the age group 31-40 years (P<0.001 versus age group 18-30 years). The oldest age group had an inferior OS compared to younger patients (P=0.008), largely due to non-responders having poor subsequent survival with a 1-year OS of 33%. Conclusion: The outcomes of AYA BL patients following intensive immunochemotherapy are excellent with high remission rates and low risk of relapse in general. However, even among young patients age remained prognostic, with patients 31 years or older having inferior OS and lower response rate to first-line treatment. In patients achieving CR, survival was similar to that of the general population over the median follow-up of 4.5 years, illustrating the need to focus on survivorship issues in these individuals. Figure 1: Overall survival for BL patients following intensive immunochemotherapy for all patients and for age groups (18-21, 22-30, and 31-39 years). Figure 1 Disclosures Jørgensen: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Holte:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board. Molin:Roche Holding AG: Honoraria; Merck & Co., Inc.: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Ekstroem Smedby:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding. Song:Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Gerrie:Lundbeck, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cheah:Roche, Janssen, MSD, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Acerta, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Celgene, Roche, Abbvie: Research Funding. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.

Introduction: Front-line immunochemotherapy (IC) with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is expected to cure 60-70% of newly diagnosed DLBCL. Up to one third of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients will have relapsed or refractory (r/r) disease.1 Current standard of care for these patients is salvage chemotherapy and, if chemosensitive, to be followed by high dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic cell rescue (autoHCT).2,3 Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) after frontline IC is associated with excellent long-term outcomes with overall survival (OS) similar to that of age- and sex-matched controls.4 In comparison, those achieving EFS24 following autoHCT for relapsed or refractory disease may have increased risk for late-mortality compared to the general population with advanced age and intensive salvage therapy contributing to the risk of late complications.5 We sought to better characterize EFS24 after autoHCT to determine the utility of this end-point for informed clinical decisions, patient management, and future clinical trials. Methods: Patients were prospectively enrolled onto the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/ Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Patients were followed for relapse, retreatment, and death; all events were validated by medical record review. For this analysis patients were included if they were consented within 9 months of initial diagnosis of DLBCL between 2002-2012, had received anthracycline-based IC (R-CHOP, or similar), and eventually had undergone autoHCT for r/r DLBCL. Patients with primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) were excluded. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from autoHCT until death due to any cause. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from autoHCT until progression, relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. OS from achieving EFS24 after autoHCT was compared to age- and sex-matched general US population. Results: 108 patients underwent autoHCT for relapsed DLBCL between 2002 and 2017. Median age at autoHCT of the patients was 60 years (range 20-78) and 72 (67%) were male. The most common transplant conditioning regimen was BEAM (82%). At a median follow-up after autoHCT of 85 months (range 1-171), 72 patients (67%) had an event and 64 patients (59%) had died. Kaplan-Meier estimates for EFS and OS at 24 months from the time of autoHCT were 49% (95% CI: 40-59) and 61% (95% CI: 52-71), respectively. 52 patients had a progression within 24 months of autoHCT; OS from progression was poor (median OS=2.8 months, 95% CI: 1.8-6.0; 5 year OS = 9%, 95% CI: 2-22). 48 patients achieved EFS24 after autoHCT; median OS from achieving EFS24 was 136 months (95% CI: 92-NE) and 5 year OS was 79% (95% CI: 68-93). This was inferior to the background population (Figure 1, SMR=3.64, 95% CI: 2.11-6.27, p<0.0001). Eight patients had a progression after achieving EFS24 from autoHCT. OS from progression in these 8 patients (median OS=27.3 months, 95% CI: 14.4-NE; 5 year OS = 16%, 95% CI: 3-93) was improved compared to progression within 24 months of autoHCT (p=0.072, figure B). Cause of death (COD) in EFS24 achievers was progression of lymphoma (n=6), infection (n=1), secondary malignancy related to therapy (n=3), heart disease (n=1), and unknown (n=1). Conclusions: Patients achieving EFS24 after salvage chemotherapy and autoHCT have a favorable long-term prognosis; however, overall survival remained inferior to the general population. Most common COD after achieving EFS24 was progression of lymphoma. In spite of this, EFS24 remains a valuable end-point for informed clinical decisions, patient management, and future clinical trials. Figure 1 Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Ansell:Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding.

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.

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.

Background Poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors exhibit promising activity against ovarian cancers, but their efficacy can be limited by acquired drug resistance. This study explores the role of autophagy in regulating the sensitivity of ovarian cancer cells to PARP inhibitors. Methods Induction of autophagy was detected by punctate LC3 fluorescence staining, LC3I to LC3II conversion on Western blot analysis, and electron microscopy. Enhanced growth inhibition and apoptosis were observed when PARP inhibitors were used with hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine (CQ), or LYS05 to block the hydrolysis of proteins and lipids in autophagosomes or with small interfering RNA against ATG5 or ATG7 to prevent the formation of autophagosomes. The preclinical efficacy of the combination of CQ and olaparib was evaluated with a patient‐derived xenograft (PDX) and the OVCAR8 human ovarian cancer cell line. Results Four PARP inhibitors (olaparib, niraparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib) induced autophagy in a panel of ovarian cancer cells. Inhibition of autophagy with CQ enhanced the sensitivity of ovarian cancer cells to PARP inhibitors. In vivo, olaparib and CQ produced additive growth inhibition in OVCAR8 xenografts and a PDX. Olaparib inhibited PARP activity, and this led to increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) and an accumulation of γ‐H2AX. Inhibition of autophagy also increased ROS and γ‐H2AX and enhanced the effect of olaparib on both entities. Treatment with olaparib increased phosphorylation of ATM and PTEN while decreasing the phosphorylation of AKT and mTOR and inducing autophagy. Conclusions PARP inhibitor–induced autophagy provides an adaptive mechanism of resistance to PARP inhibitors in cancer cells with wild‐type BRCA, and a combination of PARP inhibitors with CQ or other autophagy inhibitors could improve outcomes for patients with ovarian cancer.

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: 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; Millennium: 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; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: 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; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: 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; Pharmacyclics: 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; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.