Citations

Abstract Background: De novo secondary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma (SCNSL), characterized by concurrent systemic and CNS aggressive B-cell lymphoma at diagnosis, is a rare entity with a dismal prognosis. The prognostic significance of the initial anatomical compartment of CNS involvement (parenchymal vs. leptomeningeal) is not well-defined. We sought to analyze outcomes based on CNS localization in a single-institution cohort. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 34 patients with de novo SCNSL (including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], high-grade B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBCL NOS), and double-/triple-hit lymphoma) treated at the Mayo Clinic between 2002 and 2025. Clinicopathological features, radiologic findings, treatment details, and survival outcomes were abstracted from the medical records. Patients were categorized by the primary site of CNS involvement. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared with the log-rank test. Results The study cohort had a median age of 61.5 years (range 19-79) and a median International Prognostic Index score of 3 (range 2-4). Pathological subtypes included double-/triple-hit lymphoma (n=14, 41.2%), non-germinal center B-cell like (non-GCB) DLBCL (n=11, 32.4%), germinal center B-cell like (GCB) DLBCL (n=8, 23.5%), and HGBCL NOS (n=1, 2.9%). Among patients with available data, 14 (43.8%) were positive for MYC rearrangement, 13 (54.2%) for BCL2 rearrangement, and 10 (45.5%) for BCL6 rearrangement. First-line regimens received by patients included MR-CHOP (n=18, 52.9%), DA-R-EPOCH (n=5, 14.7%), combined CODOX-M/IVAC (n=4, 11.7%), R-CHOP with intrathecal methotrexate (n=3, 8.8%), miscellaneous therapies (n=3, 8.8%), and MRT (n=1, 2.9%). The complete response rate was 58.8% (n=20). Intrathecal chemotherapy was administered to 61.8% of patients, and consolidation with autologous stem cell transplant was performed in 35.3%. Based on the CNS compartment involved, de novo SCNSL (DN-SCNSL) were classified into two subtypes: the leptomeningeal subtype, defined as leptomeningeal involvement with or without parenchymal CNS disease (LM-DN-SCNSL; n=22, 64.7%), and the parenchymal subtype, defined as parenchymal-only CNS involvement (P-DN-SCNSL; n=12, 35.3%). Parenchymal disease was multifocal in 75% of cases, supratentorial in 58.3%, and associated with a midline shift in 30%. Although no tested factors (including pathological subtype, age, sex, and bone marrow involvement) were significantly associated with the anatomical compartment, a non-significant trend was noted for BCL6 rearrangement to be more common in the leptomeningeal group (8/13, 61.5%) than the parenchymal group (2/8, 25.0%) (P = 0.18). Survival outcomes were analyzed for both anatomical and pathological classifications. For the parenchymal versus leptomeningeal cohorts, 2- and 5-year Overall Survival (OS) rates were 75.0% vs. 45.1% and 41.0% vs. 38.7%, respectively (P = 0.34). For Progression-Free Survival (PFS), the 2- and 5-year rates were 48.6% vs. 32.5% and 29.2% vs. 26.0%, respectively (P = 0.53). The 2-year OS rates by pathological subtype were 81.8% for non-GCB DLBCL, 45.8% for DHL/THL, and 37.5% for GCB DLBCL (P = 0.27). Survival outcomes (OS/PFS) were not significantly associated with patient age, sex, pathological subtype, or anatomical compartment. Conclusion DN-SCNSL can be anatomically classified into two subtypes: LM-DN-SCNSL and P-DN-SCNSL. While a prognostic trend favoring the parenchymal subtype was observed, the difference did not achieve statistical significance, a finding likely attributable to the small cohort size. This classification may hold clinical utility for guiding risk stratification, and larger studies are needed to validate these findings and identify the most optimal treatments for each subtype of DN-SCNSL.

Abstract Introduction: NAVD has become a standard-of-care for frontline (1L) treatment (tx) of advanced stage cHL, based on the results of the S1826 study. S1826 demonstrated a 1-year progression free survival (PFS) of 94% for NAVD compared to 86% for brentuximab vedotin-AVD, which remained durable at 2 years (Herrera et al, NEJM 2024). Adverse events (AEs) and efficacy have not been reported in patients (pts) treated with NAVD outside of a clinical trial. Hence, we sought to evaluate safety profile and efficacy outcomes of pts with cHL treated with 1L NAVD in a real-world setting (RWS). Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we included pts ≥18 years with cHL treated with 1L standard of care NAVD between 2023 and 2025 at 20 US academic sites. The safety evaluable cohort received at least 1 cycle of NAVD and included pts who have not completed tx. The efficacy evaluable cohort had completed 6 cycles of tx including end of treatment (EOT) PET-CT and included pts who intended to complete tx but died or discontinued due to progressive disease or AEs. The primary endpoint was EOT overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included EOT complete response rate (CRR), PFS and overall survival (OS). PFS and OS were calculated from the start date of tx and analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results: A total of 311 pts with cHL were treated with NAVD with 26% of pts with tx ongoing (n=83) and 73% with tx completed (n=228). Baseline demographics included 55% male pts, 60% with stage IV disease (stage IIB, n=4) and 84% with nodular sclerosis subtype. Median age was 37 years (range 18-88), 29% had bulky disease (>7.5 cm), 28% were EBV positive (n=74/268), 8% had history of an autoimmune disease, and 31% had an IPS 4-7. G-CSF was given in 64% of pts. All patients were safety evaluable. Tx was interrupted (any length) in 24%, reduced in 12%, and discontinued in 14%. The most common reason for dose reduction was neuropathy in 4%. Nivolumab was discontinued in 10% and all therapy in 3.7% due to toxicity. Any AE and any grade 3 or higher AE (>G3) were observed in 92% and 62%, respectively. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 68% (48% >G3), infection in 25% (10% >G3), and neuropathy in 30% (2.8% >G3). Hospitalization for an AE occurred in 20% (4.5% febrile neutropenia). Among pts with complete data (n=305), any immune related AE (irAE) occurred in 78 pts (25.6%) with any >G3 irAE in 23 pts (7.5%). The most common irAEs included hypothyroidism (7.9%, all grade 1-2), hepatotoxicity (1.6% G1/G2, 3.3% >G3), inflammatory arthritis (3% G1/G2, 0.6% >G3), rash (2.6%, all grade 1-2), and colitis (1% G1/G2, 1% >G3). Other notable >G3 irAEs included adrenal insufficiency (n=2), AKI/ATN (n=1), myocarditis (n=1), diabetes (n=1) and pancreatitis (n=1). Of 84 irAE events, 47 (56%) have had complete resolution. Among all pts, 14.4% (n=45) required systemic steroids at any time (intravenous in 4.1%), 3.2% (n=10) require ongoing steroids/immunosuppression and 8.3% other therapy for an irAE (n=23 levothyroxine, n=1 hemodialysis, n=1 heart failure tx, n=1 insulin). Among all pts, 265 (85%) had an interim PET-CT after 2-4 cycles. The ORR and CRR at interim PET-CT were 97% and 78%, respectively. In the efficacy evaluable population (n=228), the EOT ORR and CRR were 96% and 90%. The median follow up was 10.2 mo (range 0.27-28.52). The 1-year PFS and OS estimates were 93.8% (95% CI: 90.8-98.4%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 97.9-100%), respectively. In multivariable analysis (MVA), only IPS score (OR 0.6, 95%CI: 0.59-0.60) was associated with lower CRR. In Cox univariable analysis, EBV+ status (HR=14.8, 95% CI: 3.2-69.2), IPS score (HR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.2), and ESR (HR=1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.04) were associated with worse PFS. Among the 11 pts with progression/relapse, 9 were primary refractory. 10 pts were started on second line (2L) therapy, and all pts are alive (1 pt pending 2L tx initiation). There were 2 deaths: one related to infectious complications and other unknown and both occurred after the first cycle of therapy. Conclusions: Pts treated with NAVD in a large RWS showed comparable response rates and 1-year survival outcomes to those in the pivotal S1826 trial. Most AEs were similar and grade 1-2, but close monitoring of irAEs is necessary given the potential long-term toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors and potential for ≥G3 irAEs (7.5%) in this young patient population. Our data supports the use of NAVD for 1L advanced stage cHL.

Abstract Background Secondary central nervous system lymphoma (SCNSL) is a rare but significant complication, affecting approximately 2–10% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), often leading to poor outcomes. The CNS-International Prognostic Index (CNS-IPI) remains a widely adopted tool for estimating CNS relapse risk; however, recent advances in molecular profiling and evolving treatment paradigms have challenged the adequacy of CNS-IPI alone in guiding risk assessment. This study evaluates the prognostic relevance of CNS-IPI in conjunction with molecular and clinical factors, specifically cell-of-origin (COO), gene expression, and frontline treatment regimens. The aim is to refine risk stratification and identify patients at highest risk for SCNSL. Method Building on our previous study, we analyzed data from patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL between 2002 and 2023, enrolled in the Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa Lymphoma Molecular Epidemiology Resource. Patients with primary CNS lymphoma, CNS involvement at diagnosis, or who received CNS-directed therapy were excluded. COO was determined using the Hans algorithm and/or Nanostring profiling. Multivariate cause-specific Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for predictors of CNS relapse that were measured at the time of initial DLBCL diagnosis. Cumulative incidence with competing risks and cause-specific Cox models were used to analyze relapse risk. Result We included 2137 patients in our analysis, median age at diagnosis was 63 (IQR 53-72), with 41.6% (n=890) females. The albumin level was below normal in 32.5% (n=350), 64.0% (n=1367) had CNS-IPI of intermediate/high, 37.5% (n=586) had non-germinal center B-cell (GCB) COO, and 14.5% (n=309) were double expressor positive. At a median follow-up of 83 months (IQR 42 -143), 82 (3.8%) SCNSL relapses were observed; the 3 and 5 yrs cumulative incidence for SCNSL from time of DLBCL diagnosis were 3.7% (95% CI 3.0-4.7) and 3.8% (95% CI 3.1-4.8) respectively. In models accounting for death as a competing risk, the 5-year cumulative SCNSL incidence estimate for patients with a CNS-IPI low was 1.5% (95% CI 0.8-2.7), Intermediate was 4.9% (95% CI 3.7-6.4), and high was 6.1% (95% CI 3.8-9.6). The 5-year cumulative SCNSL incidence estimate for patients with non-GCB COO was 5.2% (95% CI 3.6-7.4) compared to 2.4% (95% CI 1.6-3.6; p=0.001) for GCB patients, and the 5-year cumulative SCNSL incidence for double expressor positive patients was 8.6% (95% 5.8-12.6) compared to 1.5% (95% CI 0.8-2.7; p<0.001) for double expressor negative patients. In a multivariable model (including CNS-IPI, COO, double expressor, treatment group, extranodal involvement, and albumin group), CNS-IPI intermediate (HR 2.85 [1.58-5.14]; p<0.001) and high (HR 4.31 [2.15-8.65]; p<0.001), non-GCB COO (HR 2.36 [1.37-4.06]; p=0.002], double expressor (HR 5.56 [2.88-10.73]; p<0.001), and below normal albumin (HR 1.89 [1.02-3.50]; p=0.042) were independently associated with increased risk of SCNSL. The majority of the SCNSL relapse occurred within the first 2 years after DLBCL diagnosis; 81.7% (n=67), with only 6.1% (n=5) occurring after 5 years. For patients who developed SCNSL, the median OS from the time of SCNSL diagnosis was 24 months (95% CI 17-34), with 5 years OS of 31% (95% CI 22-43). These findings are being validated using an external, international cohort, and final analysis will be presented at the time of presentation at ASH. Conclusion In this large, prospectively followed cohort with long-term follow-up data, SCNSL remains a rare but devastating complication of DLBCL, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 3.8% and it is associated with very poor long-term survival. While CNS-IPI remains a strong predictor of SCNSL risk, our study identifies non-GCB COO and double expressor phenotype as independent, additive molecular risk factors. These findings suggest that current risk stratification tools may underestimate the risk of CNS relapse in molecularly defined high-risk subgroups. Considering the poor outcomes linked to SCNSL and the absence of a connection with frontline treatment types, future research should aim to enhance risk prediction models through molecular profiling and explore prophylactic strategies to reduce the likelihood of SCNSL.

Abstract Introduction: Sexual health is an important part of overall well-being for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). AYAs have unique sexual health needs as they navigate development, relationships, and identity formation. AYA patients may experience sexual dysfunction due to conditioning chemotherapy/radiation therapy, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), changes in body image, mental health effects, relationship shifts, and the challenges of dating with a serious illness. We surveyed both pediatric and adult HCT providers at our institution to assess current practices of discussing sexual health needs with AYAs as well as barriers to these discussions in order to guide interventions to improve communication. Methods: Adult and pediatric HCT physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurse coordinators in the Mayo Clinic Rochester HCT program completed an online survey to understand their perspectives about addressing sexual health needs in AYA HCT survivors. This survey covered current practice patterns in discussing sexual health and managing sexual health needs, barriers to providing sexual health care, and recommendations for provider education. Results: This survey included responses from 25 HCT providers (35% response rate): 22 adult providers and 3 pediatric providers. The respondents comprised of 10 physicians (40%), 8 advanced practice providers (32%), and 7 nurses (28%). Most of the providers saw 6-10 AYA patients per month (48%), while others reported: 1-5 AYAs (36%), 11-15 AYAs (12%), and 16-20 AYAs (4%); no provider saw 21 or more. While all respondents felt sexual health was an important topic for AYA HCT patients, most (80%) also reported rarely (44%) or only sometimes (36%) discussing sexual health with AYA patients. Primary barriers included inadequate knowledge of resources for referrals (72%), insufficient training on this topic (60%), limited time for discussion (56%), discomfort discussing sexual health with AYAs (32%), and concern about patient discomfort (28%). When it came to screening for GVHD, 28% of respondents reported not regularly screening for genitourinary GVHD and 40% indicated feeling uncomfortable or very uncomfortable managing it. Frequently discussed topics included fertility (64%) and contraception (52%). Almost all respondents (96%) expressed interest in further education. Topics of interest included an overview of common sexual health issues in AYA HCT survivors (88%), medical management of sexual health concerns such as erectile dysfunction, low libido, and vaginal dryness (72%), management of psychosocial concerns impacting body image and relationships (64%), cultural considerations for addressing sexual health (56%), providing inclusive care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer or questioning (LGBTQ) AYAs (56%), genitourinary GVHD (56%), and safer sex practices during and after transplant (52%). Discussion: Although regular sexual health assessment in HCT survivors is recommended, most providers at our institution did not routinely discuss sexual health with AYAs. While genitourinary GVHD is an important HCT-specific sexual health topic, screening for this condition is not consistently performed. Providers were eager for further education and identified several topic areas for future educational interventions. Our data will aid in the development of an educational intervention for providers covering key sexual health issues in AYA HCT survivors, including medical and psychosocial management of sexual health concerns, as well as inclusive care for intercultural and LGBTQ AYAs, with the aim of improving frequency of sexual health discussions and provider confidence. Time constraints were identified as a key barrier, so patient-focused educational interventions that can occur outside of the clinical appointment may be an opportunity to deliver information and empower patients to raise specific concerns during their visits. In combination with healthcare provider-focused education, this may promote critical sexual health-related discussions during appointments.

Abstract Background Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare but aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma with limited prospective data to guide optimal therapy. This study evaluates real-world treatment patterns and survival outcomes using a large national cohort. Methods We analyzed data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients diagnosed with PCNSL between 2004 and 2020. Baseline demographics and treatment characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to identify independent predictors of overall survival (OS). Results A total of 14,450 patients with PCNSL were included; 14,439 had first-line treatment data available, and 13,390 had survival data. Median age at diagnosis was 67 years (range 18-90), 49.2% were female, and 6.6% were African American. Chemotherapy alone was the modality of treatment for 81.6% (n=11,787), 12.2% (n=1,769) received chemoradiation, 3.8% (n=545) received chemotherapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) but no radiation, and 2.4% (n=348) received radiation only. The median follow-up time was 73.5 months (95% CI 71.4-75.6), and the median OS for the group was 17.4 months (95% CI 16.2-18.6). Survival differed significantly by age group (median OS: <65 yrs, 46.1 months [95% CI 41.7 -50.6]; 65-79 yrs, 12.5 months [95% CI 11.2-13.7]; ≥80 yrs, 3.2 months [95% CI 2.9-3.5]; p<0.001), by year of diagnosis (median OS: 2004-2009, 11.0 months [95% CI 9.9-12.1]; 2010-2015, 20.0 months [95% CI 17.4-22.6], 2016-2020, 29.7 months [95% CI 26.0-33.4]; p<0.001), and by frontline treatment strategy (p<0.001). Patients treated with chemotherapy followed by ASCT had the longest median OS (not reached), while those receiving radiation alone had the poorest outcomes with a median OS of 3.9 months (95% CI 3.2-4.7); chemoradiation patients had a median OS of 31.8 months (95% CI 27.5-36.1), and chemotherapy only patients had a median OS of 13.9 months (95% CI 12.7-15.1)(p<0.001). African American patients had an inferior outcome with a median OS of 10.2 months [95% CI 7.2-13.1], compared to “other” races with a median OS of 36.9 months [95% CI 27.6-46.1] (p<0.001), although this is more similar to the median outcome for white patients (17.0 months [95% CI 15.8-18.3]). Treatment at an academic center (25.7 vs 11.0 months) and a high case-volume center (defined as >median number of cases per facility) (18.6 vs 10.5 months), and lower Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (CDS) (defined as CDS 0-1) (21.7 vs 6.8 months) were also associated with superior OS (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, increasing age ( 65-79 y.o HR 1.60 [1.52-1.1.68], ≥80 y.o HR 2.95 [2.75-3.17]), CDS≥2 (HR 1.36 [1.28-1.44]), and African American race (HR 1.12 [1.02-1.24]) were adverse predictors of OS (all p<0.001), while treatment strategy (ASCT [HR 0.17], chemoradiation [HR 0.53], chemotherapy only [HR 0.68] compared to radiation alone), more recent year of diagnosis (2010-2015 [HR 0.81], 2016-2020 [0.70]), and treatment at an academic center [HR 0.81] remained predictors of superior OS (all p<0.001). Conclusion In this large national cohort of patients with PCNSL, treatment with chemotherapy followed by ASCT was associated with the most favorable survival outcomes. Patients treated with chemoradiation or multi-agent chemotherapy also demonstrated improved survival compared to those receiving radiation monotherapy or single-agent chemotherapy alone, respectively. Age, comorbidities, race, and treatment at academic centers were also significant independent predictors of OS. These findings highlight substantial disparities in outcomes and underscore the importance of optimizing treatment strategies, improving access to high-intensity therapies, and supporting timely referral to academic or high case-volume centers, particularly for younger and medically fit patients.

Abstract Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been established as standard of care for patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), including relapsed or refractory (r/r) disease. However, ICIs discontinued in some patients due to treatment-related toxicities or disease progression may later be re-initiated. The outcomes of this common clinical practice of ICI re-initiation, or ‘rechallenge,‘ have not been evaluated. Here, we present real-world efficacy and safety data of ICI rechallenge in patients with cHL. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with cHL treated with ICIs between 2015 and 2024 at Mayo Clinic sites. Patients were identified via institutional records using diagnostic and treatment codes. Included patients were adults ≥18 years with histologically confirmed diagnosis of cHL receiving ≥1 cycle of ICI therapy. Patients in the rechallenge cohort received a second course of ICI therapy following discontinuation of the initial ICI for any reason. The control cohort included patients with ICI discontinuation without subsequent rechallenge. Primary outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), event-free survival (EFS), and duration of response (DOR), defined respectively as time from first ICI initiation to disease progression, time from first ICI initiation to disease progression, adverse events, treatment change, or death, and time from first recorded response per positron emission tomography–computed tomography until the occurrence of disease progression. Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), and incidence and severity of irAEs following ICI rechallenge. Survival outcomes were compared using propensity-score-matched (PSM) cohorts with a proportional Cox model. Results: A total of 145 patients were included. Of these, 30 (21%) underwent ICI rechallenge, while 115 (79%) received no subsequent ICI treatments. The median age was 40 years (interquartile range [IQR] 26-66). Most were male (59%), predominantly nodular sclerosis subtype (71%), Ann Arbor stage III-IV disease (65%), and ECOG ≤ 1 (96%). ICIs were utilized for r/r disease in 66%, with median 6 (IQR 4-13) cycles and follow up of 40.8 months (IQR 21.1–78.1). Patients received median 1 prior line of therapy (IQR 0-2.5). During initial ICI treatment, 34/145 patients (23%) experienced irAEs, including 17 patients (57%) in the rechallenge group and 17 (15%) in the non-rechallenge group. Most irAEs were of grade 1–2 severity, though 10 (30%) experienced grades ≥3 irAEs. irAE severity did not differ between groups. Among patients who underwent ICI rechallenge, the majority (53%) discontinued due to irAEs. The decision to pursue ICI rechallenge was driven predominantly by disease progression (63%). Among the 1:1 PSM cohorts using bone marrow transplant status and the International Prognostic Score, PFS did not significantly differ between rechallenged vs. non-rechallenged groups (HR 1.7, 95% CI 0.60–4.5, p=0.32). Similarly, no difference was noted among the groups in EFS and DOR using 1:3 PSM cohorts using the number of ICI cycles (HR 1.6, 95% CI 0.83–3.0, p = 0.16 and HR 1.6, 95% CI 0.37–7.0, p = 0.53, respectively). In the 1:1 matched cohort, ICI rechallenge was not associated with inferior OS compared to those without rechallenge (HR 1.6, 95% CI 0.48–5.4, p=0.43). irAE occurred in 20%, including pneumonitis (n=2), hepatitis (n=1), and pancreatitis (n = 1). Of the patients who had experienced irAEs during their initial ICI course, only two developed recurrent irAEs of the same type upon rechallenge, both at reduced severity. Overall, 80% of rechallenged patients did not experience any irAE with their second ICI course. Conclusions: ICI rechallenge was not associated with inferior PFS, EFS, DOR or OS compared patients without rechallenge. Among patients receiving ICI rechallenge after irAE, recurrence of same irAE was rare. ICI rechallenge may be a feasible and potentially effective strategy in selected patients with cHL.

Abstract Introduction: Brentuximab vedotin (BV) was approved by the US FDA for relapsed/refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in 2011 and for previously untreated advanced stage cHL in 2018. The immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) nivolumab and pembrolizumab were approved for R/R cHL in 2016 and 2017, respectively. These novel agents have significantly changed the landscape of cHL management in recent years. In this study, we analyzed data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to investigate whether survival outcomes have improved in the novel agent era (2011 and beyond) for patients with cHL in the US. Methods: Patients diagnosed with cHL between 2004 and 2020 were identified in the NCDB. Those with missing survival data were excluded. Three treatment eras were defined based on the timing of FDA approval of novel agents: Chemo era (2004–2010), BV era (2011–2015), and ICI era (2016–2020). Patient and disease characteristics were compared using the Chi-square test. Survival analyses were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 85,488 patients with newly diagnosed cHL were identified: 36,150 in the Chemo era, 27,058 in the BV era, and 22,280 in the ICI era. Compared to the chemo era, the BV and/or ICI eras included slightly more patients aged ≥66 (17.3% vs 17.8% vs 19.5%), male (53.6% vs 54.6% vs 53.8%, p=0.042), Black (11.3% vs 12.9% vs 12.5%), Hispanic (9.0% vs 9.9% vs 10.9%), with Charlson-Deyo score ≥1 (14.2% vs 16.1% vs 17.2%), B symptoms (44.1% vs 46.9% vs 46.9%), treated at academic centers (32.4% vs 35.9% vs 36.4%), on Medicaid (9.5% vs 12.2% vs 13.7%) or Medicare (19.3% vs 20.3% vs 21.7%), and with higher income (≥4th quartile by 2008-2012 standard; 34.5% vs 34.3% vs 36.3%) (all p<0.001 except for sex, noted above). Ann Arbor stage data were not available in the ICI era. There were slightly more patients with advanced-stage disease in the BV era compared to the Chemo era (45.4% vs 40.3%, p<0.001). IPS scores were available for only 2,344 patients, with a similar distribution (0–2 vs 3–7) across the three eras (p=0.957). The median follow-up was 6.9 years (95% CI 6.9-7.0). Overall survival (OS) significantly improved in the novel agent eras: the 5-year OS rate was 79.8% (95% CI, 79.4%–81.2%) for patients diagnosed in the Chemo era, 81.9% (95% CI, 81.9%–82.4%) in the BV era, and 84.1% (95% CI, 83.5%–84.8%) in the ICI era (p<0.001). Statistically significant OS improvements were observed across all subgroups, including age (≤40: 92.8% vs 94.9% vs 96.5%, 41-65: 80.5% vs 81.8% vs 84.4%, ≥66: 41.4% vs 46.6% vs 52.7%), sex (male: 78.0% vs 80.0% vs 81.9%, female: 81.9% vs 84.1% vs 86.7%), race (White: 79.9% vs 81.6% vs 83.7%, Black: 77.2% vs 81.2% vs 84.6%, others: 84.5% vs 87.0% vs 89.3%), ethnicity (Hispanic 79.7% vs 82.3% vs 85.1%, Non-Hispanic 80.0% vs 81.9% vs 84.1%), Charlson-Deyo score (0: 83.5% vs 85.4% vs 87.9%, 1: 62.8% vs 68.2% vs 73.2%, 2: 42.5% vs 52.6% vs 58.3%, 3+: 49.0% vs 54.4% vs 51.7%), B symptoms (yes: 74.7% vs 78.9% vs 81.5%, no: 84.3% vs 85.1% vs 87.5%), treatment facility type (academic: 69.8% vs 74.0% vs 77.1%, non-academic: 66.4% vs 67.6% vs 70.2%, unknown: 92.9% vs 95.0% vs 96.5%), insurance type (private: 89.9% vs 91.2% vs 93.4%, Medicare: 46.5% vs 52.3% vs 57.2%, Medicaid: 79.1% vs 84.5% vs 87.7%) and income level (Q1: 74.1% vs 77.1% vs 81.1%, Q2 77.7% vs 80.1% vs 81.3%, Q3 79.8% vs 81.6% vs 85.2%, Q4: 82.8% vs 84.9% vs 87.0%) (all p<0.001). In multivariate Cox regression analysis adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, Charlson-Deyo score, B symptoms, treatment facility type, insurance type, and income level, diagnosis in the BV era (HR = 0.856; 95% CI, 0.827–0.885; p<0.001) and ICI era (HR = 0.666; 95% CI, 0.636–0.698; p<0.001) was independently associated with improved OS compared to the Chemo era. Conclusions: In this large NCDB-based analysis, survival outcomes for patients with cHL significantly improved in the BV and ICI eras compared to the Chemo era. OS improvement was consistent across all subgroups and remained independent of age, sex, race, ethnicity, Charlson-Deyo score, B symptoms, treatment facility type, insurance type, and income level in multivariate analysis. These findings may reflect the positive impact of BV and ICIs on survival in patients with cHL.

207 Background: CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for large B-cell lymphoma offer deep responses, but have unique toxicities requiring close monitoring. Different practice settings have varied strategies for managing these toxicities, leading to increased costs, healthcare resource use, & reduced quality of life. With no direct comparison, rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing strategies & access barriers. Methods: A survey of US-based Hematologists was conducted on practice demographics, therapy availability, preferences, & barriers in LBCL. Responses were analyzed across clinical scenarios. Results: Responses were received from 45 physicians. Availability of CAR-T & BsAb varied with 75% prescribing both, & only BsAb being available at 9% of providers’ centers. There was a strong preference for CAR-T over BsAb—higher among academic vs. nonacademic providers (96% vs. 78%; p = 0.03) & at CAR-T vs. non-CAR-T centers (100% vs. 72%; p = 0.001). Even at BsAb-only centers, preference leaned toward CAR-T, though notably lower compared to CAR-T centers. Among centers without either, 86% preferred CAR-T. Practice volume had no impact. Reasons for favoring CAR-T included perceived better outcomes (55%), shorter treatment (26%), center choice (19%), more experience (48%), & curative potential (21%). BsAb selection was driven by CAR-T unavailability & logistical barriers (distance to specialized center, insurance delays, referral complexity, manufacturing time, & hospitalization needs). Axi-cel was preferred by 69% ( p = 0.0001) vs. other CAR-T for third-line or later due to experience with use, response rates, center choice, & logistical ease. Liso-cel (26%) & Tisa-cel (2%) were chosen for perceived favorable toxicity over Axi-cel. Axi-cel was also preferred second-line vs. Liso-cel (73% vs. 24%; p < 0.0001) for similar reasons. Among BsAb, Epcoritamab was favored by 56% for administration ease (subcutaneous), experience, & center preference; Glofitamab by 42% for shorter duration, experience, & center preference. There was no difference by academic vs nonacademic practice & volume for both CAR-T & BsAb. In patients with prior non-CAR-T anti-CD19 therapy, providers chose CD19 CAR-T over CD20 BsAb (80% vs. 18%; p < 0.0001). For relapse after second-line CAR-T, 78% providers preferred BsAb as the next line over other options ( p < 0.0001) due to more favorable response rates, toxicity profile, & experience with use. Providers prioritized response rates, survival, & toxicity profile in their treatment decisions. Logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less important. There were no differences based on practice setting & CAR-T experience. Conclusions: Despite higher preference for CAR-T due to perceived superior outcomes, access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expand availability are crucial to improve outcomes.