Citations

Abstract Background: Therapeutic advancements have led to significant improvement in outcomes for MM patients. Revised diagnostic criteria from International Myeloma Working Group focus on initiating treatment before the onset of end-organ damage. Thus, timeliness of initial therapy can significantly improve patient morbidity and outcomes. Such an analysis has not been reported for MM. Methods: We analyzed patients diagnosed with MM between 2004-2015 from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients who received systemic treatment any time within the first year of diagnosis were included; those treated later than one year were considered possibly initially diagnosed with smoldering myeloma and hence, excluded. Time to initial treatment was divided into centiles with the 4 centiles analyzed being 0-7 days, 8-18 days, 19-37 days and >37 days. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to compare sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing patient distribution across these timeliness categories and trends over time. Results: A total of 53,665 patients were included with 15,282 in 0-7 days, 12,462 in 8-18 days, 12,723 in 19-37 days and 13,198 in the >37 days treatment categories. Distribution across these centiles over time is shown in Figure. Univariate analyses showed a significant difference in distribution across the timeliness categories by year of diagnosis, patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, insurance type, comorbidity score, treatment facility type, geographical location and distance to treating facility (all p<0.001) but no effect of income level. Multivariate analysis showed that there was a significantly higher likelihood of being in 4th centile (>37 days to treatment) for women (p<0.001), African Americans (p<0.001) or Hispanics (p=0.03; reference: Whites) or diagnosed in more recent years (p<0.001). Patients were less likely to be in the 4th centile if they were ≥80 years (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.98, p=0.02), had >0 Charlson comorbidity score (p<0.001), were uninsured (p=0.02) or had Medicaid (p=0.03) as compared to having private insurance, were in non-community treatment facilities or geographical location other than Northeast (p<0.001). Patient education, income level or distance from treating facility was no longer significant. Conclusions: Several factors were found to affect timeliness of treatment in MM. We noted relatively faster time to initial treatment in elderly, uninsured or those who were treated in academic/comprehensive cancer programs but a delay in treatment for women and racial/ethnic minorities among other factors. These factors need to be addressed for equitable access and treatment practices and to realize improved outcomes for all. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Glanzmann's thrombasthenia (GT) is an inherited platelet disorder (IPD) that leads to clinically significant bleeding. Platelets from patients with GT can show qualitative or quantitative defects of platelet membrane glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa complex. Most GT are caused by autosomal recessive genetic defects in ITGA2B and ITGB3 (genes for GPIIb and GPIIIa, respectively) with rare cases showing an autosomal dominant pattern. Accurate diagnosis of GT requires a constellation of both phenotypic and genetic studies. Here we report a unique case of autosomal dominant GT resulted from thorough phenotypic and genetic studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 19 year-old woman was recently evaluated for life-long history of easy bruising and severe menorrhagia that was only partially responsive to medroxyprogesterone. She has severe thrombocytopenia first recognized shortly after birth with a platelet count around 20x109/L. Platelet size was normal. She was presumed to have immune-mediated thrombocytopenia (ITP) since early infancy, but lacking responsiveness to the conventional treatments of ITP including immunomodulation, splenectomy and thrombopoietin receptor agonists. Family history was negative for a bleeding diathesis. Both von Willebrand factor antigen and activity were within normal range. Bone marrow aspirate and biopsy with associated chromosome studies were all normal. Platelet surface glycoprotein assessment by flow cytometry using antibodies to GP IIb, IIIa, Ia, Ib-a, VI, IX, and whole exome sequencing (WES) utilizing a predefined list of 53 clinically significant genes* related to genetically IPDs were performed. Due to thrombocytopenia platelet aggregation studies could not be performed. METHODS/RESULTS: Platelet surface expression of GPIIb (CD41) and GPIIIa (CD61) were markedly decreased suggestive of a variant of GT (Figure). WES performed with Illumina HiSeq 2500 sequencing system by using Agilent SureSelelct CRE kit V1 to capture and target the exonic regions showed presence of a heterozygous mutation in ITGB3 gene (c2213T>G; p.Leu738Arg). By in silico prediction modeling, this mutation is likely to be pathogenic and results in the substitution of hydrophobic leucine with hydrophilic arginine in the transmembrane domain of the β3 subunit of alpha IIb/beta 3 integrin (αIIbβ3), the platelet receptor that binds to fibrinogen. Interestingly, GPVI is also decreased which may be associated with GPIIb and GPIIIa deficiency or due to accelerated shedding since no GPVI mutation was identified. CONCLUSION: We describe a patient with GT associated with a novel heterozygous autosomal dominant mutation in ITGB3 gene with substitution of leucine with arginine (c2213T>G; p.Leu738Arg). This deletion caused a low expression of αIIbβ3 integrin on her platelets surface and severe thrombocytopenia. This case underscores the importance of an integrated phenotyping and genotyping approach to render a definitive diagnosis of an IPD. *Platelet exome gene list: ABCG5, ABCG8, ACBD5, ACTN1, ANKRD26, ANO6, AP3B1, BLOC1S3, BLOC1S6, CYCS, DTNBP1, ETV6, FLI1, FLNA, GATA1, GFI1B, GP1BA, GP1BB, GP6, GP9, HOXA11, HPS1, HPS3, HPS4, HPS5, HPS6, ITGA2B, ITGB3, LYST, MASTL, MPL, MYH9, NBEAL2, ORAI1, PSRX1, P2RY12, PLA2G4A, PRKACG, RASGRP2, RBM8A, RUNX1, STIM1, STX11, STXBP2, TBXA2R, TBXAS1, THPO, TUBB1, UNC13D, VIPAS39, VPS33B, VPS45, WAS Figure Figure. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract ABSTRACT Background: In 2014, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) established a practice improvement module (PIM) incorporating quality metrics for management of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Such PIMs have allowed physicians to monitor the quality of care in their practice. We implemented a DLBCL quality improvement initiative (QII) at our institution in January, 2015. In an appraisal of this initiative, we reviewed the ASH PIM metrics and included several others to assess adherence to guidelines for treatment of DLBCL and to examine the need for institutional improvement. Methods: Patients who were newly diagnosed with DLBCL and received treatment at our institution from January 2006 through December 2017 were identified. Electronic medical records were reviewed for documentation of ASH PIM quality measures (e.g., key pathologic features of DLBCL, lymphoma staging, screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in patients receiving rituximab-based chemotherapy, etc). We also reviewed the proportion of patients who had assessment of prognosis by revised International Prognostic Index (r-IPI) score, testing for hepatitis C (HCV), HIV viral infections, chemotherapy education, and the addition of rituximab in the treatment regimen of CD20+ DLBCL. Results: Following implementation of the QII, our institution saw improvement in most quality metrics. Particularly significant were improvements in reporting of key molecular features (45.45% to 91.6%, P < 0.0001), screening for HBV (41.82% to 91.67%, P < 0.001) and HIV infections (33.94% to 87.5%, P < 0.0001). All patients post-QII had a PET-CT scan for staging of DLBCL and there was a significantly lower use of bone marrow biopsy (61.2% to 33.33%, P = 0.011). Conclusion: Implementation of a quality initiative and employing standardized metrics can aid in improving institutional quality of care for patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, and allows opportunity to build and ensure better adherence to evolving national and professional patient care guidelines. Figure. Figure. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: DLBCL is the most common adult NHL and despite significant advancements, outcomes in ethnic minorities remain suboptimal. Factors responsible for these disparities in ethnic minorities, especially variability in clinical and pathological features with evaluation of patient-level data have not been studied. Methods: A multi-institutional database of DLBCL patients seen at Mayo Clinic in Florida, University of Miami and University of Southern California between 1996-2016 was developed. Patient demographics, clinical disease characteristics and details of DLBCL immunophenotype [CD10, MUM1, BCL6 (Han's classification), Ki 67, MYC, BCL2) were reviewed. Comparisons between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic patients were made by Chi-square, Fischer's exact and Signed rank tests, where applicable. Patients with missing data on a certain feature were not included in the statistical analysis of that specific characteristic. Results: A total of 966 DLBCL patients with 69 Hispanics and 752 non-Hispanics were identified. These included 52% males (N=36) and 48% females (N=33) in Hispanics versus 58% males (N=436) and 42% females (N=316) in Non-Hispanics (p=0.35). Median age at diagnosis was significantly lower at 61 years (range 27-89) in Hispanics versus 66 in non-Hispanics (p=0.014). Extranodal disease was seen significantly more commonly in Hispanics (74%) than in non-Hispanics (60%) (p=0.037). There was no significant difference in disease stage at presentation between the two cohorts (p=0.189) although the proportion of patients with stage III and IV disease was higher among Hispanics (80.4%) as compared to non-Hispanics (68.5%). Similarly there was no significant difference in presence of primary CNS DLBCL at diagnosis between the two groups (p=0.74). GCB phenotype per the Hans' classification was seen in 59% (N=29) in both, Hispanics and Non-Hispanics (N=241) (p=0.99). Similarly, the median ki67 index of 80% was seen in both cohorts (p=0.48). MYC was positive in 59% in Hispanics versus only 37.5% in non-Hispanics (p=0.024). BCL2 expression by itself and also combined BCL2 and MYC double expression were not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.58 and p=0.11, respectively). Median overall survival (OS) was 22.5 months in Hispanics compared 54.9 months in Non-Hispanics (p<0.0001) (Figure 1). Conclusion: Survival outcome disparities in racial and ethnic minorities have been previously reported from population-based analyses. Lack of patient-level clinical data makes these analyses hypothesis generating, but not conclusive. We confirmed some prior findings including younger age at diagnosis for Hispanics with DLBCL. We also reported greater incidence of extranodal as well as stage III or IV disease at the time of presentation among Hispanics which may contribute to poor outcomes in this population. From DLBCL pathology standpoint, we found increased expression of MYC among Hispanics but no other significant immunohistochemical differences including double expression or non-GCB phenotype. The inferior OS despite uniform treatment practices at large Cancer Centers suggest multifactorial influences on patient outcomes which may at least in part include some of the differences we report here. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Racial disparities in outcomes of cancer patients have been reported. Access to comprehensive cancer centers is associated with improved overall survival (OS) but racial/ethnic minorities may have a disparate access to such care. While the impact of treatment facility volume on outcomes has been evaluated, outcomes of centers with minority-predominant patient population have not been studied. We compared demographic profiles, facility level data and OS of patients treated at minority-predominant facilities to facilities that treated predominantly non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) with non-DLBCL. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify all non-DLBCL patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. "Minority-treating facilities" were defined as facilities in the top decile by proportion for initial treatment of non-Hispanic African-Americans (NHAA), Hispanics and other races. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to compare sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing outcomes between minority treating and non-minority treating facilities. A subgroup analysis stratified by race/ethnicity was also conducted to study the effect of treating facilities on the outcome of NHWs and minorities separately. Results: Of 1339 total facilities, 123 (9.1%) qualified as minority treating. Of 207,239 eligible patients in NCDB, 18,719 (9.03%) received treatment at the minority-treating facilities and of these, 11,190 (~60%) belonged to the minority races. Overall, 4.5% (6,988/156,664) NHWs and 30% (11,190/37,639) minorities received treatment at the minority-treating facilities. Several demographic and facility level characteristics were significantly different among the patients treated at minority-treating facilities as compared to non-minority treating facilities. Overall, significantly higher number of patients in minority-treating hospitals had lower income and education, had Medicaid coverage or lack of insurance. The OS of patients in minority treating facilities was significantly worse as compared to non-minority facilities (Figures). On multivariate analysis, patients who received treatment at minority-treating facilities were at 10% (HR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.14 p<0.001) higher risk of mortality as compared to those treated at the non-minority treating facilities. On multivariate analysis, NHAA (30% increased risk) and 'other races' (9% increased risk) were at significantly higher risk of mortality as compared to the NHW (Table 2). To study the effect of treatment at minority-treating facilities on OS among the patients of same race/ethnicity group, a multivariate analysis was also run separately for NHW and racial minorities. The NHWs who received treatment at minority-treating facilities were at 13% higher risk of death (HR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.08-1.19 p<0.001) as compared to NHWs who were treated at non-minority treating facilities. Similarly, the racial minorities who received treatment at minority treating facilities were at 8% higher risk of death (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.03-1.19 p=0.003) as compared to those who received treatment at the nonminority treating facilities. Conclusions:Outcomes of patients who received treatment at minority treating facilities was significantly worse than those at non-minority treating facilities. This was true for NHWs and racial minorities separately as well. Several demographic and facility level characteristics were significantly different in the two groups however OS remained worse after adjusting for them. Causes of poor outcomes at minority-treating facilities must be analyzed to mitigate them and improve outcomes for all. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The treatment of NHL has witnessed a paradigm shift over time, with targeted immunotherapy, stem cell transplant (SCT) among others. Historically, XRT was used quite frequently for the management of NHL but with advent of better systemic therapy, its utilization has changed. Trends and patterns of care for XRT use have never been formally reported. Methods: We identified patients with NHL diagnosis in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between years 2004 and 2015. Demographic, clinical, facility level, initial treatment and outcome data were collected. The utilization of XRT in diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) and non-DLBCL NHL were analyzed separately by univariate and multivariate analyses. To analyze the trends in the rates of XRT, we applied segmented linear regression to calculate the average annual percent change (AAPC) and 95% confidence Interval (CI) with a 'p' value. AAPC and CIs were calculated using the segmented package in R studio v1.1.49. Rest of the analyses was conducted using StataCorp version 15.1. Results: A total of 133,182 DLBCL and 204,933 non-DLBCL patients were identified. Among patients with DLBCL, 27,895 (20.9%) patients received RT. The rate of XRT declined from 25% in 2004 to 18.4% in 2015 with estimated AAPC of -0.59% (95%CI: -0.70- -0.49), p= 0.03 (Figure 1). In a subgroup analysis, a similar decline in the rate of XRT was evident across all the age groups, combined stages I and II vs stages III and IV and nodal vs extra nodal DLBCL (Table 1). Among non DLBCL, 33,369 (16.3%) patients received XRT. There was a statistically significant decline in the rate of XRT from 18.03% in 2004 to 16.3% in 2014 with an AAPC of -0.26 (95%CI: -0.38- -0.14) p <0.001 (Figure 1). On the subgroup analysis, the utilization of XRT declined across all the studied subgroups except among patients aged 80 years and above (Table 1). On multivariate analysis, several demographic, clinical and facility level factors were found to be significantly associated with XRT utilization in NHL (Table 2). In particular, older age groups, racial/ethnic minorities, advanced stages, higher Charlson comorbidity scores and diagnosis in the more recent calendar years were associated with lesser chances of receiving RT. Extranodal DLBCL had lower utilization while extranodal non-DLBCL had increased XRT utilization. Conclusion: There has been a significant decline in the utilization of XRT among patients with NHL (DLBCL and non-DLBCL) in the US since 2004, likely due to introduction of practice changing systemic therapeutics. There is still significant heterogeneity noted in practice patterns regarding utilization of XRT across the US. Having more standardized guidelines will help streamline delivery of evidence-based patient care. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation can heavily impact the quality of life (QOL) of an individual. However, this procedure may be the only hope for a cure or a longer life for some individuals. When these patients develop severe neutropenia during transplantation, protective isolation is recommended to reduce the risk of infection. During protective isolation, patients may be confined to their hospital room which can decrease their physical activity. For autologous hematopoietic stem cell receipts (AHSCR), severe neutropenia may last several days to weeks. During this time, patients often experience social isolation, emotional encumbrances and also physical deconditioning.Data is inconsistent whether protective isolation does reduce the incidence of infections. In this study, we sought to investigate the impact of physical activity during hospitalization on Quality of Life in AHSCR with severe neutropenia using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) questionnaire. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of 15 patients admitted to Mayo Clinic Florida during November 2017 to May 2018 for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, wherein we monitored the activity of each patient during hospitalization by recording the number of steps taken each day by using an activity tracker worn by the patient. Informed consent was obtained on admission before enrolling patients. Patients completed a Quality of Life (QOL) questionnaire (FACT-BMT version 4) on admission and prior to discharge from the hospital. RESULTS: Of the 15 patients that were enrolled, 5 walked ≤ 100 steps/day (group A, median, 71) and 10 walked > 100 steps/day (group B, median, 406). While there was no difference in the median time to engraftment and length of hospital stay, the mean QOL score decreased from 89.2 on admission to 81.4 on discharge in less active neutropenia patients compared to the ones who were more active. (Table 1; Figure 1) CONCLUSION: Lack of physical activity decreases QOL in AHSCR. During hospitalization, AHSCR should be encouraged to increase their activity to improve QOL. Having an activity tracker may make it easier for patients to monitor their activity, and thus lead to a better QOL. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Sher: Affimed: Research Funding. Ailawadhi:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: CLL is the most common leukemia diagnosis in adults and its treatment has undergone significant change from chemotherapy, to immunotherapy and now targeted kinase inhibitors, leading to improved overall survival (OS). With improving survivorship, SPMs can occur but an in-depth analysis of risks and trends of SPMs in CLL survivors is lacking. We performed a population-based analysis to evaluate this. Methods: Patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database diagnosed with CLL between 1973-2015 were included. Due to variation in management techniques over time, the cohort was divided in four time periods: 1973-1982, 1983-1992, 1993-2002 and 2003-2015. We evaluated differences in risk for SPMs among CLL survivors compared to risk of individual malignancies expected in the general population during these time periods and studied the effect of demographics and time since CLL diagnosis. Results: Over a nearly 270,000 person-year follow up, 6,467 new SPMs were diagnosed with a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 1.2 (95% CI 1.17-1.23), which resulted in a 39 excess cancers per 10,000 population. The CLL survivors had a 20% overall increased risk of developing SPMs (excluding non-squamous skin cancer) compared to the general population. The risks for both solid (SIR 1.15 CI 95% 1.12-1.18) and hematological malignancies (SIR 1.61 95% CI 1.5-1.73) was higher than the expected in the general population. However, the risk for individual cancers was heterogeneous. The tumors associated with the highest risk were Hodgkin lymphoma (almost 8 times higher), Kaposi Sarcoma (4 times), non-epithelial skin cancers (4 times), salivary gland cancer (3 times) and acute lymphocytic leukemia (3 times). In contrast, tumors in the hepatobiliary system, female breast and female genital system were associated with a lower risk than the general population. The highest SIR across the study periods was observed in the younger population (ages 15-49). Although the risk increased in all ethnicities, it was statistically significant only in Caucasians. There was no gender-wise difference in SIR during any of the four time periods. A statistically significant increase in SIR was observed for both men and women from 1973-1982 to 2003-2015. This was mostly due to an increase in risk of hematological malignancies from 1.08 early in the study to 2.56 in the most recent study period. The SIR in solid tumors did not change significantly over time; in absolute terms, however, lung carcinoma contributed the most to the excess risk, followed by non-epithelial skin cancers and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The risk of developing a SPM was higher for the CLL survivors during most of the latency periods, but it was statistically significant during the 2-5 months and 12-59 months after diagnosis. A multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of period of diagnosis on the development of SPMs among these patients. After adjusting for gender, ethnicity, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and age at diagnosis of CLL, patients diagnosed with CLL in the most recent time period were at 45% higher risk of developing SPMs as compared to the patient diagnosed during 1973-1982 (Hazard ratio(HR) =1.45 95%CI:1.34-1.6, p<0.001). Moreover increased HRs were also observed for 1983-1992 and 1993-2002 time periods (Fig. 1) Conclusions: With improving therapeutics for cancer treatment, survivorship is improving as well and the risk of SPMs needs to be better understood and addressed. This is truer for CLL, where majority of patients have a favorable survival. The risk of SPMs was 20% higher in CLL survivors than in the general population and was most prominent in the survivors aged 15-49 years at the time of CLL diagnosis. The risk of individual malignancies may be heterogenous but there has been an increase in risk of SPMs over time, mainly due to an increase of secondary hematological malignancies in recent years. Active survivorship plans and long-term surveillance for SPMs is crucial for improved outcomes of patients with a history of CLL. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with high-risk features carries a poor prognosis despite treatment with immunochemotherapy regimen incorporating rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP). Hence, dose adjusted rituximab, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin (DA.R-EPOCH), a higher intensity regimen, is suggested as an upfront treatment of high-risk DLBCL. In our study, we analyzed the outcomes in a prospectively followed cohort of patients with de novo high-risk DLBCL who received DA.R-EPOCH, and compared them to the patients who received R-CHOP. Furthermore, we conducted a cost analysis to determine which of the two treatments produces a larger financial burden. Method Patients diagnosed with DLBCL who received chemo-immunotherapy at our center between January 2011 to December 2016 were included in the analysis. High-risk DLBCL was defined by the presence of any of the following features at diagnosis: NCCN- IPI score ≥4, tumor measuring ≥5 cm, MYC ± BCL2 or BCL6 rearrangement by FISH or MYC overexpression (>40% by immunohistochemistry [IHC]), Ki-67 index ≥80% and non-GCB immunophenotype by Hans algorithm. Responses were evaluated at middle and end of chemotherapy. Overall (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were calculated. For the cost analysis, standardized costs were obtained from Mayo Clinic Florida cost data warehouse based upon patient encounters and treatments. Report cost-to-charge ratios were multiplied by the charges for all hospital billed services, and all resulting costs were adjusted to 2016 dollars with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Implicit Price Deflator. Patients who did not receive their complete planned treatment at our facility were excluded from the cost analysis. Results Of 80 patients with high-risk DLBCL, 52 (65%) patients were treated with R-CHOP and 28 (35%) with DA.R-EPOCH. The median follow-up was 11.2 months (range: 0.7- 151.3 months). The planned treatment completion rate and complete remission rate at the end of treatment were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in OS and PFS among the patients treated with DA.R-EPOCH compared to R-CHOP. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.79 (95% CI- 0.28-2.29, P=0.67) and OS was 0.86 (95% CI- 0.26-2.78, P=0.80) (Figure 1). In Cox-regression analysis, low baseline albumin, ECOG performance status ≥2, above-normal LDH, high NCCN- IPI and low cumulative chemotherapy doses were associated with poor OS and PFS. Overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia, neuropathy, and unplanned hospitalizations were similar between the two treatment groups. Patients treated with DA.R-EPOCH required more red cell transfusions during the treatment (P=0.004). The total mean cost associated with DA.R-EPOCH and R-CHOP regimens was $106,940 ± $39,351 and $58,509 ± 24,588, respectively (P<0.001). The cost associated with hospital services, laboratory testing and evaluation and management were higher in DA.R-EPCOH group compared to R-CHOP group (P<0.001) (Table 2). Conclusion Our study showed that there was no significant difference in PFS and OS of patients with DLBCL with high-risk features when treated with R-CHOP compared to DA.R-EPOCH. DA.R-EPOCH was associated with higher red cell transfusion requirement and treatment related expenses. A prospective randomized comparison is warranted between these two regimens specifically for patients with high-risk DLBCL. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Clinical trials are fundamental to advance therapeutics systematically and improve patient outcomes. Despite this, enrollment on clinical trials remains dismal in the United States (US) and is a constant focus of healthcare policy. We studied distribution of clinical trials for B-cell malignancies over time across the US and unique clinical trial opportunities i.e. individual clinical trials for the given diagnosis at a site that patients may have access to participate. Methods: We abstracted data from clinicaltrials.gov for all trials that had non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or multiple myeloma (MM) as an inclusion indication between 1999-2018. Clinical trial characteristics and distribution over US geographical divisions (West, Midwest, Northeast, and South) were studied, and differences were assessed by Chi-square test. Results: A total of 1930 trials were identified (NHL: 982, MM: 948), of which 483 were recruiting at the time of data abstraction (NHL: 250, MM: 233). Over the past 2 decades, 182691 patients were enrolled on the various trials (NHL: 81592, MM: 101099). Trials by phase of study included phase 1: 629, phase 1/2: 316, phase 2: 813, phase 2/3: 11 and phase 3: 161. Number of trials by phase separated by NHL and MM are shown in Figure 1. Of these, 197 trials were randomized (NHL: 67, MM: 130). Geographical distribution of trials by diagnosis type is shown in Figure 2. A total of 31806 unique trial opportunities were noted for MM and NHL, of which 9,513 were international and 22,293 were in the US, with a geographical distribution of 5080 in West, 8198 in Midwest, 3944 in Northeast, and 5071 in South. 4,883 of the unique trial opportunities were available at NCI/NCCN accredited sites and 17,410 were at non-NCI/NCCN sites in the US. Treatment characteristics of the trials included monoclonal antibodies in 1218, other targeted agents in 2641, stem cell transplant in 526, and other agents in 517 trials with several trials utilizing more than one of these therapeutic options. There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of clinical trials by phase of study across various US geographical regions for MM (p=0.71), NHL (p=0.98) or combined MM+NHL (p=0.16). On the other hand, unique trial opportunities were significantly different by study phase and geographical distribution for MM, NHL or MM+NHL (all p<0.001) (Figure 3). Conclusions: Widespread access to clinical trials within a cancer diagnosis is imperative for generalizability of trial results. In a comprehensive, national analysis we noted that while it may appear that clinical trials are available across the US, sites where they are open are distributed unevenly, giving rise to a disparity in access to evidence-based therapeutic advancements for patients. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Sher:Affimed: Research Funding.