Citations

Abstract Introduction. About 60% of patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) relapse after standard of care (SOC) anti-CD19 autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, CD19 downregulation representing a major mechanism of resistance. Therefore, agents able to target B-cell antigens other than CD19 could be clinically effective for these patients. Polatuzumab vedotin (PV) is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD79b, and approved by the FDA in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) LBCL. Patients who relapsed after CAR T-cell therapy were not included in the registration study, and reports of PV use after CAR T-cells in real world practice are very limited. Methods. This is a multi-center retrospective analysis of patients with LBCL who relapsed after SOC CAR T-cell therapy and subsequently received SOC PV with or without rituximab and bendamustine between 07/2019 and 04/2021. PV was given at the standard dose of 1.8 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks in all patients (except for one patient, who received 1.4 mg/Kg). Response to treatment and progression were defined according to 2014 Lugano criteria. Survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and were compared between subgroups using the log-rank test. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MVA). Results. Fifty-four patients were included in the study: median age was 59 (range, 22-79 years), 38 (70%) were male, and 30 (56%) had an internal prognostic index score > 3. Median number of systemic therapies before CAR T-cell therapy was 2 (range, 2-6), 16 (30%) patients previously had autologous stem cell transplant (SCT), and 2 (4%) had allogeneic SCT. Sixteen (30%) patients were primary refractory to CAR T-cell therapy, and median time from CAR T-cell therapy to PV was 5 months (range, 1-40 months). CD19 status at time of relapse after CAR T-cell therapy was assessed by immunohistochemistry and/or flow cytometry in 41 patients, and positive in 34 (83%); CD79b status was assessed in 14 patients, and positive in all cases (100%). Thirty-two (59%) patients received PV-based therapy immediately after CAR T cell therapy, while 22 (41%) had intervening treatments (median 1, range 1-5). At time of PV initiation, median absolute neutrophil count was 2.9 (range 0.5-19 X10 9/L), median platelet count was 87 X10 9/L (range 15-437 X10 9/L), median serum creatinine was 0.9 mg/dL (range 0.4-22 mg/dL), and 44 (81%) patients had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The median number of PV cycles was 2 (range, 1-16): PV was combined with rituximab in 51 (94%) patients, and administered with bendamustine in 33 (61%). A response was achieved in 24 (45%) patients, including complete remission (CR) in 8 (14%) patients and partial remission in 16 (30%)(Figure A), with a median duration of response of 11 weeks (95%CI, 5-17 weeks). No significant association between baseline characteristics and response was observed. To date, 49 (91%) patients stopped PV: 38 (70%) due to progression, 7 (13%) because of CR/patient decision, 3 (6%) to proceed to allogeneic SCT, and 1 (2%) to proceed to an immunotherapy clinical trial (despite absence of progression). No patients stopped therapy because of toxicity. After a median follow up of 45 weeks (95% CI, 20-70 weeks), 44 (81%) patients progressed/died, and median PFS was 9 weeks (95% CI, 4-14 weeks). To date, 34 (63%) died, and median OS was 16 weeks (95% CI, 13-19 weeks)(Figure B). Causes of death included progression in 31 patients and transplant-related complications in 3. On univariate analysis, a shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) was observed for patients with bone marrow (BM) involvement (3 vs 10 weeks, p=0.002), prior central nervous system involvement (4 vs 10 weeks, p=0.02), and elevated LDH (6 months vs not reached, p=0.004). On MVA, the association was maintained only for BM involvement (hazard ratio [HR] 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-12.5, p=0.004) and elevated LDH (HR 5; 1.4-16.7, p=0.01)(Figure C). Discussion. PV is safe and effective, but has short duration of response in r/r LBCL after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, except for patients with normal LDH. Studies aimed at better characterizing intrinsic mechanism of resistance, including upregulation of BCL2 family proteins, to favor the development of more effective PV-based combination strategies for these patients, are warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crombie: Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Kamdar: Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genetech: Other; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Neelapu: Takeda Pharmaceuticals and related to cell therapy: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Poseida, Cellectis, Celgene, Karus Therapeutics, Unum Therapeutics (Cogent Biosciences), Allogene, Precision BioSciences, Acerta and Adicet Bio: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene Therapeutics, Cell Medica/Kuur, Incyte, Precision Biosciences, Legend Biotech, Adicet Bio, Calibr, Unum Therapeutics and Bluebird Bio: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene, Kuur, Incyte, Precision BioSciences, Legend, Adicet Bio, Calibr, and Unum Therapeutics: Other: personal fees. Lin: Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy. Strati: Astrazeneca-Acerta: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: AHCT is a standard of care treatment for eligible patients (pts) with MM. Most consensus guidelines recommend that at the time of first AHCT, enough APBHC should be collected to perform two AHCT. However, recent studies have shown that with each decade after 1990, the use of cryopreserved APBHC for a salvage AHCT has declined and is now in the range of 4.6-15% in the decade between 2010-2018. The collection and storage of APBHC for two AHCT incurs additional costs and a prior single center cost analysis revealed that having had collected for just one AHCT in a cohort of 726 MM pts would have saved 3.8 million USD between 1993 and 2011. 1 Most centers that perform AHCT for MM pts continue to collect and store PBAHC for 2 AHCT. Herein we evaluate utilization trends and costs associated with cryopreserved APBHC in patients with MM. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the clinicopathologic data from 440 patients with MM who underwent APBHC mobilization and collection at Mayo Clinic Florida between 2010 and 2019. The number of apheresis/collection sessions and APBHC product collection yields were determined for patients who were mobilized by any method. We estimated the costs involved in PBSC collection (apheresis) and cryopreservation storage based on our institution-specific charges as of May 2021. The cost of 1 session of APBHC collection/apheresis was $4,680 and the cost of 1 year of APBHC cryopreservation was $4,790 per patient. Statistical analysis was performed using JMP Pro 15 (SAS). Chi-square and Fischer exact tests were used to carry out univariate analysis for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum/Kruskal Wallis for continuous variables. Results: Patient demographics are shown in Table 1. 440 pts underwent at least one collection session and 347 underwent at least 1 AHCT. The median number of mobilization sessions was 1 (95% CI 1.0-1.03), the median number of collection/apheresis sessions was 2.0 (95% CI 2.39-2.59), 84.3% (n=371) required ≥1 collection session. The median number of CD34 stem cells collected was 7.6 x10 6 (95% CI 7.76-8.19 x10 6), and the median number of infused CD34 cells was 4 x10 6(95% CI 4.13-4.37x10 6). The median cost of total collection sessions (defined as # of apheresis/collection sessions x $4,680) was $9,360 per pt (95% CI $11,181-$12,100). The median cost of cryopreservation (defined as # of years of storage x $4,790) was $19,160 per pt (95% CI $9,682-$22,252). The median number of years of storage was 4 (95% CI 4.11-4.65). 77(17.5%) pts have had APBHC in storage for <2 years, 218 (49.5%) have had APBHC in storage for 2-5 years, and 145 (33%) had have APBHC in storage for >5 years. The median time from MM diagnosis to AHCT was 9.0 months (range 13.8-18.5). 82% of patients collected enough APBHC (≥6x10 6, at least 3x10 6 per AHCT)for 2 AHCT. 8% of patients had all APBHC infused during their first AHCT, 83.5% had half of their APBHC infused during their first AHCT, and 8.1% had a different amount of APBHC infused during their first AHCT thus 91.6% of patients who collected APBHC had cells in storage. The median OS for the entire cohort after AHCT was 94.7 months (95% CI 88.6-100). Out of 347 patients who had stem cells in cryopreservation, 5 (1.4%) underwent a salvage AHCT and 3 (0.9%) underwent a tandem AHCT. 61% percent of patients had ≥1 excess collection sessions for APBHC that ultimately went unused. The median cost of excess collection sessions was $4,680 per pt (range, $4,680-$32,760) and the median total cost for excess collection sessions plus costs for storage was $23,840 per pt (range, $4,680-$85,450). The sum of costs of excess collection sessions was $2,077,920 and the sum of costs of cryopreservation was $5,812,665. Conclusion: The results of this single center analysis show that only 1.4% of patients underwent a salvage AHCT between 2010 and 2019 while 91.6% had APBHC left in storage which confirms the increase in storage of cryopreserved APBHC and declining trend in the use of stored APBHC for salvage AHCT in pts with MM. This is likely due to the advent of next generation novel therapies such as monoclonal antibodies, proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents. Excess collections, and cryopreservation of unused APBHC incur a cost of nearly $8 million. Institutional policies regarding universal APBHC collection and long-term storage should be reevaluated. 1Phipps C, et al. Bone Marrow Transplantation 2015:50;663-667. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: Sanofi: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Novel genetic classifications of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) highlight the molecular complexity beyond cell of origin and provide new therapeutic implications. Next generation trials may incorporate novel agents for different genetic subtypes based on the pathogenesis mechanisms. For example, with the LymphGen classification, the MCD, BN2, ST2, and EZB subtypes are predicted to be susceptive to PI3K/mTOR targeting (Wright 2020). However, PI3K inhibitors have not been tested in the frontline, although data on the mTOR inhibitor everolimus were encouraging (Alliance 1085). We launched a phase 1/1b trial (NCT04323956) to investigate the feasibility of combining a novel PI3K inhibitor parsaclisib with standard R-CHOP immunochemotherapy and to seek an efficacy signal. Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL were eligible if any of the following was present: 1) non-GCB subtype per the Hans algorithm; 2) expression of either Myc (≥40%) or Bcl2 (≥50%) by immunohistochemistry; or 3) MYC rearrangement by FISH. High grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements, regardless of morphology, was also eligible. All patients received parsaclisib plus R-CHOP. Phase 1 followed a 3+3 design and the primary endpoint was maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of parsaclisib. Dose levels tested were level 1 (20 mg QD, d1-10; starting level) and level 2 (20 mg QD, d1-14). MTD was defined as the dose level below the lowest dose that induced dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in at least one-third of patients. The primary endpoint in phase 1b is complete response (CR) rate by PET. Results: From July 2020 to June 2021, 15 patients were enrolled, 9 in phase 1 and 6 in phase 1b. The median age at diagnosis was 56 years (range 20-79), and 7 (47%) were female. One patient (7%) had ECOG PS ≥2, 7 (47%) had elevated LDH, 7 (47%) had >1 extranodal site, 13 (87%) had stage III/IV, and 7 (47%) had high-intermediate or high risk International Prognostic Index. Pathology was DLBCL in 13 patients (2 with concurrent follicular lymphoma) and high grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements in 2 patients. Four (27%) had non-GCB subtype, 7 (47%) had Myc or Bcl2 single expression, 8 (53%) had Myc/Bcl2 double expression, and 5 (33%) had MYC rearrangement (2 with concurrent BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements). In phase 1, 3 patients were enrolled at dose level 1 and 6 patients were enrolled at dose level 2. No DLT was observed. Therefore, MTD was not reached, and dose level 2 was selected for phase 1b dose expansion. Six patients were enrolled in phase 1b to date. At the data cutoff date of 7/22/2021, 8 patients completed all 6 cycles of treatment, 1 competed 5 cycles, 3 completed 3 cycles, 2 completed 2 cycles, and 1 completed 1 cycle. Treatment-related adverse events (AE) are summarized in Table 1. The most common hematological AE included lymphopenia (60%), anemia (53%), neutropenia (53%), and thrombocytopenia (27%), and the most common non-hematological AE included nausea (67%), alopecia (40%), constipation (33%), fatigue (33%), dyspepsia (20%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (20%). The most common grade 3 or 4 AE included lymphopenia (47%), neutropenia (33%), and anemia (13%). One 80-year-old female required parsaclisib dose reduction in cycle 3 and subsequent parsaclisib discontinuation as well as cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin dose reductions due to febrile neutropenia (no source of infection was identified). No other patients required dose reductions. The median follow-up was 3.7 months (range 0.8-10.7). Thirteen patients were evaluable for interim response by PET. The objective response rate was 92%, with 8 (62%) CR and 4 (31%) partial response (PR). One (8%) patient progressed before cycle 2 following a transient clinical response (shrinking palpable mass). Among those who achieved an objective response at interim, 7 patients were evaluable for end of treatment response and all 7 maintained a response, with 6 (86%) CR and 1 (14%) PR. Conclusions: Parsaclisib and R-CHOP combination therapy was generally well tolerated, with no DLT observed in phase 1 and no major safety concerns in both phase 1 and the ongoing phase 1b expansion. The preliminary efficacy signal of objective response appears encouraging in a small cohort of high risk patients. Parsaclisib plus R-CHOP can be an experimental arm for future frontline DLBCL trials investigating genetic subtype-driven novel therapies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. King: Celgene/BMS: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Tun: Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy; Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Parsaclisib is an investigational agent used in this clinical trial.

Abstract Introduction: Intravascular lymphoma (IVL) is an extra nodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tropism for vascular endothelium. It is characterized by growth of large cells within the lumen of small to medium sized blood vessels. Central nervous system (CNS) and skin are predominantly involved. This report represents a retrospective single-institution review of IVL. Methods: We identified patients (pts) with IVL evaluated at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between January 2003 and December 2018. Demographic, clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and therapeutic data were extracted. Statistical analysis of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS)] was performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Total number of pts was 55; 22% (12/55) had CNS-only IVL, 14.5% (8/55) had CNS and non-CNS IVL, and 63.6% (35/55) had non-CNS IVL. Eighty seven percent (47/54) pts were B cell type, 11% (6/54) were T cell type, one pt had NK cell type IVL and another was unknown. Four pts were diagnosed by autopsy. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (range, 40-85). Sixty-four percent were males. ECOG performance status was <2 in 66%. The median follow-up time from diagnosis was 63 months [CI 95%, 9-NR], and 47% (26/55) were alive. The most common diagnostic biopsy sites were bone marrow (BM) 45% (25/55), skin 25% (14/55), and brain 29% (16/55). Twenty-nine patients had a PET scan. Seventy nine percent (23/29) had abnormal PET findings, with mean SUV of 8.6 (range 2.5-19.1). Of the 35 pts with non-CNS IVL, 76% (16/21) had abnormal PET; furthermore, the diagnosis was made with biopsies of the following sites: bone marrow 54% (19/35), skin 40% (14/35), lung 14% (5/35), liver 5.7% (2/35), spleen 2.8% (1/35), and omentum 2.8% (1/35). Forty-six percent (13/28) received CNS prophylaxis and ten percent (3/55) had relapse in CNS. Two out of the three pts who had CNS relapse had received CNS prophylaxis. The median time to CNS relapse in non-CNS IVL was 9 months. The most common first-line regimen was high-dose methotrexate+ rituximab containing regimen 62% (10/16) in IVL with CNS involvement and RCHOP (60%) (17/28) in non-CNS IVL. Seventeen percent of (8/48) pts received autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and 63% (5/8) pts were transplanted in first complete remission (CR1), and 3 pts after the first relapse. Median OS (mOS) for the whole cohort was 57 months, [CI 95%, 9-NR], and median PFS was 7 months [CI 95%, 2-NR]. There was no significant difference in mOS between groups; CNS-only IVL- 9 months (CI 95%, 1-NR), non-CNS IVL -62 months (CI 95%, 20-NR) vs combined CNS and non-CNS IVL- 4 months (CI 95%, 3-NR). mOS for those who received ASCT in CR1 was not reached (CI 95%, 10-NR) vs 51 months in non-transplant group (CI 95%, 3-NR) p=0.24. In pts with non-CNS IVL, there was no significant difference in mOS between CNS prophylaxis subgroup (NR: CI 95%, 57-NR) vs no-CNS prophylaxis subgroup (20 months: CI 95%, 0-NR), p=0.12. In those with CNS IVL mOS for early diagnosis (0-30 days from symptom onset to diagnosis was NR (CI 95%, 3-NR) vs mOS for late diagnosis (>30 days {31-14,440})-5months (CI 95% 1-NR), p=0.29]. Conclusion: 1. BM was most frequently involved in our patients. We suggest that BM biopsy should be part of diagnostic testing when IVL is suspected. 2. Most cases are of B-cell linage, consistent with reported literature. All non-B cell cases were in non-CNS locations. 3. PET scans were abnormal in more than 70% of cases indicating that this imaging modality is vital in the diagnosis due to odd location and small size of lesions. 4.Overall prognosis in the literature was poor with most patients surviving <1 year. Our cohort has mOS of 57 months. The reason(s) for better survival in our cohort could not be definitively determined. 5. CNS involvement had an overall trend towards poor prognosis; however, those diagnosed early had better outcomes; this did not reach statistical significance due to small sample size. 6. mOS was not reached for those transplanted CR1. There was a trend towards a better survival associated with CNS prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis in non-CNS IVL. 7. We suggest that CNS-centric therapeutic approach and intensive consolidation with ASCT should be considered in managing IVL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Tun: Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding; Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy.

Abstract Background :COVID-19 adversely affects individuals with cancer. Several studies have found that seroconversion rates among patients with hematologic malignancies are suboptimal when compared to patients without cancer. Among patients with hematologic malignancies, seroconversion rates also appear to be influenced by recent treatment and the type of treatment they have received. Patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM) are immunocompromised due to impaired humoral and cellular immunity in addition to prescribed immunosuppressive therapy. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy is now widely used for NHL and MM, but little is known about seroconversion rates after COVID-19 vaccination among these populations. Current national guidelines recommend COVID-19 vaccination to be offered to CAR T recipients as early as three months thereafter. We retrospectively evaluated SARS-CoV-2 spike-binding IgG antibody levels following COVID-19 vaccination among NHL and MM CAR T therapy recipients. Methods:This retrospective study was conducted at three Mayo Clinic sites on NHL and MM patients that received CAR T infusions from Sept 2016 to June 2021. Baseline characteristics were ascertained from medical records. All NHL and MM patients who had received CAR T at any point and were alive at the time that the COVID-19 vaccine first became available were eligible for inclusion for antibody response evaluation. For antibody response to vaccination, antibody spike values > 0.80 U/mL were considered positive. Results: Out of 104 CAR T infusions, 73 patients are alive at the time of this submission. We have had 7 patients with known COVID-19 pre-CAR T and all 7 are currently alive (5 have antibody titers and 2 have not been tested yet). Nineteen patients developed known COVID infection post-CAR T (13 alive and 6 deceased). The mortality of COVID post-CAR T in our sample was 31.5%. Furthermore, of the 13 patients that survived COVID-19, they received CAR T an average of 416 days prior to COVID-19 infection (median = 337, range = 54 - 1406); the 6 patients who died from COVID-19 had received CAR T an average of 250 days prior to COVID-19 infection (median = 164, range = 7 - 846). All 6 deceased patients did not receive COVID-19 vaccination pre-CAR T. Out of 17 CAR T patients tested for antibody spike titers post COVID-19 vaccination, 76.4% were able to mount an antibody response. More patients with MM had a higher titer response to the vaccine (>250 U/mL) compared to the NHL counterparts (0.80-249 U/mL). All patients that received the vaccine, regardless of antibody response, were alive at the time of this submission. Conclusions:The majority of CAR T recipients with NHL and MM are able to mount an antibody response following COVID-19 vaccination in our relatively small sample. The frequency of seroconversion among CAR T recipients seems to be similar to patients with hematologic malignancy who had received a hematopoietic cell transplant reported elsewhere. These findings are limited by our small sample size and may be influenced by the timing of vaccination relative to CAR T. Furthermore, almost half of our patients received IVIG post CAR T which could potentially cause false positive antibody results as pooled immunoglobulin preparations may contain COVID-19 antibodies from vaccinated healthy donors. To better understand the characteristics of the immunologic response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients post-CAR T, larger multicenter studies exploring both humoral and cellular immunity will be needed. JEWN, MI and JM are co-first authors and PV, HM and AR are co-senior authors. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Bergsagel: Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN mouse; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genetech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria. Wang: Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fonseca: Juno: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; OncoTracker: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Patent: Prognosticaton of myeloma via FISH: Patents & Royalties; Caris Life Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Scientific Advisory Board: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Mayo Clinic in Arizona: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Palmer: Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Kapoor: Sanofi: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) based GVHD prophylaxis has shown lower rates of acute and chronic GVHD when compared with the traditional prophylaxis of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) and methotrexate (MTX) in matched donor (related and unrelated) allo-HCT. The combination of PTCy with sirolimus as a calcineurin inhibitor-free GVHD prophylaxis has shown promising results with cumulative rates of grade II-IV acute and chronic GVHD in the range of 15-27% and 20-27% respectively in patients undergoing matched and haploidentical allo-HCT. We report a single center, nonrandomized comparison of patients undergoing matched donor allo-HCT receiving PTCy in combination with sirolimus (PTCy/Siro) with those receiving the standard GVHD prophylaxis of tacrolimus and MTX (Tac/MTX). Methods One hundred and sixteen consecutive patients who had undergone a MRD or MUD allo-HCT between January 2018 to January 2021 and received either PTCy with sirolimus or tacrolimus with methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis regimens were eligible for inclusion. The selection of PTCy with sirolimus or tacrolimus with methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis regimen was based on physician choice. Primary endpoints were cumulative incidence of acute (grade II to IV) and chronic GVHD. Secondary endpoints were a) neutrophil and platelet engraftment; b) overall survival (OS); c) non-relapse mortality (NRM); d) relapse; e) clinical infections and f) time to immunosuppression (IS) withdrawal. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 1-year and 2-year freedom from long term adverse events, including chronic GVHD, relapse, NRM and OS. All tests were two-sided with alpha level set at 0.05 for statistical significance. Results Out of a total of 116 patients undergoing MRD and MUD allo-HCT, 29 received PTCy/Siro and 87 Tac/MTX. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two arms except patients in PTCy/Siro were younger with median of 48 (range: 24-69) years vs. 61 (range: 20-73) years (p=0.004) in Tac/MTX. There was difference in primary indication for allo-HCT between the two arms with non-hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) being the most common in PTCy/Siro and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the Tac/MTX group. Patients receiving PTCy/Siro had a significantly higher median CD3 day 100 chimerism at 100 (90-100) vs. 90 (40-100) % (<0.001) and a significantly shorter median time to IS withdrawal at 138 (37-312) vs 232(66-1120) days for patients receiving Tac/MTX. There was no difference between the two arms for length of hospital stay and time to neutrophil engraftment, but PTCy/Siro had a significantly longer median time for platelet engraftment at 17.5 (12-74) vs.14 (11-38) days (p= 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two arms for incidence of grade II to IV acute GVHD, grade III to IV acute GVHD, steroid refractory acute GVHD or clinical infections (Table 1). After a median follow up of 1.1 (range: 0-1.8) years, patients receiving PTCy/Siro were significantly less likely to have chronic GVHD with 2-year freedom from GVHD of 75% (95%CI: 58-98%) vs 20% (95%CI 10-40%), p=0.005 (Figure 1). There was no difference between the two arms for OS, disease relapse or non-relapse mortality (Table 2). Conclusion In this study, the combination of PTCy/Siro is associated with a significantly lower risk of chronic GVHD when compared against the traditional GVHD prophylaxis of CNI and methotrexate, despite significantly earlier IS withdrawal. Other long-term outcomes of interest remained comparable between the two arms. Chronic GVHD contributes to significant morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing allo-HCT. Newer strategies to limit the impact of chronic GVHD are needed. The results of our study warrant validation in a large, multicenter, randomized prospective trial. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Foran: gamida: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; novartis: Honoraria; trillium: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; abbvie: Research Funding; certara: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; revolution medicine: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; aptose: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Patients (pts) with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) progressing after anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T (CART) cell therapy have poor prognosis and may benefit from new therapy options through clinical trials. However, in a single center report, only 12% of such pts were treated in trials (Chow et al. Am J Hematol, 2019). Identifying the reasons for this low enrollment is needed to design future studies for this population. Here, we evaluated the eligibility criteria for recent landmark trials for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell NHL to learn what eligibility barriers are present. Methods Pts with aggressive B-cell NHL who received FDA-approved CART cell therapy at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Arizona, Florida) since 2018 and progressed after CART cell therapy were identified. The potential eligibility for the following key trials was evaluated: a) polatuzumab + bendamustine + rituximab, b) tafasitamab + lenalidomide, c) selinexor and d) loncastuximab. The eligibility for each trial was retrospectively assessed at the time of disease progression after CART cell therapy based on hemoglobin (Hb), absolute neutrophils count (ANC), platelet count (Plt), renal and liver function tests, ECOG performance status (PS), and central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Results Seventy-five pts had disease progression to axicabtagene ciloleucel (N=73, 97%) or tisagenlecleucel (N=2, 3%) and are included in this analysis. Median time to progression after CART was 2.1 months (IQR: 1.0 - 3.1). Thirteen (17%) pts were treated in clinical trials after progression following CART cell therapy, while 46 (61%) were treated off trials, and 16 (22%) pts never received any treatment after progression. At a median follow-up of 13.6 months (IQR: 9.1 - 26.7) from CART progression, the median overall survival (mOS) from CART progression was 5.8 months (95% CI 3.5 - 10.1) and 53 (71%) pts died. Thirty-eight pts (51%) did not meet eligibility criteria for any of the 4 recent landmark trials. Hematologic impairment was the most common barrier to inclusion of these patients in clinical trials: Hb < 9 g/dL n=23 (31%) or Hb < 10 g/dL n=36 (48%), ANC < 1.0 x 10 9/L n=19 (25%) or ANC < 1.5 x 10 9/L n=32 (43%), and Plt < 75 x 10 9/L n=30 (40%) or Plt < 90 x 10 9/L n=34 (45%). Renal (n=11, 15%) or liver dysfunction (n=5, 7%), CNS involvement (n=8, 11%) and ECOG PS > 2 (n=3, 4%) were less common reasons leading to exclusion from trials. Post CART trial ineligible pts had significantly shorter time to progression (median 1.7 months, IQR: 1.0 - 2.6 vs. 3.0 months IQR: 1.9 - 3.4, p < 0.01) and inferior overall response to CART (45% vs 67%, p = 0.06) compared to pts who met trial eligibility post CART. Baseline Hb (median Hb 9.5 g/dL, IQR: 8.5 - 10.5 vs. 10.9 g/dL, IQR: 9.7 - 12.2, p < 0.01) and Plt (median Plt 106 x 10 9/L IQR: 54 - 165 vs. 201 x 10 9/L IQR: 141 - 243, p < 0.01) were also significantly lower in pts ineligible for trials post CART. There were no significant differences between pts eligible or ineligible for trials with regards to age (median 59 vs. 60 years), number of prior therapies (median 3 vs. 3), prior autologous stem cell transplant (41% vs. 37%), bridging therapy (65% vs. 63%), baseline ANC (median 4,1 vs. 3,0 x10 9/L), or high-grade (grade ≥ 2) cytokine release syndrome (19% vs. 21%) or neurotoxicity (32%, vs. 42%), respectively. Survival after CART progression was significantly shorter (mOS 2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.6 - 5.1) for the 38 pts ineligible for trials compared to pts eligible for trials (mOS 10.6 months, 95% CI: 8.9 - NA), (p < 0.01). In the 59 pts who received therapy post CART progression, the mOS of pts treated on (n = 13) or off (n = 46) trials was 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.2 - NA) vs. 6.6 months (4.9 - 10.7), respectively (p = 0.047). Conclusion Approximately half of the pts (51%) with aggressive B-cell NHL progressing after CART cell therapy would have be excluded from landmark clinical trials. The current hematologic exclusion criteria are a major barrier to enrollment in clinical trials, which would exclude many pts who have disease progression within 3 months of CART cell therapy (ie, primary refractory disease), in whom cytopenia as a toxicity from therapy is prevalent. Given the known delayed hematologic recovery after CART cell therapy and the unmet need of pts progressing to CART cell therapy, the hematologic exclusion criteria should be adjusted to increase trial participation of this population, especially of those with primary refractory disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin: Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

AbstractCD19‐directed chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell therapy (CAR‐T) represents a significant advancement for patients with relapsed/refractory large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL). Long‐term follow‐up confirms durable remissions in nearly half of the patients, a population that was previously estimated to have a median survival of around 6 months with standard salvage therapy. This initial success of CAR‐T has led to significant expansion across other lymphoma histologies resulting in the recent regulatory approval of CAR‐T in mantle cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma. Additionally, multiple novel platforms of CAR‐T therapy are under development to improve efficacy and limit toxicity such dual antigen targeting, allogeneic and natural killer CARs. In this review, we focus on the new indications of CAR‐T in lymphomas beyond LBCL as well as emerging platforms of CAR‐T therapy.

Abstract Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare B‐cell lymphoproliferative malignancy. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto‐HCT) is considered in a subset of WM patients with relapsed disease. While registry data has shown a benefit for auto‐HCT in relapsed WM, there is a paucity of data on outcomes of patients relapsing after auto‐HCT. Eligibility criteria included adult patients with relapsed/refractory WM who underwent auto‐HCT between 2007 and 2017. The primary endpoint was post‐relapse overall survival (PR‐OS). Secondary endpoints were to identify factors prognostic of PR‐OS. Of the 48 patients with WM who underwent auto‐HCT, 22 (46%) experienced relapse following auto‐HCT. Median PR‐OS of relapsed WM patients after auto‐HCT ( n = 22) was not reached (NR) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.5 months‐NR). Among patients who relapsed <1 year versus ≥1 year from auto‐HCT, the median PR‐OS was 18.4 months (95%CI: 0.8‐NR) months and NR (95%CI: 17.5‐NR), respectively ( p = 0.06). Of note, disease status at the time of transplant, CR/VGPR versus partial remission did not appear to impact PR‐OS. The median PR‐OS was significantly longer in patients who received ibrutinib in the post‐transplant setting compared to those who did not (NR vs. 18.4 months, 95%CI: 9.1‐NR, p = 0.02). On univariable analysis, the presence of complex karyotype (RR = 4.87, 95% CI = 1.22–19.53) and a higher number of prior lines of therapy (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.23–2.67) were associated with a significantly higher risk of relapse. This is the only study to date that evaluated outcomes of WM patients who relapsed following auto‐HCT and provides a benchmark for future trials evaluating survival following auto‐HCT relapse.

e19552 Background: Leukemic involvement (LI) in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (L-DLBCL) is very rare and has been sparsely reported. We report our experience with this entity in a large academic multi-center setting. Methods: Medical records of patients with DLBCL who received care at Mayo Clinic between 1/2003 and 6/2020 were reviewed. DLBCL patients with LI were identified. LI was defined as increased white blood cell counts and the presence of clonal B cells on peripheral blood flow-cytometry. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. Results: Twenty patients with L-DLBCL were identified with a median follow-up of 32.5 months (CI95%, 32.5-NR). Median age at initial diagnosis was 62 (45-80) years. 60% (12/20) were male; 90% (18/20) were Caucasian. Pathologically, 90% (18/20) had DLBCL and 10% (2/20) had high-grade B cell lymphoma (HGBCL) with intermediate features between DLBCL and Burkitt lymphoma. By Hans criteria, 58% (11/19) had germinal center B-cell DLBCL (GCB-DLBCL) and 42% (8/19) had non-germinal center B-cell DLBCL (non-GCB-DLBCL). 40% (8/20) had transformed DLBCL (t-DLBCL); 36% (5/14) had double-hit lymphoma (DHL) by FISH analysis. LI was present in 55% (11/20) at initial diagnosis and 45% (9/20) at relapse. Median WBC was 39.5/ul (range, 4.3-121) with median absolute lymphocyte count of 25 k/ul (range, 0.7-117). Immunophenotypically, the leukemic lymphoma cells expressed CD19, CD20, and CD79a. Bone marrow involvement and pancytopenia were documented in all patients with a median bone marrow cellularity of 80%. Other extranodal sites of involvement with LI included spleen (65%;13/20), liver (20%;4/20), breast and soft tissue (20%;4/20), bladder or kidneys (10%;2/20), skeleton (10%;2/20), and myocardium (5%;1/20). 65% (13/20) had B-symptoms. All patients had LDH elevation (UNL 222 U/L) with a median of 2125 U/L (range, 308-10,760). 45% (5/11) of patients with LI at initial diagnosis had CNS involvement on relapse/progression. All patients with LI at initial diagnosis received anthracycline-based chemoimmunotherapy with or without CNS prophylaxis. Patients with LI at relapse had had a median of 2 prior treatments (range, 1-5) before LI. Median overall survival (OS) for the whole group was 9 months (CI 95%; 5.8-11.8). There were no long-term survivors. Median progression free survival after LI was 4.7 months (CI95%; 0.8-7.6) in the newly diagnosed group and 3 months (CI95%; 0.9-20) in the relapsed group. 90% (18/20) died due to their progressive disease. Cell of origin, DHL status, or newly diagnosed vs. relapsed status did not have a significant impact on OS in patients with L-DLBCL. Conclusions: Leukemic involvement at any time during the course of DLBCL is associated with poor prognosis. It also appears to be a major risk factor for CNS relapse. It is most frequently associated with DHL and t-DLBCL. Novel therapeutic approaches at the time of initial therapy need to be developed for L-DLBCL.