Search

Kaplan-Meier analysis of the survival for patients with ATL who responded to alemtuzumab therapy

Translation on this Article from EBV-Related Lymphoproliferative Disease Complicating Therapy with the Anti-CD2 Monoclonal Antibody, Siplizumab, in Patients with T-Cell Malignancies

Purpose: We report an increased incidence of EBV-induced B-cell lymphoproliferative disease (LPD) in patients treated with siplizumab, an anti-CD2 antibody. The development of EBV-LPD has been associated with the use of immunosuppressive agents used in solid organ, bone marrow, and stem cell transplantation and in certain congenital immunodeficiencies.Experimental Design: We conducted a single-institution phase I dose-escalation trial of siplizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to CD2, in 29 patients with T-cell malignancies.Results: Although initial responses were encouraging, 4 (13.7%) patients developed EBV-LPD and the trial was stopped. Reductions in CD4+ and CD8+ cell count numbers in response to therapy were seen in all patients, but in those patients developing EBV-LPD a significantly greater reduction in natural killer (NK) cell number and CD2 expression on T cells was seen. These findings highlight the importance of NK-cell depletion and CD2 expression in addition to T-cell depletion in the etiology of EBV-LPD.Conclusions: The emergence of EBV-LPD may be associated with the ability of siplizumab to deplete both T and NK cells without affecting B cells. Agents that deplete T- and NK-cell populations without affecting B cell number should be screened for this potentially serious adverse event.

Supplementary Tables S1-S3 from EBV-Related Lymphoproliferative Disease Complicating Therapy with the Anti-CD2 Monoclonal Antibody, Siplizumab, in Patients with T-Cell Malignancies

Purpose: Therapeutic regimens for adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATL) are limited with unsatisfactory results, thereby warranting development of novel therapies. This study investigated antitumor activity and toxicity of alemtuzumab with regard to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with human T-cell lymphotropic virus-1 (HTLV-1)-associated ATL.Experimental Design: Twenty-nine patients with chronic, acute, and lymphomatous types of ATL were enrolled in a single-institution, nonrandomized, open-label phase II trial wherein patients received intravenous alemtuzumab 30 mg three times weekly for a maximum of 12 weeks.Results: Twenty-nine patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. The overall objective response was 15 of 29 patients [95% confidence interval (CI), 32.5%–70.6%]. The 15 patients who responded manifested a median time to response of 1.1 months. Median response duration was 1.4 months for the whole group and 14.5 months among responders. Median progression-free survival was 2.0 months. Median overall survival was 5.9 months. The most common adverse events were 2 with vasovagal episodes (7%) and 3 with hypotensive episodes (10%), leukopenia (41%) grade 3 and (17%) grade 4, lymphocytopenia (59%) grade 3, neutropenia (31%) grade 3, anemia (24%), and thrombocytopenia (10%). All patients developed cytomegalovirus antigenemia (CMV). Three were symptomatic and all responded to antiviral therapy. Grade 3 or 4 infections were reported in 4 (14%) of patients.Conclusions: Alemtuzumab induced responses in patients with acute HTLV-1–associated ATL with acceptable toxicity, but with short duration of responses. These studies support inclusion of alemtuzumab in novel multidrug therapies for ATL. Clin Cancer Res; 23(1); 35–42. ©2016 AACR.

Kaplan-Meier analysis of progression free survival of all patients with ATL who received alemtuzumab therapy

Aim: Adjuvant chemotherapy in NSCLC is associated with modest benefits and significant toxicity. We sought to evaluate the toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy and disease-specific outcomes in a real-world population. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC in an Irish center over a 7-year period. We described treatment-associated toxicity, recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Results: 62 patients underwent adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment-associated hospitalisation occurred in 29% of patients. Relapse was recorded in 56% of patients and median recurrence-free survival was 27 months. Conclusion: High rates of disease recurrence and treatment-associated morbidity were observed in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC. Novel therapeutic strategies are required to improve outcomes in this population.

Background Frailty characteristics such as compromised response to stressors and accumulation of deficits in physiological systems may leave frailer older adults at higher risk of adverse outcomes from PIP, compared with their non-frail counterparts of the same age. This study aims to examine the relationship between measured frailty and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults presenting acutely to hospital. Methods A prospective observational study was conducted. Participants were acutely hospitalised older adults. Inclusion Criteria: Age ≥ 65 years old, acute admission 24 hrs. Exclusion Criteria: Results The mean (±standard deviation [SD]) age of study participants was 79.25[±7.14], 56.5% were female. The prevalence of frailty measured using the CFS and Frail-VIG were 61.5% and 50.5% respectively. Applying the CFS, the mean number of STOPP criteria in non-frail patients was 1.03 and 1.87 for frail patients (p = 0.001 CI 95%) and 1.14 and 2.10 (p = 0.001 CI 95%) using the Frail-Vig Index. Conclusion Frailty is associated with functional decline, falls, hospitalisation and death. Frail patients had a higher mean number of STOPP criteria. As medication side effects are themselves included as part of the frailty syndrome, in-hospital medication review and patient centred medication optimisation should be guided by patient’s frailty status to reduce adverse outcomes.

Prophylactic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is often used for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients at high risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse, despite limited evidence demonstrating efficacy or the optimal delivery method. We conducted a retrospective, international analysis of 1384 patients receiving HD-MTX CNS prophylaxis either intercalated (i-HD-MTX) (n = 749) or at the end (n = 635) of R-CHOP/R-CHOP-like therapy (EOT). There were 78 CNS relapses (3-year rate 5.7%), with no difference between i-HD-MTX and EOT: 5.7% vs 5.8%, P = .98; 3-year difference: 0.04% (−2.0% to 3.1%). Conclusions were unchanged on adjusting for baseline prognostic factors or on 6-month landmark analysis (n = 1253). In patients with a high CNS international prognostic index (n = 600), the 3-year CNS relapse rate was 9.1%, with no difference between i-HD-MTX and EOT. On multivariable analysis, increasing age and renal/adrenal involvement were the only independent risk factors for CNS relapse. Concurrent intrathecal prophylaxis was not associated with a reduction in CNS relapse. R-CHOP delays of ≥7 days were significantly increased with i-HD-MTX vs EOT, with 308 of 1573 (19.6%) i-HD-MTX treatments resulting in a delay to subsequent R-CHOP (median 8 days). Increased risk of delay occurred in older patients when delivery was later than day 10 in the R-CHOP cycle. In summary, we found no evidence that EOT delivery increases CNS relapse risk vs i-HD-MTX. Findings in high-risk subgroups were unchanged. Rates of CNS relapse in this HD-MTX-treated cohort were similar to comparable cohorts receiving infrequent CNS prophylaxis. If HD-MTX is still considered for certain high-risk patients, delivery could be deferred until R-CHOP completion.

e18784 Background: Febrile neutropenia in patients receiving chemotherapy is a life-threatening condition requiring prompt attention. This condition may also result in dose reductions, delays, or discontinuations of chemotherapy which compromise patient outcomes. This study seeks to evaluate the impact of COVID19 “lockdown” public health measures in Ireland on the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients who were receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Methods: All patients receiving chemotherapy at the Bon Secours Hospital Cork who were admitted with neutropenia and fever during two separate time periods were included in the study: 1st April 2018 to 31st March 2019 (“pre-pandemic year”) and 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2021 (“pandemic year”). The pandemic year selected equates to a period of heightened infection control measures in Irish society, featuring public health advice re social distancing, routine mask wearing in public and successive lockdown waves. Retrospective chart review was performed on all patients admitted to the oncology inpatient ward who had blood cultures on admission to determine the number of these patients who were neutropenic at the time of blood culture draw. Similarly, pharmacy records were accessed to determine the number of unique chemotherapy items dispensed in each year in order to establish a rate of febrile neutropenia episodes per 100 chemotherapy items dispensed for each period. The incident rate ratio was calculated using the Exact Poisson Test. Results: During the pre-pandemic year there were 57 individual admissions with febrile neutropenia compared with 32 admissions during the pandemic year. There were 4581 chemotherapy units dispensed during the pre-pandemic year compared to 4628 during the pandemic year. The rate of febrile neutropenia episodes per 100 chemotherapy units dispensed was 1.24 (95% CI 0.94, 1.61) in the pre-pandemic year and 0.69 (95% CI 0.47, 0.98) in the pandemic year. The incident rate ratio is 1.80 (95% CI 1.14, 2.87, two-sided P = 0.007). 9 of 57 (16%) admissions in the pre-pandemic year were associated with positive blood cultures compared with 4 of 32 (13%) in the pandemic year (not significant by Fisher's exact test). Conclusions: Increased precautionary infection control measures during the COVID19 pandemic public health restrictions correlated with a significant reduction in the rate of febrile neutropenia amongst patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. This suggests that there may be a role for similar measures for this patient cohort in the post-pandemic period. Options which patients may consider to employ include social distancing, wearing face-coverings and restricting social contacts while at risk of neutropenia from cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens.

e24088 Background: Up to one third of cancers in high-income populations can be attributed to lifestyle factors (nutrition & physical activity). Data on dietary beliefs in Irish patients with cancer are lacking. This study aims to evaluate how patients with cancer conceptualize the effect of diet on their disease and treatment & determine if attitudes vary according to age, gender, education, disease type, treatment type & treatment intent. Methods: This is a questionnaire-based study, carried out in an Irish oncology unit over a 3-week period in April 2021. Patients with an active cancer diagnosis attending the oncology day ward were invited to participate. We adapted a previously used questionnaire following expert review. A combination of yes/no and Likert scale responses were used: Have you changed your diet since you received your diagnosis? (Yes/no). To what degree do you think that...(Likert): Diet may contribute to the condition that you are being treated for?. Your diet after diagnosis helps your sense of health and wellness?. Diet can help relieve side effects of treatment?. Diet helps in preventing cancer recurrence?. Demographic and treatment data were recorded from patient charts. Responses were compared across demographic variables including gender, age, highest education level, primary cancer location/type and treatment intent using Chi-squared/Fishers exact test. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: 130 patients were invited to take part & 113 responded (response rate 87%). 80% reported changing their diet since diagnosis, with no significant difference according to demographic variables. Most (68%) patients expressed a belief that diet played some role in their cancer development although only 15% believed that diet contributed ‘a lot’. Most patients (83%) believed that diet after a cancer diagnosis has an impact on their sense of health and well-being, and 32% expressed a strong belief in this regard (Likert scale 4, ‘a lot’). 75% believed that diet has some impact on managing treatment side effects. 81% believed that diet has some impact on cancer recurrence, and 30% believed it has a major impact (Likert scale 4). On multivariate analysis we found stronger beliefs in the impact of diet on cancer development (p = 0.049) and recurrence risk (p = 0.05) among men than women, and stronger belief in the impact of diet on recurrence risk among patients receiving treatment with curative versus palliative intent (p = 0.045). Conclusions: Most patients reported changing their diet following their cancer diagnosis, and most patients felt that diet had some impact on all of the areas studied including cancer development, health and well-being, managing side effects and cancer recurrence. Men expressed stronger beliefs than women in the impact of diet on cancer development and recurrence risk, and patients being treated with curative intent also expressed stronger beliefs in the impact of diet on cancer recurrence.

Background: In the treatment of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma, it is increasingly common UK practice to modify escalated BEACOPP (eBPP) by removing oral procarbazine and replacing it with intravenous dacarbazine (250mg/m2 D2-3) to reduce haematopoietic stem cell and gonadal toxicity. However, published data of the "escalated BEACOPDac (eBPDac)" regimen are very limited. Methods: This is a retrospective study of 225 patients from 20 centres in the UK, Ireland and France who were treated with eBPDac first line for advanced stage Hodgkin Lymphoma. Toxicity outcomes were compared with 58 matched patients treated with eBPP at 4 UK centres and survival outcomes were compared with 2073 eBPP patients in the HD18 trial 1 and with 1088 patients aged 18-59y in the RATHL trial 2,3. Most eBPDac patients were treated as per HD18 protocol. The 34 patients treated in Paris followed the AHL2011 protocol with two courses of eBPDac given upfront and if iPET2 negative were deescalated to 4 cycles of ABVD. Toxicity outcomes: Toxicity was compared between eBPDac patients (n=225; median follow-up 22.1 months) and matched real-world UK eBPP patients (n=58; median follow-up 52.7 months) over the first 4 cycles. eBPP and eBPDac patients were well matched with no significant differences in age (median 23 y vs 26 y), sex, stage (stage 3/4 82% vs 83%) and international prognostic score (IPS 3+ 74% vs 65%). 55% of eBPDac patients received only 4 cycles (vs 12% of eBPP patients; p Disease outcomes: The eBPDac patients (n=225) were younger than the HD18 patients (median age 26 y vs 35 y, p Figure 1 shows Kaplan-Meier plots for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The PFS at 22 months (median follow-up) of eBPDac patients was 94.9% (91.7-98.3%) which is similar to HD18 3 year PFS of 92.3% (91.1-93.5%) and appears superior to RATHL 5 year PFS 81.4% (78.9-83.7%). The difference in PFS between eBPDac and RATHL is most marked in IPS3+ patients. The OS rates with all 3 regimens are excellent, with 22 month eBPDac OS estimate of 98.9% (97.4-100%). Summary/Conclusion: Accepting the limitations of a retrospective study, we suggest that substituting dacarbazine for procarbazine is unlikely to compromise the efficacy of eBPP and may have some toxicity benefits. Despite the clear preference of clinicians to offer this regimen to high-risk advanced stage patients, with nearly 2 years median follow-up we have observed similar PFS and OS compared to HD18 but superior survival estimates compared with 18-59y RATHL patients, suggesting that eBPDac is highly efficacious for the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma. References: 1Borchmann P et al. Lancet 2017; 390:2790-2802 2Johnson P et al. NEJM. 2016; 374:2419-2429 3Russell J et al. Ann Hematol 2021; 100:1049-1058 Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Brice: MSD: Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Roche: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Takeda: Research Funding. Menne: Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grant, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants; Bayer: Other: Travel grants; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Travel grants; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Atara: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Other: Honoraria for Lectures; Roche: Other: Honoraria for Lectures. Osborne: Roche: Other; Takeda: Other; Pfizer: Other; Servier: Other; Gilead: Other; Novartis: Other; MSD: Other. Ardeshna: Gilead, Beigene, Celegene, Novartis and Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead, Beigene, Celegene, Novartis and Roche: Honoraria; Norvartis, BMS, Autolus, ADCT, Pharmocyclics and Jansen: Research Funding. Collins: Pfizer: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celleron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau. Cwynarski: Adienne, Takeda, Roche, Autolus, KITE, Gilead, Celgene, Atara, Janssenen: Other. Davies: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioInvent: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Research Funding. Furtado: Abbvie: Other: Conference support. Gallop-Evans: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Iyengar: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: conference support, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: conference support, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Other: conference support; Janssen: Other: conference support, Speakers Bureau. Linton: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Hartley Taylor: Honoraria; University of Manchester: Current Employment; Celgene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Martinez-Calle: Abbvie: Other. McKay: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; KITE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Beigene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nagumantry: Takeda, Alexion, Abbvie: Other. Shah: Abbvie, Janssen and Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Uttenthal: Jazz: Other; Takeda: Other; Roche: Other. McMillan: Pfizer: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Follows: Janssen, Abvie, Roche, AZ: Other.

Introduction: Central nervous system (CNS) relapse in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is uncommon but is associated with poor outcomes. In selected high risk patients (pts), high dose methotrexate (HDMTX) is often used as CNS prophylaxis with frontline (1L) DLBCL therapy despite uncertain efficacy, optimum dose and timing of delivery. A recent UK study (Wilson et al 2020) showed that intercalated HDMTX (i-HDMTX) was associated with increased toxicity and R-CHOP delays compared to end of treatment (EOT) delivery. Although hypothesis generating, the study size was insufficient to determine whether EOT was non-inferior in terms of CNS relapse risk. Methods: We conducted an international, multicentre retrospective analysis of consecutive DLBCL or high grade BCL pts between 2007-20 from 47 centers in Europe, Australia and N. America. Pts were included if they received R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like 1L therapy with curative intent as well as HDMTX CNS prophylaxis (≥1 cycle). Concurrent intrathecal (IT) prophylaxis was permitted. Pts with known CNS involvement at baseline and those treated with more intensive protocols (e.g. R-DA-EPOCH) were excluded. i-HDMTX was defined as any pt receiving a HD-MTX cycle before the final R-CHOP cycle. CNS relapse events were excluded if occurring after first systemic lymphoma relapse/progression. Time to event endpoints were measured from diagnosis to first event or censor and analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Time to CNS relapse was analysed using competing risk Fine and Gray method (for death and non-synchronous systemic relapse). To mitigate for possible immortality bias in the EOT arm, a landmark analysis for pts alive and free from progression at 6 months was conducted. We aimed to exclude a 5% difference in 2-year (y) CNS relapse rates. Results: 1,384 pts were analysed. 750 received i-HDMTX and 634 received EOT HDMTX. Key baseline characteristics are summarised in Table 1. Median follow up was 37.9 months. 44.2% had high CNS IPI (4-6) with no significant difference between i-HDMTX and EOT groups (45.1% vs 43.1%, p=0.087). ≥2 cycles of HDMTX were used in 86.6% with no difference between groups (85.6% vs 87.9%, p=0.22). Concurrent IT prophylaxis use was higher for EOT pts (55.6% vs 38.1% p 78 CNS relapses (42 i-HDMTX, 36 EOT) were observed: parenchymal in 41 (53%), parenchymal and leptomeningeal in 16 (21%) and isolated leptomeningeal in 21 (27%). There was no significant difference in 2y CNS relapse rates between i-HDMTX and EOT in all pts: 5.2% vs 3.9%, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.58-1.47), p=0.74, 2y difference -0.2% (-2.0-2.5) or landmark analysis: 2.8% vs 4.1%, HR: 0.93 (0.56-1.55), p=0.79, 2y difference: -0.3% (-1.8-2.2%) (Fig 1a/b). Exploratory analyses focusing on pts with isolated CNS relapse (n=57) demonstrated similar results (2y rates 3.6% vs 3.0%, p=0.99). On multivariable analysis (MVA) of risk factors for CNS relapse, renal/adrenal involvement was the only variable associated with increased CNS relapse risk (adjusted HR 1.74 (1.03-2.92), p=0.038). Notably, IT prophylaxis was not associated with reduction in CNS relapse. In 600 high CNS IPI (4-6) pts, there was no difference in CNS relapse risk between i-HD-MTX and EOT (3y rates 9.4% vs 8.6%, HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.52-1.62)). In a composite high risk group including CNS IPI 4-6 and/or any of the following: ≥3 extranodal sites, renal, adrenal, testicular or breast involvement (n=885) there was no difference in 3y CNS relapse rates between groups (i-HDMTX 7.6% vs EOT 7.4%, HR 0.94 (0.58-1.53)). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the i-HDMTX and EOT groups were as follows: 3y PFS 70.7% vs 76.7% (p=0.098), 3y OS 79.9% vs 87.0% (p=0.0016). However, there were no PFS/OS differences between groups on landmark analysis (n=1259) (Fig 1c). On analysis of pts experiencing ≥1 R-CHOP delay of ≥7 days, use of i-HDMTX was the only factor on MVA associated with increased delays (p Discussion: We found no evidence that EOT delivery increases CNS relapse risk when compared to i-HDMTX in this large analysis of pts treated with 1L R-CHOP. Delays to R-CHOP cycles were increased with i-HDMTX. Findings in a high risk subgroup were unchanged and rates of CNS relapse in this HDMTX treated group were similar to published comparable high risk cohorts receiving infrequent CNS prophylaxis. Where HDMTX prophylaxis is used, delivery could be deferred until R-CHOP completion. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wilson: Takeda: Other: Conference fees; Janssen: Other: Conference fees; Abbvie: Honoraria. Eyre: Janssen: Honoraria; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ahearne: Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Schorb: Roche: Research Funding; Riemser Pharma GmbH: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ku: Antegene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Narkhede: Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genmab: Other: Medical writing support, Research Funding; TG Therapeautics: Research Funding. Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Patents & Royalties; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Santarsiere: Janssen: Honoraria. Shah: Abbvie, Janssen and Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roulin: Janssen: Other: Travel and meetings. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hamad: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Lopez-Garcia: Roche: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Travel and accommodation grants; Janssen: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants; Celgene: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Fresenius: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Novonordisk: Other: Speaker Honoraria. El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee. Cheah: Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory. Ferreri: Gilead, Novartis, Juno, PletixaPharm, Roche, Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, Beigene, Pharmacyclics, Hutchison Medipharma, Amgen, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer: Research Funding. Fox: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: speaker fees. Cwynarski: Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. McKay: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; KITE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Beigene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.