Search

INTRODUCTION: While most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) receive therapy shortly after diagnosis, a subset of patients with indolent-behaving disease can safely defer treatment. In this subgroup, we evaluated the importance of treatment intensity in patients with MCL who defer initial therapy. METHODS: Out of 1134 patients with MCL from 12 academic centers, we analyzed 219 patients who initiated therapy at least 90 days after diagnosis. Patients who received induction with high-dose cytarabine and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in first remission were considered to have received intensive therapy (n = 88) while all other approaches were non-intensive (n = 131). RESULTS: There was no difference in progression-free (PFS; P = .224) or overall survival (OS; P = .167) in deferred patients who received non-intensive vs. intensive therapy. Additionally, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed for PFS and OS. Treatment at an academic center (HR 0.43, P = .015) was associated with improved OS in both univariate and multivariate models, while intensity of treatment was not associated with improved OS in either model. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that intensified initial treatment is not associated with improved survival after deferring initial therapy, although prospective studies are needed to determine which of these patients with MCL may benefit from intensive therapy.

Although an expanding array of effective treatments has resulted in recent improvement in survival of patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), outcomes remain heterogeneous, and identification of prognostic factors remains a priority. We assessed the prognostic impact of time to progression of disease (POD) after first-line therapy among 455 patients with relapsed MCL. Patients were categorized by duration of first remission as PRF/POD6, defined as progressive disease during induction or POD within 6 months of diagnosis (n = 65; 14%); POD6-24, defined as POD between 6 and 24 months after diagnosis (n = 153; 34%); and POD>24, defined as POD >24 months after diagnosis (n = 237; 53%). The median overall survival from POD (OS2) was 1.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-2.4) for patients with PRF/POD6, 3 years (95% CI, 2-6.8) for those with POD6-24, and 8 years (95% CI, 6.2-NR) for those with POD>24. Median OS2 was inferior in patients with early POD (defined as PRF/POD6 or POD6-24) after both intensive and less intensive frontline treatment. The prognostic performance of time until POD was replicated in an independent cohort of 245 patients with relapsed MCL, with median OS2 of 0.3 years (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) for PRF/POD6, 0.8 years (95% CI, 0.6-0.9) for POD6-24, and 2.4 years (95% CI 2.1-2.7) for POD>24. Early POD is associated with inferior OS2 in patients with relapsed MCL, identifying a high-risk population for future prospective studies.

PURPOSE Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell lymphoma characterized by cyclin D1 expression. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) consolidation after induction chemotherapy is often used for eligible patients; however, the benefit remains uncertain in the rituximab era. Herein we retrospectively assessed the impact of AHCT consolidation on survival in a large cohort of transplantation-eligible patients age 65 years or younger. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively studied transplantation-eligible adults age 65 years or younger with newly diagnosed MCL treated between 2000 and 2015. The primary objective was to assess for improved progression-free survival (PFS) with AHCT consolidation and secondarily to assess for improved overall survival (OS). Cox multivariable regression analysis and propensity score–weighted (PSW) analysis were performed. RESULTS Data were collected from 25 medical centers for 1,254 patients; 1,029 met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for the cohort was 76 months. Median PFS and OS were 62 and 139 months, respectively. On unadjusted analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (75 v 44 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .01) and OS (147 v 115 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.66; P < .01) and a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06). After PSW analysis, AHCT remained associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.84; P < .05) but not improved OS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.1; P = .2). CONCLUSION In this large cohort of younger, transplantation-eligible patients with MCL, AHCT consolidation after induction was associated with significantly improved PFS but not OS after PSW analysis. Within the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our findings suggest that in younger, fit patients, AHCT consolidation may improve PFS.

Background Although many patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) undergo routine radiographic surveillance during their first remission, no consensus exists on the modality, duration, frequency, or need for routine imaging studies. The authors retrospectively examined the effect of surveillance imaging on relapse detection and overall survival (OS) in patients with FL. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed FL who had a response to induction therapy were identified from the Lymphoid Malignancies Enterprise Architecture Database (LEAD) at Emory University and from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic. Patients were evaluated for both relapse and method of relapse detection (ie, clinical concerns vs radiologic detection through surveillance imaging in an asymptomatic patient). Results Of 148 patients in the LEAD cohort, 55 (37%) relapsed, and the majority (n = 35; 64%) of relapses were detected clinically. In the MER cohort, 63 of 177 relapses (54%) were detected clinically. There was no significant difference in OS from the date of diagnosis between the 2 methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.13-2.94; P = .54) and MER (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; P = .96) cohorts. Similarly, there was no significant difference in OS from the date of relapse between the 2 methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.10-2.27; P = .35) and MER (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; P = .96) cohorts. Conclusions These findings suggest a limited role for routine surveillance imaging in patients with FL who complete front-line therapy. Future studies should evaluate which patients may benefit from a more aggressive surveillance approach and should explore novel methods of relapse detection.

Bendamustine (B) with rituximab (R) is a standard frontline treatment for medically fit follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. The safety and efficacy of maintenance rituximab (MR) after BR induction has not been formally compared to observation for FL, resulting in disparate practice patterns. Prospective trials have shown benefit of MR after R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) or R-CVP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone), yet recent data from the GALLIUM study comparing outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy with R or obinutuzumab (G) showed higher than anticipated fatal adverse events with BR/BG. In order to assess the efficacy and tolerability of MR after BR, we retrospectively collected data on 640 newly diagnosed patients treated with FL. We found that patients who achieved partial remission (PR) after ≥4 cycles of BR had improved duration of response (DOR) with MR vs. no maintenance, whereas those in complete remission did not. These findings were confirmed in a validation cohort. In the entire study population, the known fatal adverse event rate after BR was 2·5% and did not significantly differ in those receiving MR versus no maintenance. [Correction added on 14 January 2019, after online publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected in this current version.] Within the limitations inherent to retrospective analysis, these data suggest that FL patients with a PR to BR experience prolongation of remission with MR with an acceptable safety profile.

Prospective identification of candidates for deferred therapy is not standardized and many patients receive immediate therapy regardless of risk. We conducted a retrospective, multi-center cohort analysis of MCL patients with comprehensive clinical data to examine the use and safety of deferred therapy for newly diagnosed patients. Previously untreated patients ≥18 years-old with MCL diagnosed in 1993-2015 at five academic sites were included. Of 395 patients, 72 (18%) received deferred therapy (defined as receipt of first treatment90 days following initial diagnosis). Patients receiving deferred therapy were more likely to have an ECOG performance status of 0 (67 versus 44% p = .001), have no B symptoms (83 versus 65% p = .003) and have normal LDH levels at diagnosis (87 versus 55% p .001). In multivariable analysis, deferred therapy was not associated with a significant difference in OS (HR 0.64: 95% CI 0.22-1.84, p = .407).

BACKGROUND The impact of MYC proto-oncogene, basic helix-loop-helix (MYC) translocations (with or without additional rearrangements involving the B-cell lymphoma 2 [BCL2] or BCL6 genes) on the response to salvage therapy and survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who experience primary treatment failure is not well defined. METHODS This was a multicenter, retrospective study of the impact of MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 rearrangements in patients with DLBCL who failed to achieve complete remission or relapsed within 6 months after they completed upfront chemoimmunotherapy. RESULTS The authors examined response to salvage therapy, receipt of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), and survival outcomes in MYC-negative (n = 120), MYC-positive single hit (SH) (n = 20), and MYC-positive double hit/triple hit (DH/TH) (n = 35) cohorts. The overall response rate in these cohorts to first salvage therapy (51%, 50%, and 54%, respectively) and receipt of HCT (52%, 40%, and 43%, respectively) were comparable between the 3 cohorts. The 2-year overall survival rate was 29.9% in the MYC-negative cohort, 0% in the MYC-positive SH cohort, and 9.9% in the MYC-positive DH/TH cohort (P < .001), and no difference was observed between the SH and DH/TH cohorts (P = .8). The higher risk of death for patients with MYC-positive SH DLBCL (hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-2.96; P = .06) and those with MYC-positive DH/TH DLBCL (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-3.50; P = .001) persisted after adjusting for covariates. For patients who underwent autologous HCT, the 2-year overall survival rate was 55.4% in the MYC-negative cohort, 0% in the MYC-positive SH cohort, and 19.4% in the MYC-positive DH/TH cohort (P < .001). All 4 MYC-positive patients who underwent allogeneic HCT relapsed in

Ibrutinib has demonstrated significant activity in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in clinical trials. However, the impact of hematopoietic cell transplantation on the outcomes of ibrutinib and the predictive factors for ibrutinib response has not been well studied. Hence, we conducted a multicenter retrospective study of MCL patients who received ibrutinib to (1) determine the overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of ibrutinib in routine clinical practice, (2) examine characteristics predictive of response to ibrutinib therapy, and (3) describe the outcomes of patients failing ibrutinib. Ninety-seven patients met the eligibility criteria. Overall response rate and median DOR to ibrutinib were 65% and 17 months, respectively. Only lack of primary refractory disease was predictive of ibrutinib response on multivariate analysis. Twenty-nine patients received postibrutinib therapies, with an ORR of 48% and a median DOR of 3 months. The median OS and PFS for the entire group (n = 97) was 22 and 15 months, respectively. On multivariate analysis, ibrutinib response, low MCL international prognostic index, and absence of primary refractory disease were predictors of better PFS, while ibrutinib response and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1 were predictors of better OS. The median OS postibrutinib failure was 2.5 months. Our results confirm the high ORR and DOR of ibrutinib in MCL and that prior hematopoietic cell transplantation does not negatively influence ibrutinib outcomes. Survival following ibrutinib failure is poor with no specific subsequent therapy showing superior activity in this setting. As a result, for select (transplant eligible) patients, allogeneic transplant should be strongly considered soon after ibrutinib response is documented to provide durable responses.

Background Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is frequently used as a consolidative therapy option after induction treatment in fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) with the goal of prolonging the initial response duration. Despite recent advances there remains a subset of patients who experience early disease relapse after ASCT. We examined predictors of shortened progression-free survival (PFS) and post-relapse overall survival (OS) in a cohort of patients completing ASCT in first remission. Methods We evaluated MCL patients treated at 10 US academic medical centers. Eligible patients were treated from 2000 through 2017, and we collected information on demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables of interest. Patients were then categorized into three post-ASCT PFS groups: 0-2 years, 2-5 years, and > 5 years, with PFS determined from the date of ASCT until progression or death from any cause. Patients followed for at least 5 years post-ASCT who were relapse free were included in the > 5 sub group. Associations were examined between groups and collected characteristics using chi-squared tests for categorical patient characteristics and ANOVA for numeric patient characteristics. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) for each group, using time of relapse after ASCT as the starting point. Results Of 968 total MCL patients, 242 patients completed ASCT in first remission and either had a PFS event or were relapse-free for at least 5 years post-ASCT. Patients were 80% male, and the median age was 59 (Range: 29-83). The patients were divided into groups of post-ASCT PFS 0-2 years (n=74), 2-5 years (n=75), and more than 5 years (n=93). Post-ASCT PFS was shorter in patients with stage 4 disease (p=0.022), splenomegaly at baseline (p=0.005), and a lymph node size > 5 centimeters at baseline (p=0.043). Other variables were not significantly associated with PFS, including time to transplant and use of intensive therapy. Patients with 0-2 year PFS had a shorter median OS (22.1 months, 95% CI: 13.1- 38.1 months) in comparison to 2-5 year PFS (132 months, 95% CI: 36-132 months) and 5+ year PFS not reached (95% CI: 41.2 – N.A; Figure). Conclusion Patients with higher tumor burden at baseline have a shorter post-ASCT PFS and are more likely to relapse within 2 years. As has been seen in other lymphoma subtypes, early relapse is associated with shorter OS. This represents a patient group requiring improved therapies and perhaps are the best candidates for post-ASCT maintenance or consolidation approaches. Further studies integrating minimal residual disease and molecular risk-stratification may better identify patients at high risk for early progression.

Summary Primary mediastinal (thymic) large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) is an uncommon subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that presents with a mediastinal mass and has unique clinicopathological features. Historically, patients with PMBCL were treated with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy ± involved field radiation. Since a phase II trial, published in April 2013, demonstrated excellent results using dose-adjusted (DA) R-EPOCH (rituximab, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin), this treatment has gained popularity. We performed a retrospective, multicentre analysis of patients aged ≥18 years with PMBCL since January 2011. Patients were stratified by frontline regimen, R-CHOP versus DA-R-EPOCH. 132 patients were identified from 11 contributing centres (56 R-CHOP and 76 DA-R-EPOCH). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, complete response (CR) rate, and rates of treatment-related complications. Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups. DA-R-EPOCH use increased after April 2013 (79% vs. 45%, P

Purpose Patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL) rarely achieve long-term survival following disease relapse. Some patients with DHL undergo consolidative autologous stem-cell transplantation (autoSCT) to reduce the risk of relapse, although the benefit of this treatment strategy is unclear. Methods Patients with DHL who achieved first complete remission following completion of front-line therapy with either rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or intensive front-line therapy, and deemed fit for autoSCT, were included. A landmark analysis was performed, with time zero defined as 3 months after completion of front-line therapy. Patients who experienced relapse before or who were not followed until that time were excluded. Results Relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates at 3 years were 80% and 87%, respectively, for all patients (n = 159). Three-year RFS and OS rates did not differ significantly for autoSCT (n = 62) versus non-autoSCT patients (n = 97), but 3-year RFS was inferior in patients who received R-CHOP compared with intensive therapy (56% v 88%; P = .002). Three-year RFS and OS did not differ significantly for patients in the R-CHOP or intensive therapy cohorts when analyzed by receipt of autoSCT. The median OS following relapse was 8.6 months. Conclusion In the largest reported series, to our knowledge, of patients with DHL to achieve first complete remission, consolidative autoSCT was not associated with improved 3-year RFS or OS. In addition, patients treated with R-CHOP experienced inferior 3-year RFS compared with those who received intensive front-line therapy. When considered in conjunction with reports of patients with newly diagnosed DHL, which demonstrate lower rates of disease response to R-CHOP compared with intensive front-line therapy, our findings further support the use of intensive front-line therapy for this patient population.

The impact of MYC proto-oncogene, basic helix-loop-helix (MYC) translocations (with or without additional rearrangements involving the B-cell lymphoma 2 [BCL2] or BCL6 genes) on the response to salvage therapy and survival in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who experience primary treatment failure is not well defined.This was a multicenter, retrospective study of the impact of MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 rearrangements in patients with DLBCL who failed to achieve complete remission or relapsed within 6 months after they completed upfront chemoimmunotherapy.The authors examined response to salvage therapy, receipt of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), and survival outcomes in MYC-negative (n = 120), MYC-positive single hit (SH) (n = 20), and MYC-positive double hit/triple hit (DH/TH) (n = 35) cohorts. The overall response rate in these cohorts to first salvage therapy (51%, 50%, and 54%, respectively) and receipt of HCT (52%, 40%, and 43%, respectively) were comparable between the 3 cohorts. The 2-year overall survival rate was 29.9% in the MYC-negative cohort, 0% in the MYC-positive SH cohort, and 9.9% in the MYC-positive DH/TH cohort (P.001), and no difference was observed between the SH and DH/TH cohorts (P = .8). The higher risk of death for patients with MYC-positive SH DLBCL (hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-2.96; P = .06) and those with MYC-positive DH/TH DLBCL (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-3.50; P = .001) persisted after adjusting for covariates. For patients who underwent autologous HCT, the 2-year overall survival rate was 55.4% in the MYC-negative cohort, 0% in the MYC-positive SH cohort, and 19.4% in the MYC-positive DH/TH cohort (P.001). All 4 MYC-positive patients who underwent allogeneic HCT relapsed in4 months.Patients with MYC-positive DLBCL who experience primary treatment failure have response rates to similar to those achieved by salvage therapy compared with their MYC-negative counterparts, but their survival is dismal irrespective of additional "hits" and HCT, representing an unmet medical need. Cancer 2017;123:4411-8. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The outcomes of patients with DLBCL and primary treatment failure (PTF) in the rituximab era are unclear. We analyzed 331 patients with PTF, defined as primary progression while on upfront chemoimmunotherapy (PP), residual disease at the end of upfront therapy (RD) or relapse

The TP53 tumour suppressor is activated in response to distinct stimuli, including an ARF-dependent response to oncogene stress and an ATM/ATR-dependent response to DNA damage. In human T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (T-ALL), TP53-dependent tumour suppression is typically disabled via biallelic ARF deletions. In murine models, loss of Arf (Cdkn2a) or Tp53 markedly accelerates the onset of Myc-induced lymphoblastic malignancies. In zebrafish, no ARF ortholog has been identified, but the sequence of ARF is very poorly conserved evolutionarily, making it difficult to exclude the presence of a zebrafish ARF ortholog without functional studies. Here we show that tp53 mutations have no significant influence on the onset of myc-induced T-ALL in zebrafish, consistent with the lack of additional effects of Tp53 loss on lymphomagenesis in Arf-deficient mice. By contrast, irradiation leads to complete T-ALL regression in tp53 wild-type but not homozygous mutant zebrafish, indicating that the tp53-dependent DNA damage response is intact. We conclude that tp53 inactivation has no impact on the onset of myc-induced T-ALL in the zebrafish, consistent with the lack of a functional ARF ortholog linking myc-induced oncogene stress to tp53-dependent tumour suppression. Thus, the zebrafish model is well suited to the study of ARF-independent pathways in T-ALL pathobiology.

INTRODUCTION The optimal frontline treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is not clearly defined. Bendamustine + rituximab (BR) is commonly used as initial therapy. The role of maintenance rituximab (MR) after BR is not agreed upon due to limited data supporting this practice, whereas MR improves overall survival (OS) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and after R-CHOP for elderly patients who do not receive ASCT. Preliminary results from a subgroup analysis of the randomized phase 3 MAINTAIN study revealed neither a progression-free survival (PFS) nor OS benefit for MR as compared to observation for MCL pts (Rummel, ASCO 2016). In follicular lymphoma patients, however, there does appear to be a PFS benefit to rituximab maintenance following BR. Given these disparate results, we sought additional data to evaluate the role of rituximab maintenance following BR in MCL METHODS MCL pts treated at 12 U.S. medical centers with frontline BR who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) and who did not receive consolidative ASCT from 2011 - 2017 were included. Use of MR was based on individual physician/patient preferences. Baseline pt characteristics were compared using chi-squared test, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA. Descriptive statistics, comparisons, and OS using the Kaplan-Meier method were stratified by response status as determined by the treating site (complete response (CR) only, partial response (PR) only, and CR/PR). RESULTS Among 135 pts responding to frontline BR who did not complete subsequent ASCT, 80% achieved complete remission (CR) and 20% had a partial remission (PR). Median age was 70 (range 45 - 93) years and 66% were male. Baseline MIPI score was low (13%), intermediate (38%), or high (49%) among patients with available data (n = 92) and did not differ between treatment cohorts. Among responding patients, 78 (58%) received MR and 57 (40%) were observed. With a median follow up of 3.1 years, median OS was not reached for pts responding to BR (with CR or PR) who received MR vs. 6 years for those who received no maintenance (Figure Panel A, P = 0.0013). Use of MR vs. observation was associated with a significant improvement in OS for pts in PR at the end of induction therapy (Figure Panel B, median not reached vs. 1.7 years, P = 0.006), but there was no statistically significant OS difference for pts in CR (Figure Panel C, median not reached vs. 9.6 years, P = 0.2575). In multivariable analysis, MIPI score CONCLUSIONS Whereas the MAINTAIN trial showed no PFS advantage to MR after BR for MCL pts, in this multi-center outcomes analysis across multiple US centers, the use of MR was associated with an improvement in OS in pts receiving frontline BR without consolidative ASCT. The survival benefit was only observed for pts in PR after induction therapy. Because of the potential for selection bias in the application of MR, further validation cohorts and prospective study are needed to clarify if there is benefit to maintenance therapy after BR-treated patients not undergoing ASCT as well as the potential for differential benefit of maintenance based on remission status Disclosures Hill: Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding. Danilov:Curis: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ghosh:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Park:G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Hamadani:Otsuka: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Flowers:Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy. Cohen:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Smoking is a potential risk factor for the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and prior studies have reported inferior survival in tobacco users with certain subtypes of the disease (Taborelli et al, BMC Cancer, 2017; Ollberding et al, Br J Haematol, 2013). For instance, tobacco smokers with NHL had an inferior overall survival (OS) compared to non-smokers in a series of 471 patients who were managed up front with either chemotherapy (68%), radiation (27%), or observation, and this appeared to be most pronounced in patients with follicular lymphoma and in those with a 20+ pack year smoking history (Geyer et al, Cancer, 2010). The impact of tobacco use on survival specifically in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has not been well studied. We conducted a multicenter study in MCL and evaluated the prognostic impact of tobacco use. Methods: We included patients with MCL from 12 sites who were ≥18 years old and for whom smoking status was known at the time of diagnosis. Cases were evaluated for reported smoking status at the time of diagnosis (active smoker, prior smoker, or never smoker) and standard baseline clinical prognostic data were obtained for each patient. Descriptive statistics were generated for these characteristics and were then compared across smoking status using chi-squared tests, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA, where appropriate. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and were compared using log-rank tests. Results: Of 946 included patients, 456 (48.2%) reported never using tobacco, 360 (38.7%) reported prior tobacco use, and 130 (13.7%) reported active tobacco use at the time of diagnosis. Median age was 59 in the active smoker group, 65 in prior smokers, and 61 in never smokers (p < 0.001). Any major medical comorbidity (defined as the presence of CAD, CHF, diabetes, CKD, ESRD, COPD, DVT, prior malignancy, or cirrhosis) was present in 59 (45.4%) of the active smokers, 143 (39.7%) of the prior smokers, and 140 (30.7%) of the never smokers (p = 0.002). Intensive induction regimens were used in 58.2% of active smokers, 47.2% of prior smokers, and 58.4% of never smokers (p=0.007). There were no significant differences between groups in regards to sex, race, ECOG performance status, Ann Arbor stage, time to first treatment, and use of auto transplant in first remission. Patients with no prior history of tobacco use were less likely to have a high risk MIPI score at diagnosis (26% high risk) compared to prior smokers (39.5%) and active smokers (32.5%, p=0.019). With a median follow up of 3.5 years after diagnosis, there was no significant difference between the 3 groups with regards to PFS or OS (Figure 1). Five-year OS in the never smoker group was 79.8% (95% CI: 74.8%, 83.9%) vs 75.1% (64.5%, 82.9%) in the active smoker group, and 80.6% (74.6%, 85.3%) in the prior smoker group (log rank p = 0.4079). Five- year progression free survival was 50.4% (44.6%, 56.0%) in the never smoker group, 42.5% (32.2%, 52.5%) in the active smoker group, and 50.2% (43.5%, 56.6%) in the prior smoker group (log rank p= 0.3595). Conclusions: Our data suggest that active or prior smoking does not significantly impact OS or PFS in patients with MCL. This study is limited by the fact that amount of current or former tobacco use was not available and it is not known how many current tobacco users ultimately stopped smoking during the course of their treatment. Future studies should incorporate more specific information regarding smoking history including pack-years and time between discontinuation of tobacco use and date of diagnosis. While tobacco use and other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors should be addressed as appropriate for all patients with MCL, current and former tobacco users can still achieve prolonged PFS and OS and may be candidates for intensive treatments after consideration of their other comorbidities and disease-specific risk factors. Disclosures Calzada: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Gamida Cell: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerson:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Danilov:Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Hill:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ghosh:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Flowers:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cohen:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding.

Background: Early progression of disease (POD) in patients (pts) with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) following intensive frontline treatment has been associated with inferior survival (Dietrich et al Ann Oncol 2014 and Visco et al Br J Haematol 2019), but the optimal time point to define early POD and the predictive significance of early POD following less intensive frontline treatment is not well established. We compare outcomes after all frontline treatments in a large MCL cohort categorized by time to progression and describe outcomes by class of second line treatment for pts with primary refractory disease. Methods: Clinical and outcome data for MCL pts treated between 2000 and 2017 were collected from 12 US centers. Overall survival (OS), defined from time of 1st progression, and secondary progression free survival (PFS2), defined from 1st progression to 2nd progression or death, were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and compared by log-rank test. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models for OS. 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all estimates and displayed in square brackets. We defined intensive treatment as high dose cytarabine in frontline therapy and/or autologous stem cell transplant in 1st remission. Pts were categorized into three groups: (a) refractory disease to frontline therapy or POD within 6 months of frontline therapy was termed primary refractory (PRF); (b) POD between 6 to 24 months of therapy was termed POD24 and (c) POD beyond 24 months was termed POD>24. Salvage therapy was categorized as chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) for pts treated with CIT alone, BTK inhibitor (BTKi) for pts treated with BTKi single agent or in combination, and lenalidomide / bortezomib for pts treated with one or both agent +/- anti-CD20 therapy. Results: Of 1,168 pts with MCL, 457 pts had relapsed and were included in this analysis. The median age was 62, 77% were male, and ECOG PS was 0/1 in 94%. Median follow-up was 2.6 years (yr) after first progression. The most common induction regimens were R-HyperCVAD (26%), R-CHOP (24%), bendamustine and rituximab (19%), and R-M-CHOP (10%). Frontline treatment was intensive in 54%. Sixty five pts (14%) were PRF, 153 (34%) had POD24, and 239 (53%) had POD>24. Additional baseline characteristics and comparison between groups are summarized in Table 1. The median OS was 1.3 yr [0.9-2.4] for PRF pts, 3 yrs [2-6.8] for POD 24, and 8 yrs [6.2-not reached (NR)] for POD>24 (p24 pts (p Among pts with PRF MCL, median PFS2 and OS were 1.2 [0.5-2.3] and 2.4 [0.7-4.5] yrs for BTKi (n=21), 0.5 [0.2-2.3] and 1.1 [0.5-NR] yrs for CIT (n=22), and 0.3 [0.1-0.6] and 1.9 [0.1-2] yrs for lenalidomide / bortezomib (n=8) as 2nd line therapy. Two pts with PRF MCL received no further therapy and both died within one month of POD. Conclusions: Time to relapse is predictive of outcome in pts with MCL and outcomes with current salvage therapies are poor for pts with relapse within 6 months of frontline therapy. Of currently available second line therapies, BTKi were associated with improved PFS2 in refractory pts. Outcomes are particularly poor for pts who receive intensive induction therapies yet still relapse early, representing a population at high risk for early mortality related to MCL. Novel treatment approaches should be evaluated in this population, including CAR-T cell therapy, and attempts to improve risk stratification at diagnosis and develop improved therapies for high-risk pts should continue. Disclosures Maddocks: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Danilov:Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ghosh:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Kahl:BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Flowers:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Cohen:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding.

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare form of lymphoma with no current standard of care. As a result, clinical trials are critical to improving our understanding of the disease and its management. However, clinical trial participation is often limited due to lack of access to studies, restrictive eligibility criteria, and decisions by treating physicians or patients not to participate. We evaluated the rate of enrollment and outcomes associated with clinical trial participation of patients with MCL at 12 US Medical Centers. Methods: We included patients from 12 medical centers in the United States with MCL diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2018, who were ≥ 18 years old, received any induction therapy, and for whom it was known whether initial treatment was on a clinical trial (CT) or not. We compared differences between the two groups (CT vs not) using Fisher's Exact and Chi-square tests as appropriate. We defined overall survival (OS) as time from diagnosis to death. Patients not experiencing an event were censored at their last known follow-up. OS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate and multivariable models were developed to identify predictors of OS. Results: Eight hundred twelve patients were included in this analysis, including 164 (20%) patients who participated in a clinical trial during initial therapy. Rate of participation ranged from 4% to 36% across contributing sites. Median age for the entire cohort was 62 years, 572 (74%) of patients were male, and 95% of patients had ECOG 0-1. MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) risk score was high in 163 patients (31%), and 84% of patients had stage IV disease. Ki67 was >30% in 169/225 (43%) patients with available data, and 19% of patients (65/271) had a complex karyotype with > 3 chromosomal abnormalities. Four hundred sixteen (53%) of patients received an intensive induction regimen (defined as initial treatment with a high-dose cytarabine-containing regimen and/or receipt of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation as consolidation), including 333 patients (43%) who underwent transplant consolidation. Patients with an increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (p 3 cytogenetic abnormalities (p=0.015) were less likely to participate in clinical trials, but there was no significant difference in rates of participation based on MIPI (p=0.49) or ECOG performance status (p=0.22; Table). Patients treated on study were less likely to receive an intensive regimen compared to those treated off study (p=0.002). Median time to treatment from diagnosis was 35 days for patients enrolled on trial and 31 days for patients not enrolled on trial (p=0.83). With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the median OS was 13.6 years (95% CI: 11.5-21.1) for patients not treated on a trial and not reached (95% CI: 9.9 - Not Reached) for patients treated on trial (Figure; p=0.036). In a multivariable model including clinical trial participation, MIPI, time to initial treatment, and receipt of an intensive induction regimen, only clinical trial participation (HR 0.54, 95%CI: 0.31-0.93; p=0.028) and high risk MIPI score (HR 4.24, 95% CI: 2.37-7.56; p Conclusions: Participation in a clinical trial is associated with improved OS among patients with untreated MCL, even when accounting for time to initial treatment and MIPI score. This study is unable to account for other factors that may predict trial participation including baseline comorbidities, socioeconomic status, social support, and distance to the treating center that are frequently factors that limit trial participation. However, these findings do suggest that enrollment on a clinical trial frequently leads to a successful outcome for patients in addition to providing answers to key clinical questions and should be considered for all eligible patients. Disclosures Cohen: Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; UNUM: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Danilov:MEI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution. Hill:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Park:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Epperla:Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Hamadani:Otsuka: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Martin:Karyopharm: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Flowers:Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kahl:BeiGene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

Introduction: Time to treatment (TTT) is an important prognostic factor in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (Maurer et al JCO 2018) where patients who initiate therapy quickly after diagnosis have an inferior event free survival compared to those who do not require such immediate treatment initiation. More recently, TTT has shown to be associated with adverse clinical factors and inferior outcomes in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; Maurer, et al ASH, 2018). However, there is a paucity of data on the impact of TTT on overall survival (OS). We sought to validate these findings and to evaluate the impact of TTT on survival outcomes in newly diagnosed patients with MCL. Methods: We included patients from 12 medical centers in the United States with MCL diagnosed between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2018, who had information on the TTT and initiated treatment within 60 days of diagnosis (to exclude patients whose treatment was purposefully deferred). TTT was defined as the time in days from first lymphoma diagnosis to initiation of therapy. Patients who received treatment within 14 days were categorized into short TTT group. We compared differences between the two groups (TTT 14 days and ≤ 60 days, longer TTT group) using chi-squared test, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA tests as appropriate. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Patients not experiencing an event were censored at their last known follow-up. OS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariable and multivariable models were developed to identify predictors of OS. Results: Of 1,168 patients with newly diagnosed MCL, seven hundred fifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis, including 205 (27%) with short TTT and 550 (73%) with longer TTT. Median time to treatment was 7 days (range, 0-14) for the short TTT group vs 31 days for the longer TTT group (range, 15-60 days). The median age for the entire cohort was 63 years, 75% of patients were male, and 93% of patients had ECOG 0-1. The proportion of patients with stage 4 disease (93 vs 86%, p=0.015), elevated LDH (58 vs 39%, p3 cytogenetic abnormalities (29 vs 14%, p=0.005), B symptoms (47 vs 29%, p On univariable analysis, factors associated with inferior OS included, TTT=2 (p10k (p=0.002), BM involvement (p=2 (HR=2.25, 95%CI=1.22-4.14; p=0.009), elevated LDH (HR=1.81, 95%CI=1.16-2.85; p=0.01), and receipt of non-intensive regimen (HR=1.61, 95%CI=1.04-2.50; p=0.03) were significant predictors of OS while B symptoms was not. Conclusions: Short TTT for patients with newly diagnosed MCL is associated with aggressive disease features and inferior OS despite an increased likelihood of receiving intensive induction regimens. Further studies are needed to identify molecular determinants of such aggressive disease behavior that can be assessed quickly and utilized to initiate appropriate therapy in a timely manner. Ongoing front-line clinical trials in MCL should be developed in a way to facilitate enrollment of patients requiring urgent therapy, including potentially permitting a cycle of off-study treatment to manage symptoms while a patient is screened and enrolled. Disclosures Epperla: Verastem Oncology: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Kolla:Amgen: Equity Ownership. Bachanova:GT Biopharma: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gerson:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Barta:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov:Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel Reimbursement , Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Grover:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Karmali:Gilead/Kite; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, BMS: Other: Research Funding to Institution; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau. Hill:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ghosh:Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; T G Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Park:Teva: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Rafael Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Otsuka: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Martin:I-MAB: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy. Kahl:AbbVie Inc, Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, BeiGene, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Roche Laboratories Inc.: Consultancy. Flowers:V Foundation: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy. Cohen:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.

7536 Background: While most patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) achieve an initial response to treatment, the majority relapse. Recently, Goldman et al. reported that surveillance imaging (SI) in FL is not associated with improved post-relapse outcomes and is frequently associated with false positive scans (ASH 2017). The goal of this study was to validate these findings. Methods: Pts were enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), a prospective cohort of newly diagnosed lymphoma pts. All pts were followed for events including relapse, re-treatment, and death, with events verified by medical records. Pts eligible for this study had biopsy proven FL grade 1, 2, or 3a who had achieved a response after induction therapy and later relapsed. Initial and post-treatment management was per treating physician. Medical records were re-reviewed in pts with events for clinical details at relapse in relationship to planned follow-up visits and SI. Relapse detection was categorized either by clinical suspicion (CS) via history, exam, and/or labs; or by SI in an asymptomatic pt. Univariate survival analysis was conducted for each variable. The hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval based on Cox Proportional Hazard models was presented along with the log rank test p-value. Kaplan-Meier plots were produced to evaluate the difference in overall survival (OS) between groups. Results: 1121 FL pts were enrolled in MER from 2002-2015, of which 117 were eligible. Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 35-83), and 61% were men. Median time to relapse of the 117 pts was 26 months (range 9-125). At a median follow-up from relapse of 69 months (range 0.23-179), 26 pts died. Pts completed a median of 3 imaging studies (range 0-15) during post-induction surveillance. 63 relapses (56%) were detected based on CS; 50 (44%) were detected by SI; and 4 were unknown. There was no difference in OS from relapse for those with relapse detected via CS vs. SI (HR = 0.98 [0.45,2.12], p = 0.96). Conclusions: Routine SI does not appear to improve survival outcomes in FL after achieving first remission, and its common practice should be questioned. Further investigation of prognostic markers to identify high-risk FL pts who may benefit from SI is needed.

Introduction: Previously, we reported that CD30 expression was not acquired at time of relapse in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) utilizing conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC; Calzada et al., ASH 2016). However, novel approaches to detection of CD30 expression may improve the detection of low levels of expression and thus may have implications regarding the use of CD30-directed therapies in DLBCL and other lymphomas. We utilized a computational tissue analysis mechanism to evaluate CD30 expression using patient samples that had previously been considered CD30 negative by IHC. Methods: We included patients with relapsed DLBCL with available archived tissue samples from the time of relapse (and when feasible, from the time of diagnosis) that was sufficient to prepare a slide for staining. CD30 IHC staining was completed for all involved tissue at Emory using our standard antibody (Ber-H2). Samples were manually annotated to indicate regions for inclusion and exclusion in image analysis. CD30 status was assessed by Flagship Biosciences using their proprietary CD30/DLBCL computational tissue analysis (cTA) algorithm. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the number and percentage of CD30+ cells in each tissue sample. Clinical, demographic and laboratory variables were also collected for each case, and overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. We divided the cohort into CD30 high vs. low expression using the median percentage of CD30+ cells and also performed a cut point analysis to identify a clinically significant cut-off for high vs. low using an outcome-oriented approach (Contal 1999). Results: We included 25 patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL (including 9 with available paired tissue from the time of initial diagnosis). Among all patients, the median age at diagnosis was 58 years (range 34-76), 72% presented with elevated LDH, 56% were Stage III/IV, 62% had B-symptoms, and 83% had extranodal disease (not including bone marrow). The median time from diagnosis to relapse was 9.4 months. Eighty-eight percent of patients received R-CHOP as frontline therapy. Cell of origin by the Hans algorithm was germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) for 9 patients, non-GCB for 5 patients, and unknown for 11 patients. Utilizing conventional IHC, none of the diagnostic or relapsed samples had detectable CD30 expression. Upon image analysis, 11/19 available samples were CD30-positive at relapse using ≥0.1% as a cutoff. Range of percentage of CD30 positive cells was 0.1 to 23.6%, and the median percentage of CD30 positive cells was 0.25%. Among the 9 patients with paired samples, 5 were positive at diagnosis and 5 were positive at relapse. One patient went from negative to positive and 1 patient transitioned from positive to negative. Most patients who were positive at baseline were still positive at relapse, and the median change in percentage of CD30+ cells between diagnosis and relapse was 0.35%. There were no statistical differences between the CD30 high vs low patients with regards to baseline patient- or disease-related characteristics or time to relapse using the median value of 0.25 as the cut point. In addition, CD30 expression was not associated with OS from the date of relapse or from diagnosis (p=0.406 & p=0.316, respectively). None of the included patients were treated with brentuximab vedotin or any other CD30-directed therapy. Conclusions: This analysis identifies a novel way to detect CD30 expression in patients with DLBCL and suggests that more patients may be CD30+ than previously thought. Prior studies in T-cell lymphoma suggest that even patients with a very low percentage of CD30+ cells may respond to CD30-directed treatment (Kim 2017), although expression using this novel method was not part of those studies. Assaying the CD30 status of relapsed/refractory DLBCL using this novel platform in a larger cohort is warranted as patients with such low level CD30 expression may benefit from future evaluation of CD30-directed treatments. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Calzada: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flowers:Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; V Foundation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/ Janssen: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy. Cohen:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; BioInvent: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Based on cohort studies and a limited number of prospective studies, physical activity (PA) can improve quality of life (QoL) in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), multiple myeloma (MM), and patients (pts) undergoing autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). There are also data to suggest that survival (Pophali et al, ASH 2017) is improved with increased PA in NHL pts. After ASCT, it is known that QoL and physical function will decrease. PA has been linked to improved QoL outcomes for pts undergoing ASCT. Recently, evidence shows fitness trackers can help monitor and improve adherence to PA in cancer pts. We aim to study the feasibility of a PA intervention in NHL/MM patients undergoing ASCT and to assess the use of smart watches in this setting to monitor PA. Methods: We included MM and NHL pts undergoing ASCT. Key inclusion criteria included ECOG < 2 and ability to complete a 6 minute walk test (6MWT). Pts were asked to adhere to a PA program of 150 minutes a week on a stationary bicycle or by walking, recording data in a diary and by wearing a smart watch provided to them. Data were collected from date of hospitalization to discharge, with research staff checking on pts at least twice a week to ensure adequate data collection and adherence. Feasibility of the intervention was assessed by average weekly minutes of PA performed by self-report. Validation of moderate intensity PA was attempted by heart rate (HR) monitoring (goal 40% of HR reserve) by the smart watch. QoL was assessed from FACT-lymphoma and FACT-MM surveys prior to transplant and around day 30 post ASCT. Clinical outcomes measured include time to neutrophil engraftment (≥0.5 10E3/mcL) and physical function (6MWT). Survey scores and 6MWT distances were compared using Wilcoxson rank sum tests. Historical controls at Emory matched for age, disease status, conditioning, stem cells infused, and use of stimulating factor were used to compare median time to neutrophil engraftment. Results: Since April 2018, 10 pts have enrolled and completed the PA intervention. Median age was 62, 70% were males, 40% had NHL, 50% were African American, and 50% were Caucasian. All pts were chemotherapy sensitive at time of transplant. Conditioning regimens included BEAM (30%), Melphalan (60%) and Busulfan/cyclophosphamide/etoposide (10%). Granulocyte colony stimulating factor was used in 60% of pts. Median follow up was 22 days. Six of 9 (67%) patients were able to adhere to a PA regimen while hospitalized by self-report, with one patient having incomplete PA data. Eight of ten patients wore their watch regularly for HR analysis. Six of these eight patients (75%) consistently reached HR goal during their PA. Of the 6 patients who met PA goal by self-report, 4 (67%) consistently met HR goals during PA (sample data, figure 1). QoL scores measured by FACT-lymphoma and FACT-MM showed no significant decrease in total score from pre-intervention to post-discharge follow up (median score difference -2.5 points, p-value=0.72, table 1). Individual sections of FACT surveys showed no significant differences except emotional well-being (median score difference, -3 points, p=0.008, table 1). Physical function by 6MWT decreased by a median of 97 meters (pre-test median of 435 meters, post-test median of 333.5 meters, p-value=0.016, table 1). Compared to 20 historical controls, median time to engraftment was similar (12 days vs 12.5 days). Conclusion: Our findings support the feasibility of studying an inpatient PA intervention for ASCT pts using traditional and novel methods. Nearly 70% of pts who participated were successful in adhering to a PA regimen of 150 minutes of exercise. Ongoing assessment by research staff to encourage pts to adhere to prescribed exercise, as well as use of a smart watch to validate PA by HR data was feasible. QoL results are consistent with prior PA studies in ASCT pts, with no significant decrease in overall QoL by day +30. Additional analyses from this study, including a flow-based panel to measure the impact of PA on immune reconstitution post ASCT, will be presented at the meeting. We plan to utilize the findings from this feasibility study to construct a randomized study of PA in ASCT assessing QoL as a primary outcome. Disclosures Calzada: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Nooka:Janssen pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hofmeister:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adaptive biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Allen:Merck: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy. Kaufman:Karyopharm: Other: data monitoring committee; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Blum:Morphosys: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Lonial:Amgen: Research Funding. Waller:Cambium Medical Technologies: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Other: Travel Expenses, EHA, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Kalytera: Consultancy. Flowers:Celgene: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/ Janssen: Consultancy; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioInvent: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Introduction Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) frequently impacts elderly patients (median age of diagnosis is 68), and management of these patients can be difficult due to the presence of comorbidities in this group. Presence of comorbidities is associated with inferior outcomes in many hematologic malignancies but there has not been a systematic assessment of comorbidities in MCL. We utilized the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to describe the presence of comorbidities in MCL patients and to explore their impact on patient outcomes. Methods We included patients with MCL evaluated at Emory between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2016. Patients with limited or inadequate follow-up or for whom data to determine the CCI were inadequate were excluded. We determined the CCI at the time of initiation of treatment for all patients with MCL and excluded "lymphoma" from this calculation. Patients were categorized into severity classes based on their summed scores. The median score of 1 was used to delineate the "low" and "high" CCI groups. For each group (low and high CCI), we evaluated baseline demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics and identified specific toxicity-related outcomes including: failure to complete induction chemotherapy, unplanned hospitalizations, or treatment related toxicities. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and we assessed for the impact of CCI score on PFS and OS using Cox proportional hazards models. Results Of 178 patients with MCL, 129 were male (73.3%) and median age was 61 (32-86). One hundred forty patients (86.4%) had stage IV disease. Among the 99 reported values, 31 patients (31.3%) had an elevated LDH, and ECOG PS was 0 in 47 patients, 1 in 66 patients, and 2-4 in 8 patients. Induction therapy was R-HyperCVAD (n=79; 45.4%), R-CHOP (n=49; 28.2%), BR (n=13; 7.5%) RCHOP/RDHAP (n=3; 1.7%) and Other (N=29; 16.7%). The CCI scores for the whole cohort were 0 in 78 pts (43.8%), 1 in 57 pts (32%), 2 in 24 pts (13.5%) and 3+ in 19 pts (10.7%; See Figure 1). One hundred thirty-five patients (75.8%) patients had a low CCI score (0-1) and 43 patients (24.2%) had a high CCI score (>1). Compared to patients with a low CCI, those with high CCI were older (median 67 years vs 59 years, p Twenty-eight patients experienced an unplanned hospitalization during induction, including 23 in the low CCI group (22%) and 5 in the high CCI group (16%; p=0.49). Seventeen patients de-escalated or discontinued induction therapy prematurely including 13 (12.4%) in the low CCI group and 4 (13.3%) in the high CCI group (p=1.00). There was no significant difference in OS between the low- and high-CCI groups (5-year OS 70.3% vs 68.7%, p=0.9; See Figure 2). Within the cohort of patients treated with intensive induction therapy, there was no significant impact of CCI on incidence of unplanned hospitalizations, de-escalation or discontinuation of therapy, or OS (p> 0.3). Conclusion CCI score was not shown to be a reliable predictor of unplanned hospitalizations, premature cessation of chemotherapy, or OS in our cohort, although many of our patients had very limited comorbidities. These results suggest that patients with limited comorbid conditions can likely be successfully managed with appropriate supportive care and should be considered for the most effective regimens. Future studies with a larger patient population with increased number of comorbidities may improve our ability to detect the impact of CCI on these outcomes and explore the relative contribution of specific comorbidities in MCL. Disclosures Calzada: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flowers:BeiGene: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/ Janssen: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; OptumRx: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding. Cohen:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; BioInvent: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

e18727Background: Despite significant geographic, genetic, and environmental heterogeneity among Latinos living in the U.S., differences in epidemiology and outcomes among Latino subgroups diagnose...

Introduction While 50-60% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are cured with initial chemoimmunotherapy such as R-CHOP, many patients will relapse and require additional therapy. Historically, autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been utilized in chemo-sensitive patients with relapsed DLBCL although the role of ASCT in patients who require > 1 salvage treatment to achieve remission is less defined due to concerns about the likelihood of long-term remission in that population. We evaluated the outcome of ASCT in patients who required >1 salvage therapy. Methods We included all patients undergoing ASCT for relapsed/refractory DLBCL at our site between 2005-2016 who received > 1 salvage treatment before transplant, with radiation therapy considered a salvage treatment if given after relapse but before ASCT. We collected demographic, clinical, laboratory and pathologic data on all patients. We defined progression-free survival (PFS) as time from ASCT to date of progression or death from any cause and overall survival (OS) as time from ASCT to date of death from any cause. Living patients were censored at the time of their last follow up. Univariate Cox proportional hazards models of PFS and OS were fit and Kaplan-Meier plots were developed to estimate the impact of variables of interest on survival. Results Out of 259 patients undergoing ASCT for DLBCL, 43 received > 1 salvage treatment, the median age was 51 years and 23 patients were male. Twenty patients had stage III/IV disease at diagnosis. The median time to relapse from the time of diagnosis was 9.3 months, and 42% of patients experienced a relapse > 12 months after diagnosis. Twenty-six patients (60%) received radiation as one of their salvage therapies, 25 patients (58%) received R-ICE as their first salvage therapy and 10 (23%) patients received R-ICE as their second salvage treatment. All patients received either 2 (n=39) or 3 (n=4) salvage therapies before ASCT, and the response to the initial salvage therapy received was CR in 4 patients, PR in 14 patients, SD in 1 patient, and PD in 14 patients, with initial response to salvage therapy missing in 10 patients. The median PFS for all patients was 15.9 months and the median OS was 57.2 months (Figure 1a). Receipt of radiation and having disease sensitive to treatment at the time of ASCT were the only factors associated with prolonged PFS and OS. Median PFS has not been achieved in patients who received radiation while patients who did not receive radiation had a median PFS of 4.2 months (HR = 0.36, p = 0.014; Figure 1b). Patients who had a chemo sensitive disease status at transplant had a median PFS of 22.6 months; however, patients with refractory disease at transplant only achieved a median PFS of 3.6 months (HR = 0.30, p=0.008). Remaining factors including conditioning regimen, time to relapse, and number of salvage therapies were not significantly associated with PFS or OS. Conclusions ASCT can result in prolonged PFS/OS in patients requiring > 1 salvage therapy especially in the case of sensitive disease. Radiation as an additional line of therapy is associated with improved PFS/OS, suggesting this can be included to induce remission in patients who fail to achieve CR with initial salvage treatment. While uncommon, patients with chemo-refractory disease can also have durable survival and should not be excluded from transplant. Figure 1a Progression-free survival for all patients with DLBCL receiving > 1 salvage therapy. Figure 1a. Progression-free survival for all patients with DLBCL receiving > 1 salvage therapy. Figure 1b Progression-free survival for all patients with DLBCL receiving > 1 salvage therapy based on receipt of radiation therapy. Figure 1b. Progression-free survival for all patients with DLBCL receiving > 1 salvage therapy based on receipt of radiation therapy. Disclosures Calzada: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flowers:Spectrum, Janssen, Infinity, AbbVie, Acerta, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; Optum Rx, Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Introduction: Prior series have identified CD30 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is associated with improved overall survival (OS) in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; 5-year OS: 79% vs 59% in CD30(-) patients, Hu et al, Blood 2013). It is unclear, however, whether CD30(+) status is retained throughout the course of the disease. Conversely, it is also unknown whether patients with CD30(-) tumors at diagnosis may present with CD30(+) disease upon relapse. As there is a currently approved antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD30, brentuximab vedotin, an improved understanding of CD30 expression in DLBCL may inform therapy options for relapsed (and potentially newly diagnosed) patients. Here, we evaluated patients with relapsed DLBCL with available tissue samples, including those with paired tissue samples from the time of diagnosis to assess for CD30 status for the duration of their disease course. Methods: This cohort included patients ≥ 18 years old with relapsed DLBCL for whom biopsy samples and clinical data were available. Tissue samples at diagnosis and from time of relapse were collected from our institution's pathology archive, and IHC-staining for CD30 expression was performed on all available involved tissue. CD30 status was assessed using a comprehensive form including assessment of percentage of CD30(+) cells and distribution of staining within each cell. Both neoplastic and surrounding non-neoplastic cells were evaluated. All assessment of CD30 staining was completed by one hematopathologist. We also collected comprehensive clinical, demographic and pathologic data for each patient. Results: We identified 25 patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL with available tissue samples from the time of relapse, including 12 patients with available paired diagnostic tissue. Among all patients, the median age at diagnosis was 58 years (range 34-76), 48% were male, 56% were stage III/IV, and 62% presented with B-symptoms. Eighty-eight percent of patients received R-CHOP as frontline therapy. Cell of origin by the Hans algorithm was germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) for 9 patients, non-GCB for 5 patients, and unknown for 11 patients. After pathologic review, all 25 samples were CD30-negative at relapse, including all 12 paired samples which were CD30-negative at diagnosis and relapse, suggesting that CD30 expression does not appear to be acquired at the time of relapse in DLBCL patients who present with CD30-negative disease. Conclusions: This retrospective, single-center cohort analysis suggests that patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL with tumors negative for CD30 expression retain CD30-negative status at relapse. Thus, assaying biopsies at relapse for CD30 positivity by IHC to investigate candidacy for salvage treatment with brentuximab vedotin in a patient with a tumor previously CD30(-) may be of limited value. Alternative computer-aided methods to assess CD30 expression in samples that are considered negative by conventional IHC may better identify the presence of CD30 among patients with relapsed DLBCL. Disclosures Calzada: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flowers:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Optum Rx, Seattle Genetics, Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Spectrum, Janssen, Infinity, AbbVie, Acerta, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cohen:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

Introduction: Most patients (pts) with diffuse large B cell lymphomas (DLBCL) are cured with first line chemoimmunotherapy including an anthracycline and rituximab. Pts who obtain complete remission (CR) but latter relapse often can be cured with salvage therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT). This management paradigm often is applied to pts with primary treatment failure (PTF). However, this group is heterogeneous and detailed data on outcomes in current era is needed to identify the DLBCL pts for whom novel therapeutic strategies should be designed. Methods: Fifteen US academic medical centers contributed pts to the REgistry of diFfuse large B cell lymphoma with prImary treatmeNt failurE (REFINE) collaboration. REFINE retrospectively captured patient, disease and treatment characteristics and treatment response as assessed by treating physician. Eligible pts were ≥ 18 years diagnosed with DLBCL during 2008-2015, who received upfront cheomoimmunotherapy including anthracycline and CD20-directed antibody and developed one of 3 patterns of PTF: relapse < 6 months following CR (early relapse- ER); only partial remission (PR) or stable disease (SD) with upfront therapy (residual disease-RD); progressive disease (PD) while receiving upfront therapy (primary progression-PP). Pts with HIV infection, primary CNS lymphoma or lymphoma transforming from a more indolent histology were excluded. Results: Patient characteristics for the 331 cases are summarized in Table 1. Median follow up of survivors was 18.9 months. R-CHOP was the upfront treatment for 87.6% of pts. Nearly all pts (94.6%) received salvage therapy after PTF and prior to any HCT, with a median of 1 and range 0 to 5 regimens. Response to first salvage regimen was CR in 19.9%, PR in 21.8%, SD in 9.0% and PD in 40.8%. Only 15.1% of pts were enrolled in clinical trials. One hundred and thirty-two pts (39.9%) underwent auto-HCT and 33 (10.0%) allogeneic-HCT (8 after failure of auto-HCT). Two-year overall survival (OS) from time of PTF was 45.5% (95% C.I. 34.5-56.5%) for ER, 30.6% (95% C.I. 20.0-41.2%) for RD and 18.5% (95% C.I. 11.4-25.6%) for PP (P Conclusions: Pts with DLBCL experiencing PTF have poor prognosis but low clinical trial participation even when treated in academic centers. Pts with PP disease, intermediate-high/high NCCN-IPI at time of PTF or with c-myc(+) tumors constitute a UHR category with dismal outcomes on existing therapies. REFINE provides benchmarking for future experimental agents targeting this population. UHR pts represent an unmet medical need and should receive high priority for development of new drugs and cellular therapies. Table 1. Table 1. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Chavez: Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Reddy:INFINITY: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GILEAD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karmali:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Merck, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lansigan:Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding. Flowers:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fenske:Seatle Genetics: Honoraria; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Cohen:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hamadani:Takeda: Research Funding. Costa:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: Modern chemoimmunotherapy cures the majority of patients (pts) with newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphomas (DLBCL). The paradigm for pts who relapse has been salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) when chemosensitive disease. This approach is often also applied to pts with primary treatment failure (PTF), although this group is heterogeneous and outcomes of HCT in this population have not been well described. Methods: Fifteen US academic medical centers contributed pts to the REgistry of diFfuse large B cell lymphoma with prImary treatmeNt failurE (REFINE) collaboration. REFINE retrospectively captured patient, disease and treatment characteristics and response as assessed by treating center. Eligible pts were ≥ 18 years diagnosed with DLBCL during 2008-2015, who received upfront therapy including anthracycline and CD20-directed antibody and developed one of 3 patterns of PTF: relapse < 6 months following CR (early relapse- ER); only partial remission (PR) or stable disease (SD) with upfront therapy (residual disease-RD); progressive disease (PD) while receiving upfront therapy (primary progression-PP). Pts with HIV infection, primary CNS lymphoma or lymphoma transforming from a more indolent histology were excluded. Results: Among 331 cases included in REFINE, patterns of PTF were ER in 95 (28.7%), RD in 92 (27.8%) and PP in 144 (43.5%) pts. Salvage therapy was administered to 94.6% of pts. We analyzed the 157 (47.4%) PTF pts who subsequently underwent HCT, 132 auto-HCT and 33 allo-HCT (8 after failure of auto-HCT) (Table). Nearly half of pts were in CR at transplant, after 1-2 lines of salvage therapy. Among all pts receiving auto-HCT, 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) from time of transplant was 38.4% (95% C.I. 29.6-47.2%) and overall survival (OS) 54.9% (95% C.I. 44.9-64.9%). Two-year OS from auto-HCT was affected by pattern of PTF: 71.3% for ER, 55.0% for RD and 41.7% for PP (P=0.05). OS at 2-years was 23.7% for auto-HCT pts with germinal center B (GCB)type,c-myc(+) (by FISH) tumors vs. 66.7% for GCB, c-myc (-), vs. 67.8% for non-germinal center (NGC) (P=0.01). Auto-HCT pts with intermediate-high/high NCCN-IPI at time of PTF had 2-year OS of 28.6% vs. 66.0% for intermediate-low and 80.9% for low risk (P Conclusions: Pts with DLBCL experiencing PTF and 2 or more UHF features have dismal outcome after auto-HCT and should be targeted for experimental modalities of cellular therapy. Outcomes of allo-HCT in DLBCL with PTF are poor, due to rapid and fatal relapses. Table. Table. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Costa: Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding. Reddy:INFINITY: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GILEAD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karmali:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Chavez:Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Merck, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Flowers:Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Fenske:Seatle Genetics: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding. Cohen:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Hamadani:Takeda: Research Funding.

7567Background: While mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has historically been treated at the time of diagnosis, we recently reported a national cohort analysis which identified a subset of patients who can safely defer therapy (Cohen et. al, ASH 2015), validating previously reported single-center findings (Martin et al, JCO 2009). We conducted a multicenter analysis of MCL patients with additional clinical data to better describe the role of deferred therapy in MCL. Methods: Patients ≥ 18 years old who received initial treatment for newly diagnosed MCL between 1995-2015 at one of four academic sites were included. Deferred therapy was defined as receipt of first treatment > 90 days following diagnosis. We identified variables associated with receipt of deferred therapy and evaluated the impact of deferred therapy, demographic factors and MIPI components on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in multivariable regression models. Results: Of 356 patients, 71 (20%) received deferred therapy with a media...

7544Background: Ibrutinib (IB) has shown significant activity in R/R MCL in prospective studies, but less is known about its “real world” activity. Moreover factors predicting IB failure, impact of...