Search

Introduction:Recently there has been a renewal of therapeutic tools for the treatment of lymphoid neoplasms to increase the antitumor efficacy and reduce the toxicity generated by conventional chemotherapies, which adds to the intrinsic immunological dysfunction of the disease itself. To date, few data are published about infection risk of these new drugs, and the need for infectious prophylaxis is unknown. The aim of the study is to analyze the infectious complications in patients with LPD treated with monoclonal antibodies (obinutuzumab, ofatumumab, brentuximab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab), BTK inhibitors (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib) and PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib). Methods: Multicenter retrospective study in patients with LPD treated with targeted therapies (single agents or combination) in 18 Hematology centers in Spain, from the time of their commercial availability to March 2020. Patients in clinical trials were excluded as well as patients with active infections at the beginning of treatment. Results:During the study period, 380 patients were included.Baseline characteristics of the entire cohort are shown in Table 1.Median follow-up was 17.3 months (range 0-103), the longest follow-up corresponding to CLL patients (24 months, range 0-98) and the shortest to LBCL (5 months, range 0-25). Median exposure to target drugs was 8 months (range 0-72).Ibrutinib was administered to 219 patients(1 FL, 147 CLL, 27 MCL, 10 DLBCL, 1 TL and 32 WM, 1 HL),Brentuximab to 49(31 HL, 14 TL and 4 DLBCL) andIdelalisibto 35 patients (16 affected by chronic lymphocytic leukemia - CLL, 15 FL and 1 DLBCL, 1 WM, 1MCL, 1HL).Obinutuzumabcombinations were used in 10 (6 CLL, 3 FL, 1 MCL) and 5 HL patients (of which 4/5 underwent previous BMT) receivedNivolumab. A total number of 237 infectious events occurred in 148/380 patients (38.9%), 39% of which were grade 3 and 54/148 (36.4%) experienced 2 or more infective episodes: of those 54, 21 (38%) had underwent 3 or more lines of therapy and 28 (51%) had hypogammaglobulinemia. Hospitalization was required in 59.2% events. A bacterial cause of infection was reported in 40% of cases, and viral in 16%, including 11/237 (4,6%) SARS-CoV-2 infection. Invasive fungal infection (IFI) occurred in 3.3% (8/237). Noteworthy, no case of PJP was identified. Lung was the most frequent site of infection in 24% of cases (57/237) while the upper respiratory tract was involved in 17% of events (41/237). Urinary tract infections were diagnosed in 10% (24/237). Other sites involved were skin and soft tissue 7%, gastrointestinal tract 5,4%, bloodstream infections 3% and catheter related infections 2,5%. Considering drugs individually, 86 patients that receivedIbrutinib(39.2 %)experienced a total of 137 infectious episodes: 30% bacterial, 19% viral, 5% fungal and 45% clinical and image-based infections; the 17(34.6%of those who received Brentuximab, experienced a total of 16 infectious episodes: 56% bacterial, 37.5% viral infections and one catheter-related sepsis. Of those who receivedIdelalisib,18 (51.4%)experienced a total of 28 episodes: 42% bacterial, 14% viral and 7% fungal. Four patients treated withObinutuzumabcombinations (40%) experienced one infection during treatment (25% bacterial and 75% viral). Only one patient treated withNivolumabexperienced more than three infections, he was also under corticosteroid treatment. Focusing on IFI (Table 2): 7/8 infections were identified in CLL patients, 6 out 7 being on ibrutinib treatment and 1/7 on Idelalisib.Aspergilluswas the fungus most frequently isolated. The targeted drug was discontinued temporarily in 4 patients and indefinitely in 3. Twenty three (6%) patients died due to infection in our series. Conclusions: 1. We identified 38.7% infections in our LPD patients treated with targeted drugs, with a median drug-exposure time of 8 months (range 0-72), with a non-negligible incidence of bacterial infections. 2. The highest rates of infection were found in patients treated with with Idelalisib and Ibrutinib (51.4% and 39.2% respectively). 3. IFI (3.3%) occurred with low frequency, mostly in CLL patients during ibrutinib treatment, leading to its temporal discontinuation in most of the cases. 4. No case of PJP was identified in our cohort. 5. An analysis to determine risk factors for infection and the optimal monitoring and prophylaxis for these patients is ongoing. Disclosures Hernandez-Rivas: Janssen:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Abbvie:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Roche:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;AstraZeneca:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Gilead:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Celgene/BMS:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Rovi:Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.Lopez-Guillermo:novartis:Consultancy;celgene:Consultancy, Research Funding;roche:Consultancy, Research Funding;gilead:Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Patients (pts) with CLL may be at particular risk of severe COVID-19 given advanced age and immune dysregulation. Two large series with limited follow-up have reported outcomes for pts with CLL and COVID-19 (Scarfò, et al. Leukemia 2020; Mato, et al. Blood 2020). To provide maximal clarity on outcomes for pts with CLL and COVID-19, we partnered in a worldwide effort to describe the clinical experience and validate predictors of survival, including potential treatment effects. Methods: This international collaboration represents a partnership between investigators at 141 centers. Data are presented in two cohorts. Cohort 1 (Co1) includes pts captured through efforts by European Research Initiative on CLL (ERIC), Italian CAMPUS CLL Program, and Grupo Español de Leucemia Linfática Crónica. The validation cohort, Cohort 2 (Co2), includes pts from US (66%), UK (23%), EU (7%), and other countries (4%). There is no overlap in cases between cohorts. CLL pts were included if COVID-19 was diagnosed by PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 and they required inpatient hospitalization. Data were collected retrospectively 2/2020 - 5/2020 using standardized case report forms. Baseline characteristics, preexisting comorbidities (including cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score ≥6 vs. The primary endpoint of this study was to estimate the case fatality rate (CFR), defined as the proportion of pts who died among all pts hospitalized with COVID-19. Chi-squared test was used to compare frequencies; univariable and multivariable analyses utilized Cox regression. Predictors of inferior OS in both Co1 and Co2 were included in multivariable analyses. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) from time of COVID-19 diagnosis (dx). Results: 411 hospitalized, COVID-19 positive CLL pts were analyzed (Co1 n=281, Co2 n=130). Table 1 describes baseline characteristics. At COVID-19 dx, median age was 72 in Co1 (range 37-94) and 68 in Co2 (range 41-98); 31% (Co1) and 45% (Co2) had CIRS ≥6. In Co1, 48% were treatment-naïve and 26% were receiving CLL-directed therapy at COVID-19 dx (66% BTKi ± anti-CD20, 19% Venetoclax ± anti-CD20, 9.6% chemo/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), 1.4% PI3Ki, 4% other). In Co2, 36% were never treated and 49% were receiving CLL-directed therapy (65% BTKi ± anti-CD20, 19% Venetoclax ± anti-CD20, 9.4% multi-novel agent combinations, 1.6% CIT, 1.6% PI3Ki, 1.6% anti-CD20 monotherapy, 1.6% other). Most pts receiving CLL-directed therapy had it held at COVID-19 diagnosis (93% in Co1 and 81% in Co2). Frequency of most COVID-19 symptoms/laboratory abnormalities were similar in the two cohorts including fever (88% in both), lymphocytosis (ALC ≥30 x 109/L; 27% vs. 21%), and lymphocytopenia (ALC < 1.0 x 109/L; 18% vs. 28%), while others varied between Co1 and Co2 (p Median follow-up was 24 days (range 2-86) in Co1 and 17 days (1-43) in Co2. CFRs were similar in Co1 and Co2, 30% and 34% (p=0.45). 54% and 43% were discharged while 16% and 23% remained admitted at last follow-up in Co1 and Co2, respectively. The proportion of pts requiring supplemental oxygen was similar (89% vs. 92%) while rate of ICU admission was higher in Co2 (20% vs. 48%, p Conclusions : In the largest cancer dx-specific cohort reported, pts with CLL hospitalized for COVID-19 had a CFR of 30-34%. Advanced patient age at COVID-19 diagnosis was an independent predictor of OS in two large cohorts. This CFR will serve as a benchmark for mortality for future outcomes studies, including therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 in this population. The effect of CLL treatment on OS was inconsistent across cohorts; COVID-19 may be severe regardless of treatment status. While there were no significant differences in distribution of current lines of therapy between cohorts, prior chemo exposure was more common in Co1 vs. Co2, which may account for difference in OS. Extended follow-up will be presented. Disclosures Roeker: American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Scarfo:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abrisqueta:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Eyre:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; KITE, AZ, Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Muntañola Prat:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; participated in advisory boards; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; participated in advisory boards; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; participated in advisory boards. Villacampa:AstraZeneca: Other: advisory role; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Leslie:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC therapeutics: 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; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Allan:Acerta, Genentech, Abbvie, Sunesis, Ascentage, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Furman:Incyte: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Oncotarget: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Pagel:BeiGene, Astrazeneca, Loxo Oncology, Gilead: Consultancy. Hernandez-Rivas:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rovi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patel:Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Motta:Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Lamanna:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Bei-Gene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vitale:Janssen: Honoraria. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Österborg:BeiGene: Research Funding; Kancera: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Karolinska Univeristy Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden: Current Employment. Hanson:Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria. Eichhorst:ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Oxford Biomedica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Reda:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Varettoni:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marchetti:Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Sponsored meetings; Takeda: Other: Sponsored meetings; Pfeizer: Other: Sponsored meetings. Munir:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Other: Medical writing support, furnished by Scott Battle, PhD, of Health Interactions, was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland; Alexion: Honoraria. Zabalza:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Roche: Other: travel grants; Novartis: Other: travel grants. Janssens:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees. Niemann:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Danish Cancer Society: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk Foundation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Perini:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Patten:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Marasca:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria. Iyengar:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Ferrari:Abbvie: Honoraria. El-Sharkawi:Roche: Other: Conference fees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Itchaki:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ma:Novartis: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bioverativ: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Van Der Spek:AMGEN: Other: Teaching activities. Seymour:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Rigolin:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mauro:Roche: Other; Octopharma: Other; Takeda-Shire: Other; Gilead: Other; Janssen: Other; Abbvie: Other. Laurenti:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Levin:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel compensation; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel compensation; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel compensation. Špaček:Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Walewska:AbbVie: Other: sponsored for educational meetings, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: sponsored for educational meetings, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wiestner:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company; Acerta, Merck, Nurix, Verastem, and Genmab: Research Funding; National Institutes of Health: Patents & Royalties: and other intellectual property. Broom:Gilead: Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau. Kater:Abbvie: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ujjani:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Vandenberghe:Celgene: Other: sponsorship to attend Lugano lymphoma meeting in 2019; Gilead: Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: travel grants; Roche: Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Chong:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tessa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Brown:Janssen, Teva: Speakers Bureau; Gilead, Loxo, Sun, Verastem: Research Funding; Abbvie, Acerta, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Invectys, Juno/Celgene, Kite, Morphosys, Novartis, Octapharma, Pharmacyclics, Sunesis, TG Therapeutics, Verastem: Consultancy. Trentin:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Farina:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sanchez:Abbvie: Other: travel grants; Amgem: Other: travel grants; Janssen: Other: travel grants; Celgene: Other: travel grants; Roche: Other: travel grants. Shadman:Abbvie, Genentech, Astra Zeneca, Sound Biologics , Pharmacyclics, Verastem, ADC therapeutics, Beigene, Cellectar, BMS, Morphosys and Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Mustang Bio, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Genentech, Abbvie, TG therapeutics, Beigene, Astra Zeneca, Sunesis, Beigene: Research Funding. Foglietta:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Jaksic:Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Sportoletti:AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Barr:Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kersting:Celgene: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Huntington:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Herishanu:Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Jacobs:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Genzyme: Speakers Bureau. Portell:BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Astellas: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); University of Milan: Current Employment; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Received travel support., Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support from Gilead.; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Research grant from Amgen Inc.; Omeros: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Advisory board and speaker fees from Pfizer.. Brander:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tolero: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tolero: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding. Rossi:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coscia:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Coombs:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria; LOXO Oncology: Honoraria; Octapharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Schuster:Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Foà:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cuneo:Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bosch:Jansen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Stamatopoulos:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen, Gilead, Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ghia:Adaptive, Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; MEI: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mato:Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding.

Objective/Background: Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) with early therapy failure (ETF) within 2 years of frontline therapy have poor overall survival (OS). We recently reported the results of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients from the Grupo Español de Linfomas y Trasplantes de Médula Ósea (GELTAMO) registry treated with rituximab prior to ASCT and with ETF after first-line immunochemotherapy, leading to 81% 5-year OS since ASCT. We explored whether ASCT is also an effective option in the pre-rituximab era—that is, in patients treated in induction and rescued only with chemotherapy. Methods: ETF was defined as relapse/progression within 2 years of starting first-line therapy. We identified two groups: the ETF cohort (n = 87) and the non-ETF cohort (n = 47 patients receiving ASCT but not experiencing ETF following first-line therapy). Results: There was a significant difference in 5-year progression-free survival between the ETF and non-ETF cohorts (43% vs. 57%, respectively; p = .048). Nevertheless, in patients with ETF with an interval from first relapse after primary treatment to ASCT of

We investigated the clinicopathological features and prognostic factors of patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) in 13 sites across Spain. Relevant clinical antecedents, CD30 expression and staining pattern, prognostic indices using the International Prognostic Index and the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi system, treatments, and clinical outcomes were examined. A sizeable proportion of 175 patients had a history of immune-related disorders (autoimmune 16%, viral infections 17%, chemo/radiotherapy-treated carcinomas 19%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 7·9 and 15·8 months, respectively. Prognostic indices influenced PFS and OS, with a higher number of adverse factors resulting in shorter survival (P 15% of cells were positive in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive and -negative anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and extranodal natural killer PTCL groups. We observed PTCL distribution across subtypes based on haematopathological re-evaluation. Poor prognosis, effect of specific prognostic indices, relevance of histopathological sub-classification, and response level to first-line treatment on outcomes were confirmed. Immune disorders amongst patients require further examination involving genetic studies and identification of associated immunosuppressive factors., This study was sponsored by Takeda.

INTRODUCTION Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV2 virus is thought to be more severe in patients with prior hematological diseases. There is evidence suggesting that hematological patients are particularly vulnerable and have a higher risk of developing severe events, with higher mortality rate than general population. However, the available data are limited, and prognostic factors at admission still remain unclear. With this background, our aims were to analyze the impact of hematological diseases and their therapy on the COVID-19 severity and to identify clinical and biological risk factors to predict the outcome in these patients. METHODS We carried out a multicenter retrospective observational study with data collection from 19 Spanish centers. A total of 491 patients with hematological diseases who developed COVID-19 (HEMATOCOVID patients) from March 8th to June 9th were included in the study. Clinical and biological data were collected at the time of emergency room assistance or hospital admission. For statistical analysis, chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to identify differences between groups. The effects of multiple predictor variables on COVID-19 outcomes were assessed by logistic binary regression. RESULTS The geographic distribution of the studied HEMATOCOVID patients was similar to the national geographic spread of the COVID-19 (Figure 1). Most patients (94,3%) were confirmed cases of COVID-19 with a positive result on SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR on a nasopharyngeal swab or serologic testing, and 15% were nosocomial infections. The mean age was 71 years with 57% males, and 70% had at least one associated comorbidity. The most frequent hematological diseases among COVID-19 patients were Lymphoid Malignancies (53,8%), and 51,7% of patients were on active treatment. Most common symptoms were fever (59%), cough (54%) and dyspnea (46%), with associated pneumonia in 70% of cases. Hospital admission was required in 89% of patients and 6,3% were admitted to intensive care units. Mortality rate was about 36%. Non-survival patients were older and had a higher Charlson comorbidity index and ECOG performance status. Furthermore, patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and those with an active or progressive hematological disease at the diagnosis of COVID-19 had higher mortality. Patients who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autologous, allogeneic, and both) had better outcomes. Other factors such as low lymphocyte and platelets counts, or high lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin values were also associated with poorer outcomes (Table 1). In addition, COVID-19 therapy had no impact on survival, except for corticosteroids, that correlated with a negative impact (p < 0,001) probably because they were not administrated to patients with less severe COVID-19. Multivariate regression analysis showed the following risk factors for death: age >70 years, ECOG ≥2, absolute lymphocyte count ≤0.6·109/L, platelet count ≤40·109/L, high LDH (higher than upper normal limit) and CRP >11 mg/dL (Table 2). CONCLUSIONS SARS-CoV2 infection causes more severe disease and higher mortality rates in hematological patients, especially those with AML/MDS or active/progression status disease. In addition, advanced age, co-morbidities, poor performance status, low lymphocyte and platelet counts and high LDH and CRP at admission are associated with poorer survival. This worse disease evolution could be explained by the immunosuppression state induced by underlying disease and treatments received. These particular features should be taken into account for a population that is highly exposed to SARS-CoV2 contagion due to high number of hospital visits for treatment. Disclosures Hernandez-Rivas: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rovi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ocio:MDS: Honoraria; Asofarma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Secura-Bio: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. López Jiménez:Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Córdoba:Takeda Farmacéutica España S.A.: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Roche: Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation. Moraleda:Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Sandoz: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Garcia-Sanz:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

COVID-19 is a severe infectious complication in patients with underlying medical conditions such as having undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). This prospective survey reports outcome on 272 COVID-19 patients from 19 countries having undergone allogeneic (n = 175) or autologous (n = 97) HCT reported to the EBMT registry or to the GETH. All patients had the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 documented by PCR. Patients were included in this analysis if COVID-19 diagnosis was before April 10, 2020. The overall survival was estimate by using the Kaplan Meier methods, considering the death due to any cause as an event and the time from COVID-19 infection to the latest follow-up as survival time; difference between groups were tested by the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate risk factor analysis for overall survival were performed with the Cox regression model. The median age was 54.4 years (1.0 - 80.3) for allogeneic and 60.9 years (7.7 - 73.4) for autologous HCT patients. 20 patients were children (< 18 years of age; median age 11.3 (1.0 - 16.9)). The median time from HCT to diagnosis of COVID-19 was 13.7 months (0.2 - 254.3) in allogeneic and 25.0 months (-0.9 - 350.3) in autologous recipients. Lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD) developed in 84.8% and 21.5% were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). At the time of analysis, 68/238 (28.6%) patients had died (47/155 allogeneic patients; 21/83 autologous patients). No follow-up had been received on 34 patients. The median time from infection to death was 19 days (0-102). Five patients were reported to have other primary causes of death than COVID-19. Of the patients reported to be alive, the median follow-up was 44 days. 144 (84.7%) patients (93 allogeneic; 51 autologous) had virologic resolution of the COVID-19 infection having at least one negative PCR. 26 patients were alive and known to be still COVID-19 positive (15 allogeneic; 11 autologous). For 34 patients the resolution status was unknown. Factors influencing the likelihood of resolution in multivariate analysis were underlying diagnosis (p=.01) and longer time from transplant to diagnosis of COVID-19 (p=.035). Overall survival at 6 weeks from COVID-19 diagnosis was 76.8% and 83.8% in allogeneic and autologous HCT recipients (p =ns), respectively (figure 1). Children (n=20) tended to do better with a 6-week survival of 95.0% although the difference was not significantly different (p =.12). In multivariate analysis of the total population older age (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.05 - 1.51; p = .01) increased the risk and better performance status decreased the risk for fatal outcome (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69 - 0.90; p = .0003). The same factors had significant impact on overall survival in allogeneic HCT recipients (age HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.05 - 1.55; p=.01; performance status HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 - 0.92); p=.002) while only age impacted survival among autologous HCT patients (data not shown). Other transplant factors such as underlying diagnosis, time from HCT to diagnosis of COVID-19, graft-vs-host disease, or ongoing immunosuppression did not have a significant impact on overall survival. We conclude that HCT patients are at an increased risk compared to the general population to develop LRTD, require admission to ICU, and have increased mortality in COVID-19. Figure 1 Disclosures Duarte: Incyte Corporation: Other: Has received speaker and advisor fees. Kwon:Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mielke:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau; Bellicum: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau; KIADIS Pharma: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau; DNA Prime: Honoraria, Other: received via my institution , Speakers Bureau. López Jiménez:MSD: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Background : Oncohematological patients may have a lower immune response against SARS-CoV-2, both to natural infection and to vaccines. Most studies have focused on the analysis of the humoral response, which means that the information available on the cellular response against SARS-CoV-2 in these patients is limited. Current recommendations include vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSTC), regardless of whether they have been previously exposed to the virus. These recommendations are based on previous studies with other vaccines. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the immune response that is developed in these patients in order to make specific recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination. Objective : To study the humoral and cellular immune response before and after AHSTC in patients with oncohematological neoplasms who were exposed to SARS-CoV-2 before the transplantation. Materials & methods : Nine patients with previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 who underwent AHSTC (Table 1) and 8 healthy donors who recovered from mild COVID-19 were recruited from Hospital Ramón y Cajal and Primary Healthcare Center Pedro Laín Entralgo (Madrid, Spain), respectively. Specific direct cellular cytotoxicity (DCC) of PBMCs from these patients against Vero E6 cells infected with pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2 was determined. The activation of caspase-3 in Vero cells was measured after 1 hour of co-culture with PBMCs, in which cytotoxic cell populations were analyzed by flow cytometry. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) was analyzed by quantifying the binding of Annexin V to rituximab-coated Raji cells as targets of PBMCs. Results : 1) 66% of AHSTC patients did not develop detectable levels of IgGs against SARS-CoV-2 (Fig. 1). In 33% of these patients with detectable IgG, the titers decreased after AHSTC, as well as their neutralizing capacity (Fig. 1B and C). 2) AHSTC patients showed increased levels of immature B cells (9.5-fold; p=0.0586) and plasmablasts (28.8-fold), in comparison with healthy donors who had mild COVID-19, while naive and resting memory B cells decreased 1.7- and 6.9-fold, respectively. 3) Specific DCC against SARS-CoV-2-infected cells increased 1.5-fold in comparison with healthy donors (Fig. 2A). Cytotoxic populations with NK phenotypes (CD3-CD56+CD16+), NKT (CD3+CD56+CD16+), and CD8+ T cells (CD3+CD8+TCRγδ+) increased 1.9- (p=0.0311), 1.9- (p=0.0592), and 1.6-fold, respectively (Fig. 2B). ADCC increased 2.1-fold in PBMCs from AHSTC patients in comparison with healthy donors (p = 0.0592). Conclusions : Our data show for the first time how the humoral and cellular immune response against the natural infection by SARS-Cov-2 may be modified in patients who were subsequently subjected to AHSTC. Although the humoral response may be reduced after AHSTC, the specific cellular response showed an increased cytotoxic activity. These results could be extrapolated to patients who were vaccinated against COVID-19 prior to AHSTC. Therefore, this information could be useful to define the recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination after AHSTC. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Garcia-Gutiérrez: Pfizer: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy.

Background: Oncohematological patients present a variable immune response against many vaccines, due to the immunodeficiency caused by the disease and its treatment. The experience of vaccination against COVID-19 in oncohematological patients is low and mostly limited to studies of humoral immunity. However, the humoral and cellular immune responses between different oncohematological diseases (OHD) have not been compared. Objective: To compare the humoral and cellular immune responses in four groups of patients with OHD after receiving the first dose of one COVID-19 vaccine. Materials & methods: We recruited 53 patients in four groups according to diagnosis: Chronic Lymphatic Leukemia (CLL) (n=14), Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) (n=11), Multiple Myeloma (MM) (n=15), and Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) (n=13) (Table 1). Samples were collected prior to vaccination and 3 weeks after receiving one dose of COMIRNATY (BioNTech-Pzifer), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or AZD1222 (AstraZeneca). Twenty-six healthy donors with similar vaccination pattern were recruited. IgG titers against SARS-CoV-2 were quantified by Euroimmun-Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA. Direct cellular cytotoxicity (DCC) was determined against Vero E6 cells infected with pseudotyped SARS-CoV-2, measuring caspase-3 activation after co-culture with PBMCs, in which cytotoxic populations were phenotyped by flow cytometry. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) analyses were performed using Annexin V on Raji cells as a target. Results: 1) Early humoral response against COVID-19 vaccination in patients with CML was 5.1- (p Conclusions: We found significant differences in the early humoral immune response after one single dose of COVID-19 vaccine depending on the OHD analyzed. It was observed for the first time that the early cytotoxic immune response is efficient in all groups of patients, although superior in those who were not exposed to ASCT. Most cytotoxic activity relied on CD8+ T cells. These data can be useful to determine the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in patients with OHD. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Garcia Gutierrez: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: Defining high-risk profiles at diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosis is a current effort of the scientific community in an attempt to design more aggressive therapeutic approaches for those patients. Several prognostic scores have been created combining biological, clinical and laboratory parameters. The prognostic impact of laboratory variables has widely been studied, with variable results in literature. Our aim was to evaluate the outcome impact of relevant laboratory parameters with different cut-offs in a homogeneous DLBCL series, and to design a simple and practical prognostic model. Methods: A retrospective evaluation of de novo DLBCL not otherwise specified cases (2013-2020 period) with a complete blood test at diagnosis (n=126) was performed. Twelve laboratory variables with different cut-off points were analysed (30 parameters). The thresholds for each variable were chosen based on previous literature, Institutional Laboratory ranges, and ROC curves for both event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). The EFS and OS univariate hazard ratios (UV HR) were analysed by Cox regression model to assess the prognostic impact of each variable and their different cut-offs. A multivariate analysis (MV) for the EFS was performed including the most significant parameters (UV HR >1 and P 1 and P Results: The cohort consisted of 64 females and 62 males, median age 70 years (28-89). The median follow-up of the series was 29 months (0.3-97). In Figure 1A are presented by forest plots the UV HR of the laboratory variables and their different cut-offs for both EFS and OS. The final model, which included 100 patients, combined three parameters (Figure 1B): lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) >235 U/L (EFS MV HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.9-4; point score 1), hemoglobin (Hb) 4 mg/L (EFS MV HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.6-5.9; point score 2). The patients were divided into three clusters with different prognosis (Figure 1C): 0 points (n=17; 3-year EFS 86%, 3-year OS 92%), 1-2 points (n=46; 3-year EFS 63%, 3-year OS 71%), and 3-4 points (n=37; 3-year EFS 27%, 3-year OS 35%). Conclusions: Here is presented a Laboratory Prognostic Index (LaPI) based on three variables routinely evaluated at DLBCL diagnosis: LDH, Hb and β2M. The model is simple and is able to classify DLBCL cases into three clusters with different EFS and OS. This score would allow clinicians to have preliminary prognostic information through a basic blood test. The purpose is to prospectively validate this model in a larger cohort, focusing on the identification of high-risk patients who may benefit from more aggressive therapeutic approaches. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Garcia Gutierrez: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction: Response to chemotherapy treatment both by cytology and by more sensitive techniques such as cytometry is one of the most influential parameters in the survival of patients with Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML). Patients with detectable minimal residual disease (MRD) or those with active disease (AD) after induction or prior to allogeneic transplantation (HCST) represent a high-risk group. Objectives: to analyse the impact of disease burden before HSCT in terms of Overall Survival (OS) and Event Free Survival (EFS) in a group of patients who received HSCT in a single institution. We also analysed the influence of disease burden at the end of induction (considering best response after 1 or 2 cycles) and its impact on those patients in Cytological Remission (CR) with MRD Methods: We analysed 103 patients who received HSCT in one centre between 2008 and 2020 in whom we knew disease status after induction and before HSCT. We divided the cohort into three groups according to preHSCT disease: Group 1) Patients in CR with MRD Results: The baseline characteristics of the population are reflected in table 1. Median follow-up was 13 months (0-140). One-year EFS (1y-EFS) was 49%. One-year OS (1y-OS) was 57.5%, with a 1y-IAR of 27%. We first analysed the impact on post-transplant survival according to the different groups. Group 1 had significantly better EFS than Group 2 (p=0.04) and Group 3 (p Conclusions: Patients with pre-transplant AD or MRD+ are a high-risk group due to a high incidence of post-HSCT relapse. Although patients with AD or CR with MRD+ after induction have a worse prognosis, those who achieve MRD- before HSCT have a similar survival to the MRD- group from the start of chemotherapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Garcia-Gutiérrez: Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy.

Introduction: SMM is an asymptomatic plasma cell disorder with heterogeneous clinical behavior. Both the Spanish Myeloma and ECOG Groups have demonstrated that patients (pts) at high risk of progression to active MM have prolonged time-to progression upon receiving early treatment with R-based regimens. Our next step was to perform a phase 2, single arm trial, focusing on the same population, but aiming at abrogating the risk of progression through the achievement of sustained minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-ve) at 3 and 5 years after HDT-ASCT. Patients and methods: Ninety SMM pts at high-risk of progression (>50% at 2 yrs), younger than 70 years and transplant candidates were included. The high risk was defined by the presence of both ≥PC 10% and MC ≥3g/dL (Mayo criteria) or ifonly one criterion was present, pts should have >95%of aberrant PCs within the total PCsBM compartment by immunophenotyping plus immunoparesis (Spanish criteria). Induction therapy consisted of six 4-weeks cycles of KRd in which K was given at dose of 36 mg/m 2 twice per week plus R at dose of 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone at dose of 40 mg weekly. Melphalan at dose of 200 mg/m 2 followed by ASCT was given as intensification therapy followed by two KRd consolidation cycles and maintenance with R at dose of 10 mg plus dexamethasone at dose of 20 mg weekly for up to 2 yrs. The primary end-point was to evaluate the MRD-ve rate by next generation flow (NGF) after ASCT and MRD-ve rate maintained at 3 and 5 years after ASCT. Results: Between June 2015 and June 2017, 90 high-risk SMM pts were recruited and 70 pts (78%) have completed the treatment protocol. The reasons for early discontinuations were: IC withdrawal (4 pts), adverse events (8 pts) or biological progression (BP), either biochemical or because of MRD conversion from negative to positive (1 pt during induction and 7 pts during maintenance). Thirty-one pts (34%) shared at least one of the biomarkers considered as myeloma defining events that currently reclassify SMM into active MM. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) pts' population, after induction, the ≥CR rate was 41% and increased to 65% after HDT-ASCT and 72% after consolidation. During maintenance therapy, 7 pts experienced biological progression (2 pts conversion from MRD-ve into +ve and 5 pts biochemical progression) and the ≥CR rate at the end of treatment was 63.3%. In the ITT population, MRD-ve rates at 10 -5 were observed in 40% of pts after induction, 63% after HDT-ASCT, 68% after consolidation and 52% after maintenance therapy. Among MRD-ve patients after maintenance therapy that had MRD assessed one year after, 67% showed sustained MRD-ve. After a median f/u of 55 months (range: 6.2-71), only three patients progressed to symptomatic disease and the three had at baseline anyone of the biomarkers defining myeloma-defining events. At 5 years, 94% of pts remain alive and progression-free and 95% of pts alive (Figure 1). Overall, twenty-six pts (29%) have experienced biological progression (19 of them were conversion of MRD-ve into +ve), 8 of them during treatment phase (1 during induction and 7 during maintenance) and 16 pts during the follow-up period. The only factors predicting biological progression was failure to achieve MRD-ve at the end of treatment and unsustained MRD-ve at 1 year after finalizing maintenance. Concerning toxicity, during induction, G3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were reported in 5 (6%) and 10 pts (11%), respectively. G3-4 infections were reported in 16 pts (18%), followed by skin rash in 8 pts (9%). One patient reported G1 atrial fibrillation and another cardiac failure secondary to respiratory infection. Three pts reported hypertension (G2 in two and G3 in one). In all but two of the pts, PBSC collection was successful with a median of 4.10 x 10 6/Kg CD34 cells collected. All pts engrafted but one patient developed late graft failure. During consolidation, 2 pts developed G3-4 neutropenia, 3 pts G3-4 infections and 1 pt skin rash. Seven pts had to discontinue maintenance therapy due to: G3-4 hematological toxicity (4 pts), SPM (2pts) and cardiac arrest (1pt). One additional patient withdrew the IC. Conclusions: These results suggest that early treatment with intention to abrogate risk of progression in transplant candidate high risk SMM patients is associated with a 94% PFS at 55 months and a sustained MRD negative rate at 1 year post treatment of 67%. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mateos: Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Rodríguez-Otero: Celgene-BMS, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi, GSK, Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria. Gonzalez-Calle: BMS, Janssen, Amgen: Honoraria. Oriol: Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Rosinol: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen and Takeda: Honoraria. de la Rubia: Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb,: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy; Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Sanofi: Honoraria; Ablynx/Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Accommodations; Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. De Arriba: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ocio: MSD: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy; Secura-Bio: Consultancy. Paiva: Bristol-Myers Squibb-Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Consultancy; Adaptive, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb-Celgene, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Sanofi and Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene, EngMab, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Research Funding. Puig: Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda and The Binding Site: Honoraria. Cedena: Janssen, Celgene and Abbvie: Honoraria. Lahuerta: Celgene: Other: Travel accomodations and expenses; Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Janssen and Sanofi: Consultancy. San-Miguel: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board.

Introduction Bone marrow (BM) examination at diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosis is essential in staging and has prognostic implication. According to the last recommendations (Cheson, et al. JCO 2014) BM biopsy (BMB) is only needed for those patients with a negative BM infiltration by positron emission tomography (PET) for whom identification of occult discordant histology - whose biological and prognostic implications are unknown - is clinically important. Despite its greater sensitivity, flow cytometry (FC) is secondary in BM assessment. Our aim was to compare PET, BMB and FC in the study of BM infiltration at DLBCL diagnosis. Methods Retrospective study in two hospitals in Madrid of patients diagnosed with DLBCL NOS from January 2014 to January 2020. A complete BM assessment including PET, BMB and FC was performed in all included patients. The hole series (n=102) was analysed separately according with BM infiltration by each technique, differences between biological, clinical and laboratory variables were studied applying descriptive statistics tests when appropriate (Fisher's exact test, chi-square test, Student's T test and Mann-Witney U test). Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed with Kaplan-Meier estimator according to BM infiltration positive vs negative for each technique, using Cox proportional-hazard model for comparisons. Results BM infiltration was not assessed in 2 patients by BMB and in 4 patients by FC due to technical reasons. Analysing separately the series according to BM infiltration by each technique (PET+ 25 vs PET- 77, BMB+ 15 vs BMB- 85 and FC+ 16 vs FC- 82) the basal characteristics were comparable between groups, except from extranodal sites ≥2, Ann Arbor III-IV and elevated LDH level in groups with positive BM infiltration. The variables associated with worsen EFS in univariate analysis were age ≥80 years (HR 2.31; CI 95% 1.1-5.1), cell-of-origin (COO) non-GCB (HR 2.33; CI 95% 1.1-4.9), extranodal sites ≥2 (HR 2.39; CI 95% 1.2-4.7), Ann Arbor III-IV (HR 4.55; CI 95% 2.0-10.5), and elevated LDH level (HR 2.32; CI 95% 1.1-4.7). The variables statistically related with worsen OS were COO non-GCB (HR 2.91; CI 95% 1.2-6.8), extranodal sites ≥2 (HR 2.61; CI 95% 1.2-5.5), Ann Arbor III-IV (HR 5.97; CI 95% 2.1-17.3), elevated LDH level (HR 2.36; CI 95% 1.1-5.4), and elevated beta-2 microglobulin level (HR 3.82; CI 95% 1.1-12.9). Double-expressor phenotype did not demonstrated association with EFS or OS. Median infiltration by FC analysis was 0.9% (0.05-27). The series distribution among BM infiltration is presented in Figure 1. Median follow-up was 25 months (0.3-90). Survival curves according to BM infiltration by PET, BMB and FC are presented in Figure 2. Univariate analysis among the type of infiltration by each technique are presented in Table 1. Multivariate analysis included age ≥80 years, COO non-GCB, BM FC+ and IPI score 3-5; BM infiltration by FC demonstrated no association with EFS (HR 2.2; CI 95% 0.9-5.3) or OS (HR 2.5; CI 95% 0.9-6.5). Conclusions BM infiltration by PET at DLBCL NOS diagnosis has not survival implication, contrary to infiltration demonstrated by BMB or FC. Cases with positive infiltration by PET but negative by BMB and FC could be false positive in PET or false negative in BMB/FC. According to our results the patients with discordant lymphoproliferative disorder BM infiltration presented worse prognosis and FC is probably the most important technique in this regard. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and positive Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) prior to allogeneic transplant are currently considered to be a group at high risk of relapse. Multiparameter flow cytometry is a standard technique to measure MRD, and generally we use a 0.1% threshold for positivity. The clinical significance of those patients with an MRD levels >0% but Material and methods: We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 88 patients transplanted between 2012 and 2020. All patients achieved complete remission (CR) with or without hemoperipheral recovery prior to allogeneic transplant. We have divided our cohort into three groups according to MRD state by flow cytometry: Group 1 patients with negative MRD, Group 2 patients with MRD level >0% but Results: The baseline characteristics of our cohort are reflected in Table 1. We did not find statistical significant differences except for the response to induction. The median follow-up of the entire cohort was 13.5 months (range 6-43.5). The 4-year RFS (4y-RFS) was 47% and the 4-year OS (4y-OS) 50%. The 4y-RFS was 52.5% in Group 1 vs 59% in Group 2 vs 30% in Group 3. The 4y-OS was 60% in Group 1 vs 60% in Group 2 vs 31% in Group 3 (Image 1). The Hazard Ratio (HR) for RFS and OS comparing Group 1 vs Group 2 was 0.9 [95% CI ((0.3-2.5)] and 1.1 [95% CI (0.4-3)] respectively. The HR for the RFS and OS comparing Group 1 vs 3 was 1.2 [95% CI (0.9-1.7)] and 1.2 [95% CI (0.8-1.6)]. We have stratified patients according to the European LeukemiaNet risk classification. In Group 1, the 4y-RFS was 79% in patients with Favorable Risk (FR) vs 55% in those with Intermediate Risk (IR) and 53% in patients with Adverse Risk (AR) [HR 1.2, 95% CI (0.6-2.3)] and the 4y-OS was 79% vs 54% vs 53% respectively [HR 1.3, 95% CI (0.6-2.5)]. In Group 2, the 4y-RFS was 100% in those with FR vs 83% in IR vs 33% in AR [HR 3.9, 95% CI (0.4-30)] and the 4y-OS was 100% vs 82% vs 36% respectively [HR 4, 95% CI (0.5-32%)]. In Group 3, the 4y-RFS in patients with FR was 82% vs 0% in IR vs 0% in AR [HR 2.1, 95% CI (1.1-4.1)] and the 4y-OS was 82% vs 0% vs 0% respectively [HR 1.6, 95% CI (0.8-3.3)] (Image 2). Conclusions: In our cohort, positive MRD >0.1% prior to transplant identified a group with worse RFS and OS compared to those with negative MRD or positive MRD level >0% but 0.1% is especially relevant in the IR and AR groups of the European LeukemiaNet risk classification. In the AR subgroup even any detectable level of positive MRD could identify patients with unfavorable post-transplant OS and RFS outcomes. We must establish post-transplant strategies in these patients to improve survival. Disclosures Garcia-Gutiérrez: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding.

Introduction: In the WHO 2016 classification, within the category of Acute Myeloid Leukemia with Myelodysplasia-Related Changes (AML-MRC), 3 subgroups are distinguished: 1) AML with Defining Cytogenetic Abnormality (AML-DCA) 2) AML with Previous History of MDS or MDS/MPN (AML-PHM) and 3) AML with Multilineage Dysplasia (AML-MD). The prognostic impact of significant Multilineage Dysplasia in patients without accompanying adverse cytogenetics or a history of prior hematologic malignancy is currently unclear. Objectives: To analyze the impact of MD as a classification criterion of AML-MRC compared to the rest of AML-MRC subgroups in terms of survival. To analyze if there are characteristics in global cohort that could us to predict worse survival outcomes. Material and methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 48 patients candidates to intensive chemotherapy treated in a single center between 2013 and 2019. We divided our cohort into 2 groups 1) AML-MD and 2) AML-DCA + AML -PHM. The baseline characteristics of each group were compared using the Chi2 test. The survival analysis was performed through Kaplan-Meier method and the risk was calculated with Cox regression. The Overall Survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis to death and the Event-Free Survival (EFS) as the time from diagnosis to either relapse or death. P Results: The baseline characteristics of the global cohort are reflected in Table 1. The median follow-up of the entire population was 15 months (0-77). The median OS and EFS were 18 months and 11 months, respectively. The median OS was 14 months in group 1 vs 19 months in group 2 with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.9 (95% CI 0.3-2.2, p = 0.8). The median EFS in Group 1 was 10 months vs 14 months in group 2 (HR 0.9 95% CI (0.4-2.1), p = 0.9) (Image 1). In global cohort, 11 patients had a complex karyotype at diagnosis. The median OS in these patients was 23 vs 16 months in those with other cytogenetic alterations or normal karyotype (HR 0.8 (95% CI (0.3-2.1), p = 0.8) and EFS 14 vs 10 months [HR 1.1 (95% CI (0.5-2.5), p = 0.6]. 34 patients received transplantation (HSCT) as consolidation therapy (33 allogeneic, 1 autologous). In transplanted patients the median OS was 26 months vs 4 months in those that did not consolidate with transplant [HR 4.5 (95% CI 2-10, p Conclusions: patients with AML-MRC are a high-risk group in terms of OS and EFS. Although allogeneic transplantation in these patients improves survival, the prognosis remains poor. In our cohort, morphological dysplasia without cytogenetic criteria or previous hematological neoplasia identified a high-risk subgroup with similar results to the other two subgroups. The results in the AML-MD subgroup are currently controversial, so we probably need to better characterize this subgroup in future studies. Disclosures Garcia-Gutiérrez: Incyte: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding.

Introduction: Among Therapy-Related Myeloid Neoplasms (t-MNs), there are two large groups depending on the cytotoxic trigger. A first group arises after exposure to alkylating agents and / or radiation in the previous 5-10 years and it is associated with unbalanced chromosomal abnormalities, frequently with alterations in Cr 5, 7, complex karyotype and mutated TP53. The second arises after exposure to topoisomerase II inhibitors in the previous 1-5 years, and it is characterized by frequent balanced translocations and KMT2A rearrangement. In those cases with a latency time from cytotoxic exposure to T-MNs diagnosis greater than 10 years, there is doubt about whether they should be considered T-MNs or de novo leukemias. Material and methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 34 patients with diagnosis of T-MNs treated in our center between 2013 and 2019. We have reviewed the cytogenetic alterations at diagnosis and alterations in TP53 and / or 17p and rearrangements in KMT2A. We divided the cohort into two groups based on the latency time of ≤10 years or> 10 years. The comparison between both groups was carried out using the chi2 test for qualitative variables and the t-student for quantitative variables. The Kaplan Meier method has been used for the calculation of Overall Survival (OS) and Event Free Survival (EFS) and the Cox regression model for the univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: The median follow-up of the global cohort was 8.5 months (0-74). The median OS of the global cohort was 10 months and the EFS was 8 months. In patients with a latency time ≤10 years the median OS was 12 months vs 9 months in those with latency >10 years, with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.6 [95% CI (0.2-1.7), p = 0.3] and the EFS was 7 months vs 9 months respectively [HR 0.3, 95% CI (0.3-1.8), p = 0.7]. The baseline characteristics of the population are reflected in Table 1. A similar percentage of patients with complex or monosomal karyotype at diagnosis is observed in both groups, as well as alterations in TP53 and/or 17p. In the >10-year latency subgroup, there were no patients with prior exposure to Topoisomerase II Inhibitors. Within the Conclusions: Patients with a latency time from exposure to cytotoxic therapy to the diagnosis of T-MNs > 10 years, presented cytogenetic and molecular characteristics similar to those with an exposure time ≤10 years, as well as a similar OS and EFS. Regarding the cytogenetic characteristics at diagnosis of the general cohort, patients with monosomic karyotype and especially those with TP53 and/or 17p alterations had a worse prognosis. Disclosures Garcia-Gutiérrez: Incyte:Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding;Novartis:Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding;Bristol-Myers Squibb:Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding;Pfizer:Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding.

Background and objective. Idelalisib is an oral inhibitor of the p110δ isoform of PI3K (phosphoinositide 3-kinase) approved in Europe and USA as monotherapy in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) after 2 previous lines of therapy based on a phase 2 study (Gopal et al, N Eng J Med 2014). However, there are scarce data on the use of idelalisib in clinical practice (Eyre et al, Br J Haematol 2017). The objective of this study was to analyze the efficacy and toxicity of idelalisib in relapsed/refractory FL patients in clinical practice in Spanish hospitals of GELTAMO group (GELT-IDE-2018-02 Study). Patients and Methods. Retrospective study of relapsed/refractory FL patients treated with idelalisib as salvage therapy in clinical practice. Demographic and clinical and biological variables were analyzed at FL diagnosis and at the time of idelalisib therapy, as well as its efficacy and toxicity. Results. A total of 43 patients from 20 hospitals were included. At time of idelalisib therapy, median age was 63 years (range 44-83), number of previous lines of therapy was 3 (2-7), 42% (n=18) were refractory to last previous treatment and 42% (n=18) had received an autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT); 56% (n=24) had progressed in the first 24 months after FL diagnosis (POD24). Median duration of treatment with idelalisib at time of analysis was 8.1 months (1.1-37.4) and 28/43 patients (65%) discontinued therapy, 13 due to progression, 12 due to adverse events (AE) and 3 due to physician's decision. Overall response rate (ORR) was 73% (32% CR) and median PFS 14.6 months (95% CI 0-32.2), with a trend to be higher in non-POD24 group (median PFS of 9.4 months [95% CI 1.7-16.9] in POD24 vs. 27 months [95% CI NA] in non-PO24 patients, p=0.082); median duration of response to idelalisib was 25.1 months (95% CI 13.1-37.6). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached at the time of analysis, with a 2-year OS of 74% (95% CI 58%-90%) (Figure). In 4 patients, an allogeneic SCT was performed after idelalisib. A total of 86% (n=37) of patients showed any AE, being in 56% (n=24) of grade ≥3 AE. Toxicities of grade ≥3 more frequent were: neutropenia (23% of patients), diarrhea (23%), infections (23%: pneumonia in 4 patients, CMV infection in 2, febrile neutropenia in 1 and other infections in 3 [1 of them died due to Aspergillus infection]), and increased transaminases (9%). Conclusions. In this series of patients with relapsed/refractory FL, several previous lines of therapies and factors associated with poor prognosis, the treatment with idelalisib was associated with efficacy and toxicity similar to published studies. These results support the use of idelalisib as an option for FL patients with multiple or poor risk relapses. Financial support: Gilead Figure. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with follicular lymphoma treated with idelalisib. Figure Disclosures Sancho: SERVIER: Honoraria; SANOFI: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; CELGENE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JANSSEN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ROCHE: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GILEAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CELLTRION: Consultancy; Kern-Pharma: Honoraria; Sandoz: Consultancy. Lopez Jimenez:GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Other: Education funding. Ramirez Payer:GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Cordoba:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa-Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; FUNDACION JIMENEZ DIAZ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Martín:Kiowa Kirin: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; iQone: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Servier: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses. Armando:Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: Smoldering Multiple Myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic plasma cell disorder that includes patients with different risk of progression to Multiple Myeloma (MM). The Spanish Myeloma Group demonstrated that early treatment with Rd versus observation in SMM at high risk (HR) of progression resulted into a significant benefit in terms of progression to MM and overall survival. Our next step was to design this phase 2 trial with the potential goal of cure, defined by a sustained minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity for at least 5 years (yr). Methods: In this phase 2 single-arm trial, 90 SMM patients (pts) at high-risk of progression (>50% at 2 yr), younger than 70 yr and transplant candidates were included. The HR was defined by the presence of both bone marrow plasma cells (PCs)≥ 10% and serum M-protein ≥3g/dL (Mayo) or ifonly one criterion was present, patients must have a proportionof aberrant PCs within the total PCs bone marrow compartment by immunophenotypingof 95% plus immunoparesis (Spanish). Asymptomatic MM patients with any of the three biomarkers that currently define active MM were allowed to be included, because the design of the trial was done before the publication (Lancet Oncol 2014). Induction therapy consisted on six 4-weeks cycles of KRd in which K was given at dose of 36 mg/m 2 twice per week plus R at dose of 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone (dex) at dose of 40 mg weekly. Melphalan at dose of 200 mg/m 2 followed by autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) was given as intensification therapy and three months later, patients received two KRd consolidation cycles followed by maintenance with R at dose of 10 mg on days 1-21 plus dex 20 mg weekly for up to 2 yr. MRD was evaluated by next-generation flow cytometry after induction, ASCT, consolidation and annually thereafter. Results: the 90 planned patients were recruited between June 2015 and June 2017. Although 126 patients signed the informed consent (IC), there were 36 screening failures, including 21 (17%) pts due to the detection of lytic lesions by PET-CT or MRI (the most frequent exclusion criteria). The median age of the whole series was 59 yr. All pts were at HR according to the Mayo and/or Spanish models, including 28 pts (31%) that shared at least one of the new MM biomarkers (MDE). Forty-three patients have completed the 6 induction cycles and are evaluable for response: the ORR was 98% including 46% of ≥CR (37% sCR and 9% CR) and 37% of VGPR. MRD by NGF was evaluated in 34 out of these 43 pts and was negative in 13 (38%). Twenty-nine patients have received ASCT and were evaluable at 3 months: the ORR was 100% including ≥CR in 69% of the patients (65% sCR and 3% CR) and VGPR rate in 21%. MRD was negative in 17 out of these 29 patients (58%). Nineteen patients have completed the two planned consolidation cycles and 85% of them are in ≥CR, including sCR in 74%, CR in 11% and VGPR in 16%. As far as toxicity during induction is concerned, , G3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were reported in 4 (4%) and 2 pts (2%), respectively. G3-4 infections were the most frequent non-hematological adverse events (AE), observed in 9 pts (10%), followed by skin rash in 7 pts (8%). With regard to cardiovascular events, 1patient reported atrial fibrillation and another cardiac failure, both of G1, and 2 patients reported G2 arterial hypertension. In all but one of the pts, peripheral blood stem cell collection was successful, with a median number of CD34 + cells collected of 6,79 x 10 6 /Kg. Engraftment occurred in all patients and the median number of CD34 + infused was 3.29 x 10 6 /Kg. During consolidation, 2 pts developed G3-4 neutropenia, 3 pts G3-4 infections and 1 pt skin rash. After a median f/u of 13 months (1-108), 98% of patients remain free of progression and alive. Three patients early discontinued: one withdrew the IC; and two treatment unrelated deaths, one during induction due to a massive ischemic stroke and the other one because of refractory disease after induction. No discontinuations due to related-AE have been reported. Conclusions: Although longer follow-up is required, this "curative strategy for high-risk SMM" seems to be encouraging. The depth of response improved along with the duration of treatment, achieving up to 85% of ≥CR in patients who completed induction, ASCT and consolidation, with an acceptable safety profile. Interestingly, novel imaging techniques at screening allowed us to identify up to 17% of MM that would have been considered SMM with the conventional criteria. Disclosures Mateos: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rodriguez-Otero: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ocio: BMS: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Pharmamar: Honoraria; Array Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Oriol: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: sponsored symposia, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: sponsored symposia; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: sponsored symposia, Speakers Bureau. Paiva: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; EngMab: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Rosinol: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. de la Rubia: Amgen: Other: Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Honoraria. Blade: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. San Miguel: MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity9s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

High-dose chemotherapy supported by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT/ASCT) has contributed to modify the natural history of follicular lymphoma (FL); however, an overall survival (OS) benefit has been demonstrated at relapse only after a rituximab-free chemotherapy regimen. A total of 655 patients with FL were reported to the Spanish GELTAMO (Grupo Espafiol de Linfomas y Trasplantes de Medula Osea) registry and underwent first ASCT between 1989 and 2007. A total of 203 patients underwent ASCT in first complete response (CR1), 174 in second complete response (CR2), 28 in third complete response (CR3), 140 in first partial response (PR1), 81 in subsequent PR, and 29 with resistant/refractory disease; 184 patients received rituximab before ASCT. With a median follow-up of 12 years from ASCT, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 9.7 and 21.3 years, respectively. Actuarial 12-year PFS and OS were 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-68%) and 73% (95% CI, 68%-78%), respectively, for patients in CR (with a plateau in the curve beyond 15.9 years), 25% (95% CI, 19%-28%) and 49% (95% CI 42%-56%), respectively, for patients in PR, and 23% (95% CI, 8%-48%) and 28% (95% CI, 9%-45%), respectively, for patients with resistant/refractory disease = 2 or PR >= 2 who had received rituximab before ASCT (n = 90), 9-year PFS and OS were 61% (95% CI, 51%-73%) and 75% (95% CI, 65%-80%), respectively, with no relapses occurring beyond 5.1 years after ASCT. The cumulative incidence of second malignancies in the global series was 6.7% at 5 years and 12.8% at 10 years. This analysis strongly suggests that ASCT is a potentially curative option for eligible patients with FL. In the setting of relapse, it is of especial interest in pretransplantation rituximab-sensitive patients with FL. (C) 2017 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Introduction: Cytogenetic and molecular landscape at diagnosis and the depth of response to induction therapy are the most powerful prognostic tools available in patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML). Among the tests to measure Minimal Residual Disease (MRD), one of the most commonly used is flow cytometry. Nowadays, there is no consensus about optimal time for measurement and the threshold above which has greater prognostic value in AML, as well as its involvement in therapeutic management. Material and methods: We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of 62 patients diagnosed with AML between 2015 and 2019 that reached complete remission after first induction. Patients were stratified according to the European Leukemia Net (ELN) risk classification. MRD measurement was made in bone marrow samples with an 8-color flow cytometer (sensitivity 10-5), cut-off 0.1%. We divided our cohort in two groups according to MRD after induction: negative MRD (MRD-) and positive MRD (MRD+). The baseline characteristics of each group were compared using the Chi2 test. The survival analysis was performed through Kaplan-Meier method and the risk was calculated with Cox regression. The Overall Survival (OS) was defined as the period of time from diagnosis to death and the leukemia-free state (LFS) as the period of time from CR to either relapse or death. Statistical analysis were carried out using SPSS version 19.0. P Results: Baseline characteristics of the sample are represented in Table 1. The median follow-up was 15 months (1-45). The 3-year LFS for MRD- and MRD+ was 50% and 29% respectively (figure 1A) showing a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.02 (CI 95% 0.98-4.6, p=0.05). The 3-year OS was 50% and 36% for MRD- and MRD+ respectively (figure 1B) and HR was 1.3 (CI 95% 0.6-2.8, p=0.4). In MRD+ group according to ELN risk classification, the 3-year LFS was 100% vs 21% vs 19% for favorable, intermediate and adverse risk, respectively (p=0.01) with a HR of 2.1 (CI 95% 1.1-3.9, p=0.01) in the univariate analysis. The 3-year OS was 100% vs 24% vs 18% for each subgroup (p=0.03) with a HR of 2.1 (CI 95% 1.06-4.4, p= 0.03). Thirty-eight patients received consolidation with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and MRD prior to HSCT was measured in 32 of 38, being positive in 10 patients. All cases with MRD+ before HSCT belonged to MRD+ after induction group (10/20) (p=0.03). In MRD+ group, the 3-year LFS was 36% among those who received HSCT vs 18% in those who did not (log rank p=0.02, HR 3.1 CI 95% 1.3-7.8 p=0.01). Conclusions: The persistence of MRD > 0.1% after first induction by flow cytometry has shown in our population the identification of a AML subgroup of high risk, specially relevant in the intermediate risk group of ELN classification. MRD+ leads to higher risk of relapse, and these patients benefit from more aggressive therapeutic strategies, including allogeneic HSCT. However, MRD+ group has more risk of MRD persistence prior to HSCT, the last being a knowing factor of relapse after allogeneic HSCT, what would justify more aggressive strategies after HSCT in these patients. Disclosures Piris-Villaespesa: Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Boards. García Gutiérrez:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background Idelalisib is a PI3-kinase inhibitor specific for the delta isoform, approved (in combination with rituximab or ofatumumab) for the treatment of adult patients with Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (R/R CLL). Although the efficacy of idelalisib was reported in clinical trials, it is unclear how this translates into Real World. Methods A non-interventional retrospective study was conducted in Spain to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients diagnosed with R/R CLL that started treatment with idelalisib between 1 February 2015 and 31 December 2017. The Time from start of idelalisib treatment to either the start of a new anti CLL therapy or death (Time to Next Treatment or Death - TNTD) was defined as primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), time to discontinuation (TTD) and safety, especially Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI): ≥ grade 3 transaminase elevations, diarrhea /colitis, pneumonitis, neutropenia,Cytomegalovirus, bacterial, fungal and respiratory virus infections (RVI),Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PjP). Results Investigators from 21 centers included 77 patients in the study. The median age was 72.1 years (48-86) and 67.5% (n=52) were male. The main baseline characteristics were: Binet stage B-C in 32.5% (n=25), 17p deletion or TP53 mutation in 35.1% (n=27) and the median number previous lines of therapy was 4 (1-16). With a median follow up time of 14.4 months (1.2-44.4), 27 patients (35.1%) had started a new treatment and 19 (24.7%) had died. The median TNTD was 17.1 months (95% CI 14.0-22.3) in the overall population and 13.8 months (95% CI 7.9-15.2) in patients that discontinued idelalisib. The median OS has not been reached, with a cumulative probability of surviving at 1 and 2 years of 0.84 (95% CI 0.73-0.91) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.52-0.78). During follow-up 54 patients (70.1%) discontinued idelalisib: 39 (72.3%) due to toxicity and 10 (18.5%) due to disease progression. The median TTD was 13.0 months (95% CI 7.7-15.8); 5.3 months (95%CI 3.8-8.0) in patients who discontinued treatment due to serious adverse events (SAE) or AESI and 10.5 months (95% CI 0.5-16.0) in those who did so due to progressive disease. A total of 355 AEs were reported, of which 29.0% (n=103) were SAE. 181 AESIs were recorded: the most frequent were neutropenia (n=67; 22 grade >3), diarrhea/colitis (n=37; 14 grade >3) and bacterial infections (n=24; 14 grade >3). Other AESI were CMV infections (n=11), grade ≥ 3 pneumonitis (n=7), RVI (n=6), fungal infections (n=5), grade ≥ 3 transaminase elevations (n=3) and PjP (n=1). The median time from Idelalisib start to first AESI was 9.5 months (95%CI 5.5-15.3). During follow-up, 19 deaths were registered, 10 of which were caused by idelalisib-related SAEs (4 respiratory infections, 2 pneumonitis, 1 diarrhea/colitis). The time from SAE related to idelalisib that led to death, to death was 0.8 months (95% CI 0.7-1.7). Conclusions This real world study shows results of effectiveness of idelalisib consistent with the efficacy findings of the 312-0116 clinical trial. Toxicity was the most common reason for idelalisib discontinuation. Findings of adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of idelalisib and no new drug-related adverse events were identified. This is a Gilead Sciences sponsored study. Disclosures Perez Encinas: GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding; CELGENE: Consultancy; JANSSEN: Consultancy. Lopez Jimenez:GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Other: Education funding. Ortiz:GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Cordoba:Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; FUNDACION JIMENEZ DIAZ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL: Employment; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa-Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Ramirez Payer:GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. González-Barca:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celtrion: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kiowa: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy. Martín Sánchez:GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Sanchez:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Baltasar Tello:JANSSEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; ABBVIE: Honoraria; ROCHE: Honoraria; GILEAD: Honoraria. Amutio:NOVARTIS: Consultancy; JANSSEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; CELGENE: Consultancy, Honoraria; ROCHE: Honoraria; GILEAD SCIENCES: Consultancy, Honoraria; TAKEDA: Consultancy; GSK: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Honoraria; MUNDIPHARMA: Consultancy. Vidal Maceñido:GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Fernandez:GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Loscertales:Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Rodríguez:GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Alaez:ROCHE: Consultancy. Ramroth:Gilead Sciences: Employment. Palla:Gilead Sciences: Employment.

Daratumumab is a CD38-directed antibody increasingly used for the treatment of adult patients with multiple mieloma. The membrane of red blood cells express CD38 and thus samples from patients treated with daratumumab show agglutination in red blood cell antibody screen tests performed prior to transfusion. This interference hinders the detection of red blood cell alloantibodies. Published literature has described a method to eliminate CD38 in red blood cells with DTT (Chapuy, 2016). This technique is cumbersome, requires positive and negative controls as DTT destroys Kell antigens and can produce in vitro hemolysis. The increasing number of multiple myeloma patients treated with daratumumab poses the need for a simple and straightforward technique with applicability in standard transfusion centers. DaraEx (Inno-Train) is a new anti-CD38 neutralizing agent that overcomes daratumumab-induced interferences detected in pre-transfusion tests without the major drawbacks associated with the DTT technique. Our aim was to validate and implement DaraEx as the method of choice to solve daratumumab interferences detected in pre-transfusion screen tests in a tertiary care center. A two-step approach using in vitro and in vivo samples was designed to validate the new method. First, we compared DaraEx efficacy in vitro to the reference DTT method in two samples spiked with daratumumab to achieve a concentration of 10mg/mL (Sample A: serum from a patient without known red blood cell alloantibodies; Sample B: serum from a patient with alloantibody anti-c). Red blood cells in the screen test (3 red blood cell screen; ID-DiaCell I-II-III) as well as positive (E+ red blood cells) and negative controls (K+ red blood cells) were treated with DTT 0.2M solution for 30 minutes at 37ºC and then washed four times with saline. In parallel, red blood cells in the screen test were incubated during 30 minutes at room temperature in a shaker (600rpm) with DaraEx. Red blood cells treated with each of these methods were used for indirect antiglobulin test with our gel card system (BioRad; IH-1000). Preference of method in terms of time needed and result interpretation was evaluated by three hematologists specialized in blood banking and four different technicians. Secondly, we tested pre-transfusion samples from patients treated with daratumumab with the DaraEx technique to check in vivo efficacy. There was a 100% concordance between both techniques (DDT reference method and DaraEx new method) in both in vitro samples. All hematologists and technicians found the DaraEx technique less cumbersome in terms of processing and time to result (2 hours with DTT versus 1 hour with DaraEx) and the interpretation straightforward. Twelve samples with daratumumab-induced interference in pre-transfusion screen tests belonging to 5 patients were tested between January and July 2019. All the interferences detected resolved with DaraEx regardless of time from last daratumumab administration (range: 7-145 days; mean: 57 days). Figure 1 shows screen test with and without treatment with DaraEx in a patient sample. In our experience, DaraEx technique is a simple, fast and efficacious method, regardless of time from last daratumumab administration, to resolve interferences secondary to daratumumab administration without the major disadvantages associated with DTT. Figure 1 Disclosures García Gutiérrez: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Background: MCL is a heterogeneous disease and the existence of indolent clinical forms is increasingly recognized although their biological ground is not fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to propose a frontline tailored treatment for indolent clinical forms with a chemo-free regimen, ibrutinib in combination with rituximab. In addition, an extensive genomic study was associated to gain biological insight into these clinical forms. Methods: This is a multicenter single-arm, open-label, phase II study with a two-stage design conducted in 14 Spanish GELTAMO sites (NCT02682641). Centralized histology, PET-CT review as well as minimal residual disease (MRD) studies (qPCR and NGS in peripheral blood [PB] and bone marrow [BM]) and biological studies are conducted. A total of 50 previously untreated MCL patients with indolent clinical forms are planned to be recruited, defined by the following criteria: no symptoms attributable to MCL, ECOG 0-1, stable disease without therapy need at least for 3 months, non-blastoid variants, Ki-67 Results: Forty patients (Gender M 29/ F 11; median age 65.7 years; low-risk MIPI 22% and intermediate/high MIPI 78%) were enrolled in the study up to data cut-off on 15 MAY 2019 (Consort diagram). The median observation time for the patients before treatment was of 7.6 months (range:3-107) and median follow-up was of 19 months. Efficacy data of the first 33 patients evaluable after 12 cycles of treatment are reported here, including two patients who were discontinued before cycle 12 due to related toxicity. A total of 27 patients achieved a response with an 82% overall response rate (ORR) and 75% CR. Among CR patients with evaluable MRD (N=23), the rate of undetectable MRD achieved after 12 cycles was 87%. Only 1 patient eventually became MRD positive at cycle 24, whereas 12 remained MRD negative and accordingly, nine of them discontinued ibrutinib as per protocol whereas 3 had interrupted treatment earlier because of intolerance. At data cut-off, all responding patients maintained the response with a median follow-up of 25 months (12-35). Only one patient progressed at one year of therapy. This particular case had shown intolerance to full-dose ibrutinib, received different salvage therapies and died of progressive disease. The estimated 15 month progression-free survival was 96% (CI95%: 89-100). Four patients withdrew the study because of serious adverse events, including cutaneous rash, severe aplastic anemia, pancreatic adenocarcinoma and lumbar fractures. Twenty-one additional G3 and G4 AEs related to Ibrutinib have been recorded including hematological toxicity in 7 patients, gastro-intestinal intolerance in 4 patients, arthralgias, atrial fibrillation and asthenia in one patient each. Conclusion: In indolent clinical forms of MCL frontline ibrutinib in combination with rituximab has a high efficacy, including undetectable MRD in the majority of cases, with a predictable toxicity profile. Figure Disclosures Gine: Roche: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding. Martín:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Servier: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; iQone: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Kiowa Kirin: Consultancy. Terol:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. González-Barca:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kiowa: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celtrion: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria. Lopez-Guillermo:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION: The 2016 update of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification criteria for Polycythemia Vera (PV) included a decrease of the hemoglobin threshold. This modification increases exponentially the individuals with potential PV. International groups have proposed diagnostic algorithms for the screening of individuals with potential PV. However, these algorithms are not based on the prevalence of JAK2V617F in this population, and to our concern has not been prospectively validated. Our aim is to develop and validate an algorithm based on previously reported prevalence of JAK2V617F in individuals with potential PV in our environment. METHODS: This study was designed in two phases: a first phase for the development of the algorithm and a second phase for the validation of the algorithm. Phase 1: from previous data collected from our group of JAK2 V617F prevalence in individuals with erythrocytosis according to WHO criteria we performed an area under the curve (ROC) analysis with optimal cutoff point in order to maximize sensibility and specificity of the collected variables. The thresholds for platelets and neutrophils were selected for being clinically relevant and with an AUC >0.8. With these two variables and their optimal cutoff point, a sequential 2-step-algorithm was designed (figure 1). Phase 2: for the validation of the algorithm, hemograms from outpatient individuals were selected, and the "2-step-algorithm" was applied. Therefore, if samples met the criteria for step 1 (hemoglobin > 16.5 g/dl for men or 16 g/dl for women or hematocrit >49 % for men or 48 % for women) then, the step 2 was applied (platelets > 248x103/ml or neutrophils>5.98x103/ml). Finally, all samples that passed the 2-step-algorithm, were tested for JAK2 V617F. With the chosen samples a JAK2 V617F qualitative PCR with a sensibility of at least >0.1% was performed. The positive results were validated and quantified in our reference laboratory, and those with an allele burden >1% were considered positive. RESULTS: A total of 15298 hemograms were initially selected. Of those, 1595 (10.4%) met the erythrocytosis criterion (step 1). 581 (36%) of these met the step 2 criteria and the JAK2 V617F PCR was performed in 501 samples. A total of 7 positive cases (1.4%) were found, none of which was previously diagnosed of myeloproliferative neoplasm. The median of hemoglobin and hematocrit was 16.3 g/dl and 50.3% respectively. Of the selected samples, 2 of them met the platelet criterion, 4 of them the neutrophils criterion and 1 of them met both. After reviewing clinical records, 43.8% of them were found to have cardiovascular events history history: 1 patient had atherosclerosis of the lower limbs, 1 had acute coronary syndrome and 1 had an ischemic stroke. Characteristics of JAK2V617F individuals are detailed in table 1. Comparing to step 1, the addition of step 2 increases the efficiency of the algorithm 1.75 times. In order to know the prevalence of JAK2 V617F clonal hematopoiesis in our environment, 300 unselected samples were tested. We found 1 positive result. However, after reviewing clinical records, this sample was found to belong to a patient with known myeloproliferative neoplasm. Thus, JAK2 V617F prevalence in our environment was considered CONCLUSION: This "2-step-algorithm" is a reproducible and validated tool for the screening of JAK2 V617F myeloproliferative neoplasms. Disclosures Piris-Villaespesa: Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Boards. Martinez-Lopez:Incyte: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards; VIVIA Biotech: Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Non-Financial Support ; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards and Non-Financial Support ; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Advisory boards and Non-Financial Support .

This phase II study evaluated YM155, a novel small-molecule survivin suppressant, in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who failed or were not candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). During 14-day cycles, 41 patients received YM155 (5mg/m(2)/d) by continuous intravenous (IV) infusion for 168 hours (day 1-7), and rituximab (375mg/m(2)) IV on days 1 and 8 during cycles 1-4 and repeated for 4 cycles every 10 cycles. Forty patients (97.6%) had prior rituximab and 15 patients (36.6%) prior ASCT. Most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (19.5%) and thrombocytopenia (12.2%). In the per-protocol set (n = 34), objective response rate was 50% and median progression-free survival 17.9 months. Median overall survival was not reached at study termination (median follow-up, 23 months). YM155 in combination with rituximab was tolerable with encouraging antitumor activity and durable responses in relapsed aggressive B-cell NHL patients.

Purpose The objective of this study was to investigate clinicopathologic features and prognostic factors of patients diagnosed with PTCL in 13 sites across Spain. Patients and Methods A multicenter, retrospective study was carried out between September 2015-November 2017.Medical charts of patients diagnosed with PTCLs between January 2008 and December 2013 that have signed the approved informed consent form were reviewed. PTCLs were then classified according to the 2016 revision of the WHO classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Clinical characteristics,history, standard immunohistochemistry (IHC) data, International Prognostic Index (IPI) and Prognostic Index for T-cell lymphoma (TCL) (PIT) were also assessed. Medians (range), mean (standard deviation) and frequency as the number of patients (n) and percentages (%) with confidence intervals at 95% (CI95%) were calculated. Overall Survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) were analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results 175 (88.4%) patients were successfully analyzed, the male/female ratio was 1.7:1.0, and the median age was 67.2 years (range: 24.8 years -95.8 years). ECOG performance status >1 was reported for 31.9% patients. Ann Arbor stages were III and IV 27.4% and 45.7%, respectively, and LDH levels were elevated to 92 patients (52.6%). Those with B symptoms accounted for 39.4%, while soft tissue was the most frequent location (23,7%) among the 76 patient with extranodal disease; bone marrow infiltration was confirmed in 18.3% patients. Relevant clinical antecedents related to immunological aspects were also frequently reported, including previous neoplasia (18.9%), autoimmune disease (16%), immunosuppressive treatments (7.3%) and previous viral diseases (HIV, HBV or HCV, 5.7%, 4.6% and 7.4%, respectively). Most patients presented with angioimmunoblastic TCL (31.4%); similar proportions of patients were observed among nodal PTCL with TFH phenotype (13.1%, PTCL not otherwise specified (12.0%) and extranodal NK/TCL nasal type (11.4%). CD30 expression and staining pattern (ranged 1-4) allowed the stratification of patients according CD30 intensity (n= 121; weak: 35, moderate: 57, and intense: 29); Patients were also classified based on CD30 expression considering the median value of quantitative CD30 in our sample (15%) the cut-off point: n=132; Negative First-line treatment with a CHOP/CHOP-like regimen was the most common finding (69.7%). Best response was observed after a median of 4 months since the start of first-line treatment (range 0.0 months - 65.2 months). Overall response rate after first-line treatment was 66.9%, with 61/151 patients reaching complete response (CR). Median PFS (n=157) and OS (n=175) of this series were 7.87 months (CI95%: 4.98 months-10.75months) and 15.77 months (CI95%: 10.23 months -21.30 months), respectively. Overall, IPI and PIT scores influenced the PFS and OS (p Reaching a CR was associated with a better PFS (CR: 62.6m; CI95%: 20.2 months -105.1 months) than the rest of patients (3.97m: CI95%: 3.08 months -4.85m; p Conclusion This is the largest series of T cell Lymphoma reported in Spain and has allowed the description of distribution of PTCL subtypes, analyzed through central hematopathologists reanalysis and reclassification of samples from 175 PTCL patients, according to the WHO 2016 classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Our data confirm the poor prognosis of these patients, as well as the impact of prognostic indexes and the response to first line treatment on their outcome. Disclosures Rodriguez-Pinilla: Takeda: Honoraria. Piris:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Kura: Honoraria. Ruiz-Zorrilla:Takeda: Employment. Montoto:Takeda: Employment.

Background: Bone marrow (BM) examination is essential in the staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The assessment of BM involvement includes both histology (gold-standard) and flow cytometry (FC), but few studies have compared BM biopsy (BMB) histologic findings with results of FC analysis of BM aspirate. Discordance between both techniques generates debate about the staging and the prognostic significance in these cases. Methods: We performed a retrospective single-center analysis of patients with DLBCL, not otherwise specified (NOS) diagnosed during a 4-year period (2014-2017). Patients were divided in three groups according to BM findings of BMB and FC at diagnosis. Standard FC was performed by 4-color flow panel until 2016 and by 8-color FC since then. We described main characteristics of each group at diagnosis and analyzed survival outcomes. We applied means of descriptive statistics and Pearson's chi-squared test, and analyzed survival outcomes according to Kaplan-Meier, using Cox regression for comparisons. Results: We analyzed 59 cases, which were divided in three groups: 40 cases (67.8%) presented both negative histology and FC (BMB-/FC-), 10 (16.9%) showed BM involvement using both histology and FC (BMB+/FC+) and 9 cases (15.3%) presented discordant results, all of them with negative histology and positive FC (BMB-/FC+). Clinical and biological characteristics of each group at diagnosis are presented in Table 1. Median infiltration by FC analysis of the BMB-/FC+ group was 0.8% (0.1-2.9) and 3/9 patients presented discordant immunophenotype of lymphoma cells between BM and node biopsy. If we considered BM infiltration as positive in all BMB-/FC+ cases, 4/9 (6.8% of all patients) would be upstaged. First-line treatment was homogeneous in all patients. With a median observation time of 18 months, progression-free survival (PFS) after 2 years was 67%, 22% and 22% with BMB-/FC-, BMB-/FC+ and BMB+/FC+, respectively (Figure 1A), with a multivariate hazard ratio (HR) of 1.9 (95% CI 1.2-2.9, p=0.004) and an univariate HR for FC+ (BMB-/FC+ and BMB+/FC+) vs FC- (BMB-/FC-) of 3.3 (95% CI 1.5-7.3, p=0.003). Two-year overall survival (OS) was 68%, 41% and 33% with BMB-/FC-, BMB-/FC+ and BMB+/FC+, respectively (Figure 1B); multivariate HR was 1.6 (95% CI 1.1-2.6, p=0.042) and univariate HR for FC+ vs FC- was 2.5 (95% CI 1.1-5.9, p=0.035). We found no significant difference between BMB-/FC+ and BMB+/FC+ in survival outcomes. Conclusions: In our series, the group with discordant BM infiltration (BMB-/FC+) presented worsen survival outcomes than BMB-/FC-. Such results should be validated in prospective studies because published series are retrospective and not focused specifically on DLBCL. BM infiltration detected by FC analysis but not by BMB could be considered as extranodal involvement at DLBCL NOS diagnosis. Disclosures García Gutiérrez: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction Thrombocytopenia is a common complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). Underlying mechanisms are poorly known and usually multifactorial. Its treatment is not well defined, mostly based in platelet transfusion. Thus, is important to identify new strategies to manage this important post-SCT complication. Romiplostim and Eltrombopag are currently available thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) that stimulate platelet production. Some studies with very small number of cases have reported their potential efficacy in the allo-SCT setting. For this reason, the aim of our study is to analyze the efficacy and safety of TPO-RAs for severe and persistent thrombocytopenia after allo-SCT. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective multicenter study including patients from centers of GETH with prolonged isolated thrombocytopenia (PT) or secondary failure of platelet recovery (SFPR) after allo-SCT. PT was defined as the engraftment of all peripheral blood cell lines but with platelet count ≤20000/µL for 7 consecutive days or requirement of transfusion for more than 60 days after allo-SCT. SFPR was defined as a decline of platelet counts to ≤20000/µL for 7 consecutive days or requirement of transfusion after achievement platelets ≥50000/µL without transfusion for 7 days post-SCT. The primary endpoint was platelet recovery to ≥50000/µL. Results Eighty-six patients with thrombocytopenia after allo-SCT were included. The characteristic of the patients, are summarized in table 1. Sixteen (19%) of the patients had PT and 71 (82%) SFPR. TPO-RA was started at a median time of 127 days (27-1177) after allo-SCT (41% Romiplostim / 59% Eltrombopag). Median initial and maximum administered doses were 50 mg/daily (25-150) and 75 (25-150) for Eltrombopag and 1 µg/kg (1-7) and 5 (1-10) for Romiplostin, respectively. Eighteen patients (21%) were previously treated with cell infusion (67% mesenchymal cells and 33% CD34+ boost). Median platelet count before TPO-RA onset was 14000/µL (1000-57000). Platelet recovery to ≥50000/µL was 60% and the response was achieved at a median time of 56 days (2-247). Responses were similar considering all potential causes of thrombocytopenia evaluated. 81% of the patients had decrease number of megakaryocytes prior to treatment showing a worse response to therapy: median time to ≥20000/µL platelets 43 days versus 28 days (p=0.011), with also a lower rate of platelet recovery to ≥50000/µL (62% versus 85% if normal megakaryocytes). In patients treated with Eltrombopag, 27% had neutropenia 1000/µL after therapy. The median treatment duration was 62 days (7-700) and 62% discontinued TPO-Ra maintaining response. Grade 3-4 adverse events (hepatic and asthenia) were observed in only 2% of the cases. At last follow up with a median of 10 months (1-59), 72% of the patients maintained the response and 61 (71%) were alive. Death rate was significantly lower in responder-patients to TPO-RAs, 15% versus 53% in non-responders (p Conclusion To our knowledge this is the biggest series analyzing the use of TPO-Ra after allo-SCT. Our results support the efficacy and safety in this new setting with responses around 60% and a low number of side effects. Additional studies to identify predictors of response are needed. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: The diagnostic criteria for polycythemia vera (PV) has recently been updated by the World Health Organization (WHO). The criterion for erythrocytosis has been modified downwards: hemoglobin (hb)> 16.5 g/dL or hematocrit (hto)> 49% in men and hb> 16 g/dL or hto> 48% in women. This reduction increases the potential number of patients that would be test for JAK2 V617F mutation if PV is suspected. The V617F mutation in the JAK2 gene is present in 95% of cases of PV. It is estimated that the prevalence of this mutation in the general population is around 0.2%. Our aims are to determine the prevalence of JAK2 V617F in individuals with erythrocytosis according to WHO2016 criteria and to find prognostic factors that could help to identify patients with PV. Methods: We prospectively studied all hemograms performed in our laboratory during 7 nonconsecutive days. Variables studied were hb, hto, leukocytes, neutrophils, platelets, MCV, MCH, MCHC and RDW. JAK2 V617F mutation was studied in all males that had hb> 16.5 g/dl or hto> 49% or females that had hb> 16 g/dl or hto> 48%. JAK2 V617F mutation was studied by PCR assay in which an amplification control fragment and the JAK2 mutant allele were simultaneously amplified. All positive samples were confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR in a reference laboratory. Positive results were considered when the JAK2 V617F allele ratio was ≥ 0.7. The variables collected were correlated with the result of the JAK2 test in a univariate way. The T-Student test was used for the quantitative variables and the Chi-square test for the categorical variables. For the cell count variables, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. Results: A total of 15366 HG were analyzed. 1271 (8.3%) met the inclusion criteria for erythrocytosis. JAK2 V617F was performed on 1001 samples (270 samples were not suitable for the PCR assay due to low quality). Twelve samples (1.2%) were positive for JAK2 V617F mutation. However, 5 samples were excluded due to a known diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm. Therefore, finally prevalence of JAK2 V617 mutation in 996 patients that met WHO erythrocytosis criteria was 0.8% (8/996). Medians for all parameter studied for each group are shown in table 1. In order to find out parameters that could increase the incidence probabilities to identify patients with JAK2 V617F we performed an univariate analysis of the variables included, according to JAK2 mutational status. We found that patients with JAK2 V617F had higher levels of leukocytes, neutrophils, platelets and RDW than patients with negative JAK2 (p Conclusion: The prevalence of JAK2 V617F mutation in subjects with elevated Hb or hto according to WHO2016 criteria is increased with respect to that of the general population. Among this group of subjects, those with JAK2 V617F show significantly different levels of leukocytes, neutrophils, platelets, MCV, CMH and RDW. Interestingly, neutrophils, platelets and RDW show high sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, it is necessary to explore combinations of these parameters and their optimal cut-off points to elaborate efficient strategies for an early diagnostic approach. Disclosures Martinez Lopez: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. García Gutiérrez:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding.

Introduction:SMM is an asymptomatic and heterogeneous plasma cell disorder. The Spanish Myeloma Group demonstrated that patients at high risk of progression benefit from early treatment with Rd. In addition, our preliminary results of the curative approach (GEM-CESAR) showed encouraging results (Mateos ASH 2017). Aim: The primary end-point was to evaluate the Minimal Residual Disease negative (MRD-ve) rate by next generation flow (NGF) after induction and ASCT and the sustained MRD-ve rate at 3 and 5 yrs after ASCT as secondary end-points. Our aim was to increase the MRD -ve rate from 34% (reported in NDMM patients after VTD and ASCT) to 50%. As all patients have completed induction and ASCT, we report the results of the primary end point, efficacy and safety after induction and ASCT. Methods: In this phase II single arm trial, 90 SMM patients at high-risk of progression (>50% at 2 yrs), younger than 70 yrs and transplant candidates were included. The high risk was defined by the presence of both ≥PC 10% and MC ≥3g/dL (Mayo criteria) or ifonly one criterion was present, patients must have a proportionof aberrant PCs within the total PCsBM compartment by immunophenotypingof 95% plus immunoparesis (Spanish criteria). Asymptomatic MM patients with any of the three biomarkers recently included into the definition of active MM were allowed to be included. Induction therapy consisted on six 4-weeks cycles of KRd in which K was given at dose of 36 mg/m2twice per week plus R at dose of 25 mg on days 1-21 and dexamethasone at dose of 40 mg weekly. Melphalan at dose of 200 mg/m2followed by ASCT was given as intensification therapy and three months later, patients received two KRd consolidation cycles followed by maintenance with R at dose of 10 mg on days 1-21 plus dex at dose of 20 mg weekly for up to 2 yrs Results: Between June 2015 and June 2017, the 90 SMM patients at high risk of progression were recruited. Twenty-eight pts (32%) shared at least one of the new biomarkers predicting imminent risk of progression to MM. The primary end point of the trial was met, since 55% of the patients who completed induction and ASCT achieved MRD -ve by NGF (sensitivity 3 x 10-6). Upon analyzing the results after induction, 88 patients completed the 6 induction cycles and were evaluable for response (two patients early discontinued): the ORR was 98% including 41% of ≥CR (32% sCR and 9% CR) and 41% of VGPR rate. Two patients were mobilization failures and one patient rejected ASCT. Two additional patients experienced biological progression before ASCT and went off the study. Eighty-three patients, therefore, proceeded to HDT-ASCT and were evaluable at day +100: the ORR was 100% including ≥CR in 63% of the patients (51% sCR and 12% CR) and VGPR rate in 23%. The MRD-ve rate increased from 31% after induction to 55% with the ASCT. No differences in outcome have been observed according neither to the definition of high risk (Mayo or Spanish model) nor ultra high risk SMM. Concerning toxicity, during induction, G3-4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were reported in 5 (6%) and 10 pts (11%), respectively. G3-4 infections were the most frequent non-hematological AE observed in 16 pts (18%), followed by skin rash in 8 pts (9%). One patient reported G1 atrial fibrillation and another cardiac failure secondary to respiratory infection. Three patients reported hypertension (G2 in two and G3 in one). Thirteen patients required lenalidomide dose reduction whilst carfilzomib was not reduced in any patient. In four patients, dexamethasone was reduced. In all but two of the pts, PBSC collection was successful with a median of 4.10 x 106/Kg CD34 cells collected. All patients engrafted. Consolidation and maintenance phases are ongoing. After a median follow-up of 17 months (5-36), 94% of patients remain alive and free of progression and 97% of them alive. Three patients experienced biological progression and discontinued the study: one of them was refractory to the rescue therapies and died and the other two are receiving rescue therapies. One additional patient died early during induction due to a massive ischemic stroke unrelated to the treatment. Conclusions: Although longer follow-up is required, this "curative strategy for high risk SMM" continues being encouraging with an acceptable toxicity profile. The study has met its primary endpoint. The depth of response improved over the treatment: 63% of patients who completed induction and ASCT achieved ≥CR with a MRD-ve rate of 55%. Disclosures Mateos: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rodriguez Otero:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Clínica Universidad de Navarra: Employment. Ocio:AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Array Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rios:Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy. Rosinol:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Honoraria. Alegre:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Puig:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. De La Rubia:Ablynx: Consultancy, Other: Member of Advisory Board. García Mateo:Binding Site: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Bladé:Janssen: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. San-Miguel:Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria.

Background Several studies of autologous stem cell transplantation in primary refractory myeloma have produced encouraging results. However, the outcome of primary refractory patients with stable disease has not been analyzed separately from the outcome of patients with progressive disease. Design and Methods In the Spanish Myeloma Group 2000 trial, 80 patients with primary refractory myeloma (49 with stable disease and 31 with progressive disease), i.e. who were refractory to initial chemotherapy, were scheduled for tandem transplants (double autologous transplant or a single autologous transplant followed by an allogeneic transplant). Patients with primary refractory disease included those who never achieved a minimal response (>= 25% M-protein decrease) or better. Responses were assessed using the European Bone Marrow Transplant criteria. Results There were no significant differences in the rates of partial response or better between patients with stable or progressive disease. However, 38% of the patients with stable disease at the time of transplantation remained in a stable condition or achieved a minimal response after transplantation versus 7% in the group with progressive disease (P=0.0017) and the rate of early progression after transplantation was significantly higher among the group with progressive disease at the time of transplantation (22% versus 2%; P=0.0043). After a median follow-up of 6.6 years, the median survival after first transplant of the whole series was 2.3 years. Progression-free and overall survival from the first transplant were shorter in patients with progressive disease (0.6 versus 2.3 years, P=0.00004 and 1.1 versus 6 years, P=0.00002, respectively). Conclusions Our results show that patients with progressive refractory myeloma do not benefit from autologous transplantation, while patients with stable disease have an outcome comparable to those with chemosensitive disease.

Introduction: At present, determining OS (Overall Survival) remains the gold standard in clinical trial endpoints which evaluate the role of ASCT in FL. However, in the context of a disease characterized by very long median survivals with a continuous pattern of relapse, and still more with the advent of novel treatments, OS assessments seem elusive. In fact, PFS (Progression Free Survival) is the standard endpoint for new drug approvals in first-line FL, and some other earlier endpoints such 2-year PFS (Casulo et al , JCO 2015) or CR30 (Sargent, 2015) have been recently proposed as potential surrogates and as alternatives to PFS or OS as primary end-points in FL patients treated with 1st line chemoinmunoterapy. Objective: To assess if 2-year PFS and CR30 are feasible surrogates of OS in the setting of a very long follow-up series of FL patients treated with ASCT. Material and Methods: A total of 626 chemosensitive FL patients (mean age 47 years, male 49%) reported to the Spanish GELTAMO registry and intensified with ASCT between 1989 and 2007 were analyzed. The status of the disease at the moment of ASCT was either in 1st response [203 in 1st CR, 43% of them needing more than one therapy line to reach the CR, and 140 in 1st Partial Response (PR)] or in response after salvage therapy (174 in 2nd CR, 28 in 3rd CR and 81 in 2nd or 3rd PR). In 615 patients the status of the disease was evaluable after ASCT: 569 cases (92%) in CR, 27 cases (4%) in PR and 19 cases (3%) progressed or died. To assess 2-year PFS, two groups were defined: patients with progression of disease (POD) within 2 years from ASCT (early POD) and patients without progression within 2 years from ASCT. Cox model analysis was used to evaluate the association between early POD and OS from a risk - defining event, which is survival from time of POD for early progressors or from 2 years after ASCT for the reference group (Casulo et al, JCO 2015.Appendix). To asses CR30, two groups were defined: patients with and patients without CR at 30 months from ASCT. Cox model analysis was used to evaluate the association between being or not in CR at 30 months from ASCT. Results: Median follow-up is 12.2 years from ASCT and 14.2 years from diagnosis. Of the assessable patients, 31% were in the high-risk FLIPI group and 40% in the high-risk FLIPI 2 group. 30% of patients received rituximab prior to ASCT. Globally median PFS and median OS are 11 and 21 years, respectively. Patients transplanted in PR (n=221; 35%) had a worse OS than those transplanted in CR (n=405, 65%): HR 2.45 (95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P10-5), fig. 3. Conclusion: 2-year PFS and CR30 could be used as subrogates for OS and as primary end points, not only in FL patients treated with 1st line chemoinmunoterapy, but also in FL intensified with an ASCT. To our knowledge this is the first study to establish that early relapse after ASCT is predictive of poor survival in FL patients; in both, patients treated or not with rituximab previously to the ASCT. This finding is even more evident in patients transplanted in CR. Likewise, best response achieved before ASCT is a robust prognostic factor for OS in FL patients. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Chemoimmunotherapy with the glycoengineered type II anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab plus the alkylating drug chlorambucil (G-Clb regimen) has been investigated in the CLL11 study and demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with previously untreated CLL and comorbidities. Whether G-Clb is also an active treatment in patients with refractory CLL after frontline therapy with Clb alone has been explored in the subpopulation of CLL11 subjects treated with such salvage therapy. Methods: Thirty patients who received Clb alone as initial study treatment, but developed progressive CLL within up to 6 months after end of Clb treatment were offered G-Clb as optional salvage therapy. The dosing schedule for obinutuzumab was 100 mg intravenously on day 1, 900 mg on day 2, and 1000 mg on day 8 and 15 of cycle 1, and 1000 mg on day 1 of cycles 2-6. Clb was administered orally with 0.5 mg/kg body weight on day 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Results: The median age in the crossover patient population (n=30) was 72 years. The comorbidity burden was high as assessed at study entry (median cumulative illness rating scale total score 8), and renal function was reduced (median calculated creatinine clearance 67 mL/min). Deletions of 11q and 17p were present in 12% and 20% of the patients, respectively; and 64% had unmutated IGHV genes. When crossing over to G-Clb, the majority (93%) had not responded to the initial study treatment with Clb while two patients had responded transiently to Clb with a partial remission, but had relapsed early (median time from start of Clb to crossover: 9.7 months). After crossover, all but one patient completed the 6 cycles of salvage therapy with G-Clb; one subject discontinued after the first infusion of obinutuzumab due to an infusion-related reaction (IRR). Grade 3 or 4 IRRs occurred in 17% of the patients. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and infection were reported in 33%, 7%, 10%, and 13% of the patients, respectively. Response rates at the end of crossover treatment with G-Clb are given in the table. Negativity for minimal residual disease in bone marrow and/or peripheral blood after crossover treatment was achieved in 23% of the patients. The median progression-free survival from start of crossover treatment was 17.2 months (95% CI 14.2; 22.4 months) (median observation time: 23 months). Conclusions: These results suggest that, besides its established role as frontline treatment of CLL, chemoimmunotherapy with G-Clb could be a safe and active treatment for patients with CLL refractory to prior chlorambucil chemotherapy. | | n (%) | | -------------------------------------------------- | ------- | | Responders | 26 (87) | | Complete response | 2 (7) | | Complete response incomplete | 1 (3) | | Partial response | 23 (77) | | Non-Responders | 4 (13) | | Stable disease | 2 (7) | | Progressive disease | 1 (3) | | Not evaluable* | 1 (3) | | * Due to early treatment discontinuation after IRR | Table: Clinical response to G-Clb after failure of Clb alone Disclosures Goede: Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Travel grants Other. Off Label Use: Obinutuzumab (GA101, Gazyva); approved for 1st line treatment of CLL; paper includes results / discussion of drug use in 2nd line treatment of CLL. Engelke: Roche: Travel grants Other. Langerak: Roche: Research Funding. Ritgen: Roche: Research Funding. Stilgenbauer: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Asikanius: Roche: Employment. Humphrey: Roche: Employment. Wenger: Genentech: Employment. Fingerle-Rowson: Roche: Employment. Hallek: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Introduction The simultaneous detection of autoantibodies and alloantibodies to red blood cells (RBC) following allogeneic transfusion is poorly understood. The incidence of autoimmune hemolysis in these patients is not well established (Young et al., Transfusion 2004; 44: 67-72). Methods Patients with a positive antibody screen, an identified alloantibody and a positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT) were selected from our hospital Blood Bank database from January 2002 to June 2013. Sex, age, main clinical diagnosis, transfusion history, alloantibody and autoantibody specificity and hemolysis parameters were analysed retrospectively in those patients with simultaneous first detection of auto and alloantibodies. In our Blood Bank, all patients to be transfused underwent a three-cell antibody screen by gel technology (Ortho Clinical Diagnosis). If the screen was positive, two microcolumn panels with eleven cells (DianaGel) and an autocontrol were performed in Liss-Coombs and with papain-treated erythrocytes for antibody identification. Test-tube testing at different temperatures with Reagent RBC (Makropanel) and a polyethyleneglycol (PEG) antiglobulin technique were carried out to confirm antibody specificity when deemed appropriate. Polyspecific and monospecific (anti-IgG and C3d) DAT (Menarini reagents) and a 6% albumin negative control were performed in all patients presenting a positive autocontrol. Acid glycine elution (Gamma ELU-KIT II) was the method of choice to prepare the eluates. Adsorption techniques were used in some cases to remove autoantibodies. Results A total of 2915 patients formed alloantibodies; 4.5% (n=132) presented both auto- and alloantibodies. The temporal relationship between the antibodies detected had the following distribution: 96.2% (n=127) simultaneous auto- and alloantibody, 2.3% alloantibody identification and on subsequent studies autoantibody and 1.5% had autoantibody previous to alloimmunization. The following results will refer to the group with simultaneous detection of auto and alloantibodies. In the selected group, 55% had a complete register of previous RBC transfusion with a median of 8.5 transfusions lifelong (range: 2 to 81) and a median of 38.5 days (range: 4 to 270 days) between last negative and first positive antibody screen. The ratio male to female was 1:1 and the median age was 67 years-old (range: 20 to 91 years-old). The most common diagnosis in these patients were: solid neoplasia (21.3%), oncohematologic disease (13.4%; mielodysplastic syndromes were included in this subgroup), chronic hepatopathy (15%; of which 58% are HVC-related), cardiovascular disease (9.5%), traumatism (7%), pregnancy (3.2%) and autoimmune disease (3.1%). The most frequent alloantibodies identified were: anti-E (39.3%) > anti-C (28.3%) > anti-K (24.5%). Most autoantibodies had no apparent specificity (67%), those that did have a specific pattern were related to Rh antigens (anti-e 7%; anti-c 1.5%; anti-D 1.5%), and the remainder 23% were crioagglutinins. A total of 16 patients (12.5%) had concomitant hemolysis at the time of antibody detection of which 43.7% (n=7) had an active cancer (57% due to oncohematologic disease), 25% (n=4) HCV hepatopathy and 12.5% autoimmune hepatitis (n=2). Conclusion Patients with de novo alloimmunization showed concomitant antierythrocytic autoantibodies in 4.5% of our population. Most cases appear to be related to previous RBC transfusion and medical conditions affecting normal immunological functioning. However, hemolysis was only found in 12.5% of these patients at the time of antibody detection and all of them had diseases with a known associated risk of developing autoimmune anemia. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

A previous PETHEMA protocol (PETHEMA ALL3/97) proved that HIV-positive patients with Burkitt’s lymphoma (BL) and Burkitt-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL3) had similar outcome than HIV-negative patients (Haematologica2003; 88:445–53). We aimed to study the impact of the addition of rituximab to our previous protocol in terms of toxicity and efficacy, with special attention to HIV-positive patients. Consecutive patients between 18 and 55 years and diagnosed with advanced stage (stage III-IV or bulky stage II) BL/ALL3 between July 2003 and August 2006 received induction therapy including a pre-phase with cyclophosphamide (CPM) and prednisone (PDN), followed by cycle A (rituximab, iphosphamide, VCR, dexamethasone -DXM-, HD-MTX, ARA-C and VM-26), cycle B (rituximab, VCR, HD-MTX, CPM, DXM and doxorubicin) an cycle C (rituximab, DXM, VDN, HD-MTX, HD-ARAC and VP-16) up to six cycles (A1,B1,C1,A2,B2,C2) followed by two additional rituximab doses. CNS prophylaxis consisted of IT MTX+ARA-C+DXM given twice in cycles A and once in cycles B for a total of 8 doses. Results: 36 patients (17 HIV-negative and 19 HIV-positive) were included. Both groups of patients were comparable for age, gender, ECOG score, BM and CNS involvement, bulky disease, LDH and albumin serum levels. Fifteen patients had bone marrow infiltration of whom 3 reached ALL3 criteria. Four out of 19 HIV positive patients begun treatment with HAART at the time of diagnosis and 15 were already under treatment. Median follow-up was 1.7 years (range 0.8–4.1). Main results of therapy are summarized in table 1. No significant differences in CR, DFS or OS were observed between HIV-positive and negative patients. Grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were almost constant and lasted a median of 7 and 5 days respectively (range 0 – 39). Other frequent grade 3–4 toxicities were hepatic (5% of cycles), mucositis (18%) and infectious (18%). Episodes of grade 3–4 extrahematological toxicity were more frequent in HIV-positive patients (77% of episodes of mucositis, p=0.04 and 72% of infections). Treatment delays >7 days due to toxicity of previous cycle were also more frequent in HIV-positive patients (41% vs 24%, p= 0.04). In conclusion, our results prove that the addition of rituximab to a specific BL/ALL3 treatment is also feasible and highly effective for HIV-positive patients with similar results to HIV- negative patients in terms of efficacy although with higher toxicity. Total (%) (n=36) HIV+ (%) (n=19) HIV- (%) (n=17) CR after two cycles 30 (83) 15 (79) 15 (88) Toxic death (1st 2 cycles) 5 (14) 3 (16) 2 (12) Resistance 0 0 0 Toxic death in CR 2 (6) 2 (11) 0 Relapses during treatment 1 (3) 0 1 (6) Relapses off treatment 0 0 0 Project. 1-year prob. DFS 90% 87% 93% Project. 1-yr prob. OS 78% 73% 82%