Search

Summary Background We hypothesised that combining zanubrutinib with obinutuzumab and venetoclax (BOVen) as an initial therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma would lead to high rates of undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD), and we explored MRD as a biomarker for directing treatment duration. Methods This multicenter, investigator-initiated, single-arm, phase 2 trial took place at two two academic medical centres in the USA. Patients were eligible for the primary cohort if they had treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma, required therapy, and were at least 18 years of age with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status up to 2. BOVen was administered in 28 day cycles (oral zanubrutinib at 160 mg twice per day starting in cycle 1 on day 1; intravenous obinutuzumab at 1000 mg on day 1 [split over day 1 with 100 mg and day 2 with 900 mg for an absolute lymphocyte count >25 000 cells per μL or lymph nodes >5 cm in diameter], day 8, and day 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of cycles 2–8; and oral venetoclax ramp up to 400 mg per day starting in cycle 3 on day 1) and discontinued after 8–24 cycles when prespecified undetectable MRD criteria were met in the peripheral blood and bone marrow. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients that reached undetectable MRD in both the peripheral blood and bone marrow (flow cytometry cutoff less than one chronic lymphocytic leukaemia cell per 10 000 leukocytes [ clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03824483 ). The primary cohort is closed to recruitment, and recruitment continues in the TP53-mutated mantle cell lymphoma cohort. Findings Between March 14, 2019, and Oct 10, 2019, 47 patients were screened for eligibility, and 39 patients were enrolled and treated. Median age was 62 years (IQR 52–70) with 30 (77%) of 39 male participants and nine (23%) of 39 female participants. 28 (72%) of 39 patients had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable-region and five (13%) of 39 had 17p deletion or TP53 mutation. After a median follow-up of 25·8 months (IQR 24·0–27·3), 33 (89%) of 37 patients (95% CI 75–97) had undetectable MRD in both blood and bone marrow, meeting the prespecified undetectable MRD criteria to stop therapy after a median of ten cycles (IQR 8–12), which includes two cycles of zanubrutinib and obinutuzumab before starting venetoclax. After median surveillance after treatment of 15·8 months (IQR 13·0–18·6), 31 (94%) of 33 patients had undetectable MRD. The most common adverse events were thrombocytopenia (23 [59%] of 39), fatigue (21 [54%]), neutropenia (20 [51%]), and bruising (20 [51%]), and the most common adverse event at grade 3 or worse was neutropenia (seven [18%]) in the intention-to-treat population. One death occurred in a patient with intracranial haemorrhage on day 1 of cycle 1 after initiating intravenous heparin for pulmonary emboli. Interpretation BOVen was well tolerated and met its primary endpoint, with 33 (89%) of 37 previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma reaching undetectable MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow despite a median treatment duration of only 10 months, owing to our undetectable MRD-driven treatment discontinuation design. These data support further evaluation of the BOVen regimen in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma with treatment duration guided by early MRD response kinetics. Funding Beigene, Genentech (Roche), Grais-Cutler Fund, Lymphoma Research Fund, Lymphoma Research Foundation, American Cancer Society, Farmer Family Foundation, and the National Instititutes of Health and National Cancer Institute.

Although patients with bronchus-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT) lymphoma show an indolent clinical course, appropriate disease management at diagnosis is not well defined. This study aimed to compare 3 treatment strategies for patients with BALT lymphoma: active surveillance, systemic chemotherapy or immunotherapy at diagnosis, or complete surgical resection at diagnosis. We conducted a retrospective study of all patients with new diagnoses of marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) involving the lung who were treated at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 1995 and 2017. Primary BALT lymphoma was defined as disease confined to the lungs and adjacent lymph nodes. Active surveillance was defined as a documented observation plan and ≥3 months of follow-up before initiating treatment. Overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were compared between treatment groups. We reviewed 200 consecutive patients with MZL involving the lung; 123 met the inclusion criteria and were managed by active surveillance (47%), complete surgical resection (41%), or systemic chemotherapy or immunotherapy (11%). With a median follow-up of >60 months, surgical resection was associated with a superior EFS compared with active surveillance and systemic treatment (6-year EFS: 74% vs 65% vs 62%, respectively; P = .013). Larger lesions and thrombocytopenia were associated with shorter EFS. All groups had excellent OS at 6 years (93%), albeit with a slight superiority for surgical resection (100%) over active surveillance (91%) and systemic treatment (76%) (P = .024). BALT lymphoma is an indolent disease that can often be managed expectantly and not require therapy for many years.

Mature B cell neoplasms, previously indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHLs), are a heterogeneous group of malignancies sharing similar disease courses and treatment paradigms. Most patients with iNHL have an excellent prognosis, and in many, treatment can be deferred for years. However, some patients will have an accelerated course and may experience transformation into aggressive lymphomas. In this review, we focus on management concepts shared across iNHLs, as well as histology-specific strategies. We address open questions in the field, including the influence of genomics and molecular pathway alterations on treatment decisions. In addition, we review the management of uncommon clinical entities including nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma, hairy cell leukemia, splenic lymphoma and primary lymphoma of extranodal sites. Finally, we include a perspective on novel targeted therapies, antibodies, antibody–drug conjugates, bispecific T cell engagers and chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy.

The prognosis of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is poor. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has been approved for R/R DLBCL after 2 prior lines of therapy based on data from single-arm phase 2 trials, with complete responses (CRs) in 40% to 60% of patients. However, a direct comparison with other treatments is not available and, moreover, its true efficacy in real-world patients is unknown. In this single center, retrospective, observational study of 215 patients, we compared outcomes in patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy (n = 69) with a historical population treated with alternate therapies (n = 146). Patients treated with CAR T cell vs alternate therapies demonstrated a CR rate of 52% vs 22% (P < .001), median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.2 vs 2.3 months (P = .01), and median overall survival (OS) of 19.3 vs 6.5 months (P = .006), and this advantage appeared to persist irrespective of the number of lines of prior therapy. After adjusting for unfavorable pretreatment disease characteristics, superior overall response rate in the CAR T cohort remained significant; however, differences in PFS and OS between cohorts did not. In addition, patients who responded to alternate therapies demonstrated prolonged remissions comparable to those who responded to CAR T therapy. We contend that in select clinical scenarios alternate therapies may be as efficacious as CAR T therapy; thus, additional study is warranted, ideally with randomized prospective trials.

Background T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma (THRLBCL) is an uncommon variant of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), characterized by low content of lymphoma cells in a background of extensive infiltrate of T-cells and histiocytes. Historically, THRLBCL was considered an aggressive variant of DLBCL with poorer outcomes and a 3-year OS We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, prognostic factors, response to treatment, and outcome among pts diagnosed with THRLBCL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in the rituximab era. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed all cases of THRLBCL who were diagnosed in our center from January 2000 to October 2019. We collected data for demographic and clinical characteristics, pathology results, disease stage and sites of involvement, treatment regimen, and outcome. Fisher's exact test was used to assess associations between patient characteristics and treatment regimen. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon test were used to assess associations between categorical or continuous characteristics and response to treatment, respectively. The likelihood ratio test was used to assess significance of Cox regression univariate models. Overall survival (OS) was measured from date of diagnosis until last follow up or death. Event-free survival (EFS) was measured from end of treatment to last follow up or pathology proven relapse or disease progression. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Results A total of 100 pts were diagnosed with THRLBCL at our center during the study period. We excluded 33 pts who had missing data regarding stage, frontline treatment, or response. A total of 67 pts were included for analysis in our cohort. Median follow up duration among survivors was 3.4 years (range 0.4-10.8 years). Baseline characteristics are summarized in table 1. Forty-eight were males (72%). Median age at diagnosis was 41 years (range 19-86). Fifty-three (72%) pts were diagnosed at stage IV. Thirty-five (52%) pts had involvement of more than 1 extra-nodal site. The most common extranodal site was bone (60%). Fourteen pts had a positive bone marrow biopsy (26% of those evaluated). Univariate analysis was performed for age, gender, ethnicity, stage, extra-nodal sites, presence of B symptoms, performance status, elevated LDH, IPI score>=3, and history of NLPHL. None of these factors were found significantly associated with response rate, EFS, or OS. Frontline treatment is shown in table 2 and included R-CHOP or R-CHOP based treatment in 48% (n=32), R-EPOCH in 12% (n=8), R-CHOP/R-ICE (4 cycles of R-CHOP-14 followed by 3 cycles of R-ICE, Moskowitz CH, et al. JCO 2010) in 33% (n=22) and other regimens in 7.5% (n=5). CNS prophylactic treatment was given in 19 pts. One pt had an autologous stem cell transplant and 1 pt had an allogeneic stem cell transplant as part of frontline treatment. Fifty-one (76%) pts had a complete response (CR) to frontline treatment. Among these pts, 6 relapsed. Sixteen (24%) pts had refractory disease. Among pts with relapsed or refractory disease, 18 received additional therapy. In the whole cohort, 3-year EFS was 68% and 3-year OS was 85%. In a sub-group analysis of pts who received R-CHOP/R-ICE compared to pts who were treated with R-CHOP or R-EPOCH, CR rates were 95% and 70% respectively (p=0.014). The R-CHOP/R-ICE regimen was also associated with higher 3-year EFS of 86% compared to 62% (p=0.049) and a better 3-year OS of 100% compared with 79% (p=0.016). See figures 1-2. The 2 treatment groups were not significantly different with regards to baseline characteristics. Conclusions Our study demonstrates better outcomes among pts with THRLBCL compared to available historical data from the pre-rituximab era. In addition, with the limitation of a retrospective, single-center study, our data suggests that for newly diagnosed THRLBCL, treatment with a higher intensity regimen, such as R-CHOP/R-ICE, may be associated with favorable outcome. Disclosures Batlevi: Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Falchi:Roche: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Hamlin:Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy; J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding. Horwitz:Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASTEX: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board. Matasar:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; NIH: Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy. Palomba:Genentech: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Straus:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Vardhana:Other: Other: SAV has received honoraria from Agios Pharmaceuticals and Rheos Pharmaceuticals, is an advisor for Immunai and has consulted for ADC Therapeutics. von Keudell:Bayer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Moskowitz:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

PURPOSE We conducted a phase II study evaluating pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and liposomal doxorubicin (pembro-GVD) as second-line therapy for relapsed or refractory (rel/ref) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03618550 ). METHODS Transplant eligible patients with rel/ref cHL following first-line therapy were treated with two to four cycles of pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenous [IV], day 1), gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), vinorelbine (20 mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), and liposomal doxorubicin (15 mg/m2, days 1 and 8), given on 21-day cycles. The primary end point was complete response (CR) following up to four cycles of pembro-GVD. Patients who achieved CR by labeled fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (Deauville ≤ 3) after two or four cycles proceeded to high-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HDT/AHCT). HDT/AHCT was carried out according to institutional standards, and brentuximab vedotin maintenance was allowed following HDT/AHCT. RESULTS Of 39 patients enrolled, 41% had primary ref disease and 38% relapsed within 1 year of frontline treatment. 31 patients received two cycles of pembro-GVD, and eight received four cycles. Most adverse events were grade 1 or two, whereas few were grade 3 and included transaminitis (n = 4), neutropenia (n = 4), mucositis (n = 2), thyroiditis (n = 1), and rash (n = 1). Of 38 evaluable patients, overall and CR rates after pembro-GVD were 100% and 95%, respectively. Thirty-six (95%) patients proceeded to HDT/AHCT, two received pre-HDT/AHCT involved site radiation, and 13 (33%) received post-HDT/AHCT brentuximab vedotin maintenance. All 36 transplanted patients are in remission at a median post-transplant follow-up of 13.5 months (range: 2.66-27.06 months). CONCLUSION Second-line therapy with pembro-GVD is a highly effective and well-tolerated regimen that can efficiently bridge patients with rel/ref cHL to HDT/AHCT.

Radiotherapy plays an important role in managing highly radiosensitive, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, such as follicular lymphoma and marginal zone lymphoma. Although the standard of care for localized indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas remains 24 Gy, de-escalation to very-low-dose radiotherapy (VLDRT) of 4 Gy further reduces toxicities and duration of treatment. Use of VLDRT outside palliative indications remains controversial; however, we hypothesize that it may be sufficient for most lesions. We present the largest single-institution VLDRT experience of adult patients with follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma treated between 2005 and 2018 (299 lesions; 250 patients) using modern principles including positron emission tomography staging and involved site radiotherapy. Outcomes include best clinical or radiographic response between 1.5 and 6 months after VLDRT and cumulative incidence of local progression (LP) with death as the only competing risk. After VLDRT, the overall response rate was 90% for all treated sites, with 68% achieving complete response (CR). With a median follow-up of 2.4 years, the 2-year cumulative incidence of LP was 25% for the entire cohort and 9% after first-line treatment with VLDRT for potentially curable, localized disease. Lesion size >6 cm was associated with lower odds of attaining a CR and greater risk of LP. There was no suggestion of inferior outcomes for potentially curable lesions. Given the clinical versatility of VLDRT, we propose to implement a novel, incremental, adaptive involved site radiotherapy strategy in which patients will be treated initially with VLDRT, reserving full-dose treatment for those who are unable to attain a CR.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have an increased risk for severe COVID-19 disease and mortality. The goal of this study was to determine the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL. We evaluated humoral immune responses to the BNT162b2 messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine in patients with CLL and compared responses with those obtained in age-matched healthy control subjects. Patients received 2 vaccine doses, 21 days apart, and antibody titers were measured by using the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay after administration of the second dose. In a total of 167 patients with CLL, the antibody response rate was 39.5%. A comparison between 52 patients with CLL and 52 sex- and aged-matched healthy control subjects revealed a significantly reduced response rate among patients (52% vs 100%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.010; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.162; P < .001). The response rate was highest in patients who obtained clinical remission after treatment (79.2%), followed by 55.2% in treatment-naive patients and 16.0% in patients under treatment at the time of vaccination. In patients treated with either Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors or venetoclax ± anti-CD20 antibody, response rates were considerably low (16.0% and 13.6%). None of the patients exposed to anti-CD20 antibodies

Context Tafasitamab+LEN, a chemotherapy-free, novel treatment for R/R DLBCL, demonstrated efficacy in ASCT-ineligible patients in the single-arm Phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085). Objective To compare outcomes in patients treated with tafasitamab+LEN in the L-MIND study with matched patient populations treated with commonly administered NCCN-/ESMO-recommended therapies for non-transplant-eligible patients with R/R DLBCL in routine clinical practice. Design RE-MIND2 (NCT04150328) is an observational, retrospective cohort study. The L-MIND tafasitamab+LEN cohort was matched with RE-MIND2 patients using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest neighbor matching balanced for nine patient and disease baseline characteristics: age ( 9 /L), anemia (cut-off upper limit of normal). Setting Academic, public, and private hospitals in Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific. Patients Age: ≥18 years old with histologically confirmed DLBCL. Prior systemic therapy for DLBCL: ≥1, including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy. Interventions Data are presented for tafasitamab+LEN vs all (pooled) systemic therapies, tafasitamab+LEN vs bendamustine+rituximab (BR), and tafasitamab+LEN vs rituximab+gemcitabine+oxaliplatin (R-GemOx). Main Outcome Measures The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, complete response rate, progression-free survival, event-free survival, duration of response, and time to next treatment. Results In RE-MIND2, 3,454 patients were enrolled from 200 centers. For the comparative analysis, 76 patients from the L-MIND tafasitamab+LEN study were included in the full analysis set. Strictly matched pairs of patients (standardized mean difference ≤0.2) included: tafasitamab+LEN vs pooled therapies, n=76 pairs; tafasitamab+LEN vs BR, n=75 pairs; and tafasitamab+LEN vs R-GemOx, n=74 pairs. Tafasitamab+LEN was associated with longer OS compared with pooled therapies (HR: 0.55; p=0.0076), BR (HR: 0.42; p Conclusions Results of this analysis suggest that tafasitamab+LEN has improved OS vs commonly used regimens. Funding This study was funded by MorphoSys AG.

Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) frequently require multiple treatments during their disease course; however, survival based on lines of treatment remains poorly described in the post-rituximab era. Also, the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score was developed to predict survival at diagnosis, yet it remains unknown whether increase in FLIPI score following an initial observation period is associated with less-favorable outcomes. To address these knowledge gaps, we retrospectively studied 1088 patients with FL grade 1–3A managed between 1998 and 2009 at our institution. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) after first-line treatment were not reached and 4.73 years, respectively. Following successive lines of treatment, years of median OS and PFS were, respectively: after second-line, 11.7 and 1.5; third-line, 8.8 and 1.1; fourth-line, 5.3 and 0.9; fifth-line, 3.1 and 0.6; sixth-line, 1.9 and 0.5. In initially observed, subsequently treated patients, FLIPI score increase after observation was associated with inferior survival following first-line treatment. The reduced survival we observed after second-line and later therapy supports the development of new treatments for relapsed patients and benchmarks historical targets for clinical endpoints. This study also highlights the utility of changes in FLIPI score at diagnosis and after observation in identifying patients likely to have worse outcomes.

We reviewed pre-diagnosis clinical data of 420 patients with pathologically confirmed myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) presenting with anemia. In 232 patients with yearly pre-diagnosis complete blood counts (CBCs), we also analyzed CBC kinetics in respects to a standardized timepoint in which all patients had similar levels of hemoglobin (Hgb). At the standardized timepoint (last documented 12 > Hgb ≥ 11 g/dL), occurring months-years before diagnosis, median CBC values were Hgb 11.4 g/dL, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) 2.7 × 103 (k)/mcl, and platelets (PLTs) 181 k/mcl. Gradual changes in CBC could be observed years prior to this timepoint, for the most part while within normal/near-normal limits. During this time, most patients had a coexisting alternative etiology for anemia. Patients with high-risk cytogenetic/blast features had a rapid and steeper decrease in counts in the last year before developing a concerning anemia (decrease in: Hgb 0.75 g/dL vs 0.55 g/dL; PLT 29.5 vs 4.5 k/mcl; ANC 0.86 vs 0.4 k/mcl, P = .03). Low-risk patients had a high rate of longstanding mild anemia (31% vs 16%, P = .05). Rate of development of cytopenia and number of involved hematopoietic lines were prognostic. In 65% of patients, with near normal CBC at the standardized timepoint, but in whom there was a decrease in multiple hematopoietic lines over the preceding year, the 5-year overall survival (5yOS) was 53% compared to 71% in patients with isolated slowly progressing anemia (20% of patients). In 15% of patients with mild cytopenia developing after both a rapid decrease and multiple involved lines, prognosis was dismal (5yOS 34%). In conclusion, kinetics of pre-MDS CBC values correlate with disease risk and survival.

Very low-dose radiotherapy (4 Gy; VLDRT) is an effective treatment for indolent lymphomas and offers the advantage of a shorter course and improved side effect profile compared to full dose RT regi...

This retrospective study aimed to better define the characteristics and outcomes of extranodal stage I diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the rituximab era. Patients diagnosed with stage I DLBCL from 2001 to 2015 treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (R-CHOP) or R-CHOP–like regimens with or without radiation (RT) were included. We identified 1955 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, of whom 341 had stage I and were eligible for this analysis. Extranodal presentation was observed in 224 (66%) patients, whereas 117 (34%) had nodal involvement. The most common extranodal sites were as follows: bone, 21%; stomach, 19%; testis, 9%; intestine, 8%; breast, 8%. Overall, 69% extranodal patients and 68% nodal patients received RT. Median follow-up was 5.5 years (interquartile range, 4.3-8.2). Ten-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67%-83%) and 77% (95% CI, 68%-85%). In the multivariable analyses, extranodal involvement was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 3.44; 95% CI, 1.05-11.30) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.08-9.72) compared with nodal involvement. Consolidation RT was associated with better OS (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.49) and PFS (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18-0.69) in the extranodal population; however, the benefit was no longer observed in patients that were positron emission tomography (PET) negative at the end of immunochemotherapy. Relapses occurred usually late (median, 37 months), and the most common sites were the lymph nodes (31%) and the central nervous system (27%). Extranodal stage I DLBCL had a worse outcome than nodal stage 1 DLBCL. End of immunochemotherapy PET results may help select extranodal patients for consolidation RT.

High-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with translocations involving MYC and BCL2 or BCL6 comprises ∼10% of cases of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and carries a poor prognosis. The incidence, prognosis, and optimal therapy for DLBCL harboring extra copies of the genes MYC, BCL2, and BCL6, rather than their genetic translocations, are unknown. In this retrospective, single-center study we identified 144 DLBCL cases including 46 patients with classic HGBL with double-hit or triple-hit chromosomal translocations (DHL), 55 with extra copies of MYC in addition to aberrations (extra copies or translocations) of BCL2 and/or BCL6 but did not meet the criteria for HGBL (EC group), and 43 without any aberrations of MYC, BCL2, or BCL6 (wild type [WT]). Unfavorable baseline characteristics had similar frequency in the EC and WT groups, but were significantly more prevalent in the DHL group. With a median follow-up of 36 months, the 2-year event-free survival (EFS) was similar between the WT and EC groups at 77% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65-90) and 82% (95% CI, 72-93), respectively. In contrast, the 2-year EFS of the DHL group was 63% (95% CI, 51-79). The 2-year overall survival in the WT, EC, and DHL groups was 86% (95% CI, 76-97), 89% (95% CI, 81-98), and 74% (95% CI, 62-88), respectively. Among patients treated with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), the EC group had outcomes similar to those of the WT group. Our results indicate that patients with DLBCL with extra gene copies of MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 fare differently from those with HGBL and respond well to standard R-CHOP therapy.

Objectives To ascertain the relevance of bone marrow cellularity (BMC) to the interpretation of blast percentage (blast%) in MDS prognostication. Methods We compared survival prediction based on blast% adjusted to different levels of cellularity, compared to the survival based on the original IPSS-R blast% grouping. Results We analyzed 355 consecutive MDS patients. Cellularity, in and of itself or its interaction with blast%, was not associated with overall survival (OS). In a small subset of patients with a hypercellular marrow (15%; n = 26), dismal prognosis was observed at lower levels of blast%. For these cases OS was similar to higher IPSS-R blast groups. For example, within the Intermediate group (blast% 5%-10%), those with a hypercellular marrow and >6% blasts had an OS of 10 m similar to 16 m in the High (blast% 10%-19%) blast group. These changes did not translate into a significant improvement in overall prognostic power of a cellularity-adjusted IPSS-R (C index 0.71 vs. 0.70). Conclusion Adjusting blast% to cellularity did not improve prognostication. However, within IPSS-R-defined blast groups, a small subset of patients with relatively higher blast% and hypercellularity may have a worse prognosis than expected.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate disease characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients requiring second-line treatment following fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR), for relapsed/refractory disease (R/R), or following discontinuation due to toxicities. METHOD A retrospective analysis of 126 chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients treated with frontline FCR: 63 received second-line treatment (41 relapsed, nine refractory [SD/PD], 13 prior toxicity). Time to next treatment (TTNT) was calculated from beginning FCR to initiation of second-line therapy. Overall and event-free survival was calculated from initiation of salvage treatment (OS2/EFS2). RESULTS Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 67 and 37 months from second-line therapy. TTNT

A non-invasive myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) diagnostic model would allow for care while avoiding invasive bone marrow examinations (BME). BME-established MDS patients were compared to non-MDS (BME-excluded) patients. Variables (gender, age, hemoglobin (Hb), mean red blood cell corpuscular volume (MCV), platelet (PLT), and white blood cell (WBC)) were combined with multivariate logistic regression; a probability score (Y) was calculated. MDS (n = 48) and non-MDS (n = 63) patients were used to establish the model. The ROC was drawn, giving an AUC of 0.748 (95% CI: 0.656-0.84). Two cutoff values were used for Y. Y ≥ 0.633: high likelihood (positive predictive value (PPV) = 85%); Y ≤ 0.288: low likelihood (negative predictive value (NPV) = 81%) of MDS. The first group is defined as probable MDS (pMDS); the second, probably not MDS (pnMDS). The model was validated with 40 additional patients (20 with and 20 without MDS). Using clinical and lab data, we could diagnose or exclude MDS in about half of the patients, avoiding BME. Future work will use larger cohorts of patients to improve and further validate the model.

Background Several therapies are recommended by NCCN/ESMO guidelines for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In the single-arm, Phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085), the chemotherapy-free regimen tafasitamab + lenalidomide (LEN) demonstrated efficacy for this patient population. In the absence of randomized clinical trial data, RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), an observational, retrospective cohort study, compared patient outcomes from L-MIND with matched patient populations treated with NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies for ASCT-ineligible patients with R/R DLBCL. Methods Data were retrospectively collected between 1 April and 13 November 2020 from academic and public hospitals, as well as private practices in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. To ensure consistency with L-MIND I/E criteria, patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL and who had received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy) were enrolled. For the main analysis, patients from the L-MIND tafasitamab + LEN cohort were matched with patients from the RE-MIND2 observational cohort using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest neighbor matching, balanced for six baseline characteristics: age ( A sensitivity analysis was performed using an inverse probability of treatment weighting method calculating the average effect of the treatment on the treated, to generate balanced cohorts based on nine baseline characteristics: age, refractoriness to last line of therapy, number of previous lines of therapy, history of primary refractoriness, prior ASCT, Ann Arbor Stage (I/II vs III/IV), elevated LDH (yes vs no), neutropenia (yes vs no), and anemia (yes vs no). Additional sensitivity analyses accounting for missing baseline characteristics using multiple imputation technique were performed. Data are presented for tafasitamab + LEN versus polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (pola-BR), rituximab + LEN (R2), and CD19 CAR-T therapies (CAR-T). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate, progression-free survival and duration of response. Results Of 3,454 patients enrolled from 200 sites, 106, 106, and 149 patients were treated with pola-BR, R2, and CAR-T, respectively. For the comparative analysis, matched patient pairs were created using 1:1 nearest neighbor matching with a caliper. Matched pairs consisted of: tafasitamab + LEN vs pola-BR, n=24 pairs; vs R2, n=33 pairs; and vs CAR-T, n=37 pairs. A significant OS benefit was associated with tafasitamab + LEN compared to pola-BR (HR: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.96; p=0.038) and R2 (HR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; p=0.014) (Figure 1A-B). There was no significant difference in OS benefit between tafasitamab + LEN and CAR-T (HR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.47-1.91; p=0.891) (Figure 1C). ORR was 62.5% (15/24) for tafasitamab + LEN vs 58.3% (14/24) for pola-BR (p=1.000), 63.6% (21/33) vs 30.3% (10/33) for R2 (p=0.013), and 59.5% (22/37) vs 75.7% (28/37) for CAR-T (p=0.214). Improved outcomes were also observed with tafasitamab + LEN for other secondary endpoints (Table 1). Results are consistent with those obtained in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions The results of this retrospective cohort analysis suggest that the novel tafasitamab + LEN combination may significantly improve health outcomes, with a prolonged survival benefit for ASCT-ineligible R/R DLBCL patients, relative to NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies. Tafasitamab + LEN improved survival outcomes compared with pola-BR and R2 in closely matched patient populations. Comparable outcomes were observed for tafasitamab + LEN vs CAR-T. Although based on limited patient numbers, these data may be clinically relevant in the context of emerging therapies for R/R DLBCL. While this study design does not replace randomized data, it remains more rigorous than inter-trial comparison. The limitations of comparing clinical trial and matched retrospective real-world data will be discussed. Funding: MorphoSys AG. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Joffe: AstraZeneca. Epizyme: Consultancy. Fleury: Abbvie, Astrazeneca, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Kite-Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Other: conference and advisory role. Peters: AbbVie, Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Greil: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Marks: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Meeting attendance; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy. Kim: AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Zinzani: BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ImmuneDesign: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Trotman: Beigene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; PCYC Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Sabatelli: Incyte: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Huang: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Waltl: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Winderlich: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ambarkhane: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Kurukulasuriya: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Cordoba: Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; ADCTherapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hess: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Salles: Miltneiy: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velosbio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Debiopharm: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria.

Introduction: EBV can be associated with several types of lymphomas, with reported frequencies of up to 8-10% in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 30-100% in peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL) subtypes, 80% in post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD), and 15-30% in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), with adverse impact on outcomes. Nanatinostat (Nstat) is a Class-I selective oral HDAC inhibitor that induces the expression of the lytic BGLF4 EBV protein kinase in EBV + tumor cells, activating ganciclovir (GCV) via phosphorylation. This results in GCV-induced inhibition of viral and cellular DNA synthesis and apoptosis. Herein we report the final results from this exploratory study for patients with R/R EBV + lymphomas (NCT03397706). Methods: Patients aged ≥18 with histologically confirmed EBV + lymphomas (defined as any degree of EBER-ISH positivity), R/R to ≥1 prior systemic therapies with an absolute neutrophil count ≥1.0×10 9/L, platelet count ≥50×10 9/L, and no curative treatment options per investigator were enrolled into 5 dose escalation cohorts to determine the recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) of Nstat + VGCV for phase 2 expansion. Phase 2 patients received the RP2D (Nstat 20 mg daily, 4 days per week + VGCV 900 mg orally daily) in 28-day cycles until disease progression or withdrawal. Primary endpoints were safety/RP2D (phase 1b) and overall response rate (ORR) (phase 2); secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, duration of response (DoR), time to response, progression free survival and overall survival. Responses were assessed using Lugano 2014 response criteria beginning at week 8. Results: As of 18 June 2021, 55 patients were enrolled (phase 1b: 25; phase 2: 30). Lymphoma subtypes were DLBCL (n=7), extranodal NK/T-cell (ENKTL) (n=9), PTCL, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) (n=5), angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma (n=6), cutaneous T cell (n=1), HL (n=11), other B cell (n=3), and immunodeficiency-associated lymphoproliferative disorders (IA-LPD) (n=13), including PTLD (n=4), HIV-associated (n=5), and other [n=4: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) (n=2), common variable/primary immunodeficiency (n=2)]. Median age was 60 years (range 19-84), M/F 35/20, median number of prior therapies was 2 (range 1-11), 76% had ≥2 prior therapies, 78% were refractory to their most recent prior therapy, and 84% had exhausted standard therapies. EBER positivity ranged from 10% of patients included neutropenia (27%), thrombocytopenia (20%), anemia (20%), and lymphopenia (14%). Dose reductions and interruptions due to treatment-related AEs were reported in 14 (25%) and 16 (29%) patients, respectively. Only 1 patient had to discontinue therapy. There were no cases of CMV reactivation. For 43 evaluable patients (EBER-ISH + with ≥ 1 post-treatment response assessment) across all histologies, the investigator-assessed ORR and complete response (CR) rates were 40% (17/43) and 19% (8/43) respectively. Patients with T/NK-NHL (n=15; all refractory to their last therapy) had an ORR of 60% (n=9) with 27% (n=4) CRs. Two patients (ENKTL and PTCL-NOS) in PR and CR respectively were withdrawn at 6.7 and 6.6 months (m) respectively for autologous stem cell transplantation. For DLBCL (n=6), ORR/CR was 67%/33% (both CRs were in patients refractory to first-line R-CHOP). For IA-LPD (n=13), ORR/CR was 30%/20% (PTLD: 1 CR, other: 1 CR, 1 PR). For HL (n=10), there was 1 PR (4 SD). The median DoR for all responders was 10.4 m, with a median follow-up from response of 5.7 m (range 1.9-34.1 m). For the 17 responders, 8 lasted ≥ 6 months. Conclusions: The combination of Nstat and VGCV was well-tolerated with a manageable toxicity profile and shows promising efficacy in patients with R/R EBV + lymphomas, particularly in refractory T/NK-NHL, a heterogeneous group of aggressive lymphomas with dismal outcomes, with multiple durable responses. Further evaluation of this novel combination therapy for the treatment of recurrent EBV + lymphomas is ongoing in the phase 2 VT3996-202 trial. Disclosures Haverkos: Viracta Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding. Baiocchi: Prelude Therapeutics: Consultancy; viracta: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Codiak Biosciences: Research Funding; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy. Brammer: Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy. Feldman: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Honoraria, Other: Study investigator. Brem: Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KiTE Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys/Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Scheinberg: Roche: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BioCryst Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Alexion pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Joffe: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy. Katkov: Viracta Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. McRae: Viracta Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. Royston: Viracta Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. Rojkjaer: Viracta Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. Porcu: Viracta: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Daiichi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kiowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; DrenBio: Consultancy.

Background: Venetoclax (Ven; BH3 mimetic) and Obinutuzumab (O; CD20 antibody) is an approved, fixed-duration regimen (one year) that induces undetectable minimum residual disease (uMRD) and durable remissions in treatment naïve patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL; Fischer NEJM 2019). In the CLARITY trial of venetoclax-ibrutinib (BTK inhibitor; BTKi) in relapsed or refractory CLL, peripheral blood (PB) MRD response kinetics predicted bone marrow (BM) uMRD and were associated with progression-free survival (Rawstron EHA 2020). We explored MRD as a biomarker to direct treatment duration in an investigator-initiated phase 2 trial of Zanubrutinib (BTKi) and O-Ven (BOVen). We hypothesize that early MRD kinetics will identify a defined cohort of pts with delayed BM MRD clearance, and early recurrent detectable MRD after discontinuation of treatment in pts attaining uMRD. Methods: In this multicenter, phase 2 trial (NCT03824483), eligible pts had previously untreated CLL requiring treatment (iwCLL), ECOG PS ≤2, absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥1,000/ul, platelets (PLT) ≥75,000/ul (ANC ≥0/ul, PLT ≥20,000/ul if due to CLL). Informed consent was obtained from all pts. BOVen was administered in 28-day (D) cycles (C): Zanubrutinib 160 mg by mouth (PO) twice daily starting D1; Obinutuzumab 1000 mg IV D1 (split D1-2 if lymphocyte count ≥25,000/ul or lymph node ≥5cm), D8, D15 of C1, and D1 of C2-8; Venetoclax ramp up initiated C3D1 (target 400 mg PO daily). MRD was evaluated by flow cytometry (MRD-FC) and immunosequencing (MRD-IS; Adaptive ClonoSEQ) with uMRD defined as ≤10 -4 for flow and ≤10 -5 for IS. Treatment consisted of 8-24 cycles with duration determined by prespecified MRD criteria. Beginning on C7D1 then every 2 cycles, pts with PB uMRD-FC had BM within 14 days. If BM uMRD, PB MRD was repeated after two additional cycles. Pts with confirmed uMRD-FC in PB and BM discontinued therapy and entered posttreatment surveillance. Response was assessed per iwCLL. Adverse events (AE) were assessed per CTCAE v5. MRD-IS failure free survival (FFS) was calculated from end-of-treatment (EOT) to the date of detectable MRD-IS (≥10 -5) using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The study accrued 39 pts (03/19-10/19): median age 59 years (23-73), 3:1 male predominance, 28/39 (72%) IGHV unmutated, 5/39 (12.8%) del(17p)/TP53M. All pts were evaluable for toxicity with 37 evaluable for efficacy. At a median follow up of 26+ months (mo; 4.5-30.5+), 95% (35/37) pts achieved uMRD-FC in PB, among whom 33 (94%) also achieved uMRD-IS. BM uMRD-FC was seen in 89% (33/37) at a median time of 8 mo (6-16), all of whom met prespecified MRD criteria and discontinued therapy after a median of 10 mo (8-18). Three pts discontinued therapy with persistent detectable BM MRD after 24 cycles. The most common AEs were neutropenia (51%), thrombocytopenia (44%), diarrhea (44%), infusion related reaction (41%) and bruising (41%). The most common grade ≥3 AE was neutropenia (15%). No laboratory or clinical TLS occurred (Howard definition). A ≥400-fold reduction in PB MRD-IS after 4 cycles (ΔMRD400) was selected using the Youden Index and was highly predictive of attaining BM uMRD in ≤8mo (sensitivity 88% [21/24], specificity 100% [11/11], PPV 100% [21/21], NPV 79% [11/14]. As a result, the median duration of therapy was shorter among patients who achieved ΔMRD400 (8 vs 13 mo). Of 33 pts who met prespecified uMRD criteria and stopped therapy, 31 (94%) remain uMRD-FC following a median 15 mo (0-20) from EOT, and 2 pts had recurrent MRD (1 with PD recaptured PB uMRD with retreatment). Of 33 pts who discontinued therapy after achieving the prespecified MRD endpoint, MRD-IS was evaluated every 3 months in 31 pts for a median of 12 mo (range, 3-18) from EOT. MRD-IS FFS was longer in pts who achieved ΔMRD400 (log rank p Conclusion: BOVen achieved frequent, durable uMRD. All pts completed therapy (median 10 mo treatment), including 89% (33/37) who met the prespecified PB/BM uMRD endpoint. With a median posttreatment follow-up of 15 mo, 31 (94%) remain uMRD-FC. ΔMRD400 identified a cohort of pts (40%) with delayed BM MRD clearance and earlier MRD recurrence, despite longer treatment duration. ΔMRD400 warrants further study as a predictive biomarker for treatment duration. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Soumerai: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BostonGene: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Mato: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; MSKCC: Current Employment; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dogan: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Peer View: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Hochberg: Leuko: Consultancy; Intervention Insights: Consultancy. Abramson: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Batlevi: TouchIME: Honoraria; BMS: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Medscape: Honoraria; GLG Pharma: Consultancy; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Life Sciences: Consultancy; Moderna: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Regeneron: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Viatris: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Karyopharm: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding; Xynomic: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding. Matasar: Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Teva: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ImmunoVaccine Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Noy: Rafael Parhma: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy. Palomba: Ceramedix: Honoraria; Seres: Honoraria, Other: Stock, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Notch: Honoraria, Other: Stock; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; PCYC: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Lygenesis: Honoraria; Nektar: Honoraria; Juno: Patents & Royalties; Wolters Kluwer: Patents & Royalties; Rheos: Honoraria; Magenta: Honoraria; Pluto: Honoraria; WindMIL: Honoraria; Priothera: Honoraria. Kumar: Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: advisory board , Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Abbvie Pharmaceticals, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Roeker: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, LOXO, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Vaniam Group, Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Abbot Laboratories: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Thompson: VJHemOnc: Honoraria; MJH Life Sciences: Honoraria; Curio Science: Honoraria. Roshal: Physicians' Education Resource: Other: Provision of services; Auron Therapeutics: Other: Ownership / Equity interests; Provision of services; Celgene: Other: Provision of services. Huang: BeiGene: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Protara Therapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Biondo: Roche: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment. Wu: Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment; Roche/GNE: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Jacob: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment. Abdel-Wahab: H3B Biomedicine: Consultancy, Research Funding; Foundation Medicine Inc: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Consultancy; LOXO Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lilly: Consultancy; AIChemy: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Envisagenics Inc.: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zelenetz: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; MethylGene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; NCCN: Other; LFR: Other. OffLabel Disclosure: Zanubrutinib is administered off-label in combination with venetoclax and obinutuzumab for patients with CLL/SLL.

Introduction Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors have single agent activity in various types of lymphoma. They restore antigen-specific immune recognition in B-cell lymphoma cells and modulate programmed cell death (PD)-1 expression on circulating T-lymphocytes. Pembrolizumab (PEM) is highly active in Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) and demonstrates a 12-month PFS of 46% in patients with R/R HL. Preclinical studies have shown synergism of this combination in mouse models of various tumors. We present the interim efficacy analysis from the first stage of our phase II trial investigating the combination of the HDAC inhibitor Entinostat (ENT) and the PD-1-blocking antibody PEM in patients with R/R HL. Methods Patients with R/R HL received ENT 5-7 mg orally once weekly and PEM 200 mg intravenously once every three weeks. Prior use of anti-PD-1 or HDAC inhibitor was allowed if there had been clinical benefit. Tumor assessment was evaluated using the RECIL criteria. The primary endpoint is the 12-month progression-free survival (PFS). Using a Simon two-stage minimax design to power the study, 21 patients were to be enrolled in the first stage with a 12-month PFS rate of 40% considered undesirable and 60% desirable. Results At time of data censoring on 7/24/21, 22 patients with HL have been enrolled. The median number of prior therapies was 5 (2-17). 7 (32%) were refractory to the most recent therapy, 13 (59%) had received autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), 12 (55%) prior anti-PD1 antibody therapy, and 3 (14%) prior HDAC inhibitor therapy. Out of 22 evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 86% and the complete response (CR) rate was 45%. Responding patients included 9 with prior anti-PD-1 antibody and 3 with prior HDAC inhibitor therapy. With median duration of follow-up among survivors of 8.4 months (2-26), the 12-month PFS was 72% (44%-87%). Reasons for treatment discontinuation included: progression (n=6), toxicities (n=5) consolidation with transplant or radiation (n=3), withdrawal of consent (n=3), and completion of study protocol (n=2). Severe toxicities resulting in study discontinuation were pleural effusions, pericarditis, pneumonitis and peripheral neuropathy. Out of the 22 total patients with HL enrolled in this study, 50% of patients had grade ≥3 (41%) and thrombocytopenia (32%). 41% exhibited grade ≥3 non-hematologic AEs, which included pericardial or pleural effusions (n=2, 9%), as well as fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, abdominal pain, pneumonitis, elevated lipase, hyperglycemia, and peripheral neuropathy. AEs that were potentially immune-related included hypothyroidism (n=2, 9%), elevated transaminases (n=4, 18%), diarrhea (n=3, 14%) and pneumonitis (n=2, 8%). Conclusions Interim results following stage I of this phase 2 trial demonstrates a 12-month PFS rate of 74%, meeting the primary endpoint of the study and justifying continued investigation of the combination of PEM and ENT. In this heavily pretreated patient population, responses were seen in the majority of patients despite prior exposure to anti-PD-1 agents. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Vardhana: Immunai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moskowitz: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Janpix Ltd.: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium Therapeutics L.P./Purdue: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding. Joffe: AstraZeneca. Epizyme: Consultancy. Khan: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kumar: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: advisory board , Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Abbvie Pharmaceticals, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Zelenetz: Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Verastem: Honoraria; SecuraBio: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; MethylGene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; NCCN: Other; LFR: Other. Horwitz: Affimed: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics, Affimed, Aileron, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Forty Seven, Inc., Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium /Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trillium Therapeutics, and Verastem/SecuraBio.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma, Affimed, ADC Therapeutics, Astex, Merck, Portola Pharma, C4 Therapeutics, Celgene, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Myeloid Therapeutics, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Shoreline Biosciences, Inc, Takeda, Trillium Th: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Crispr Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tubulis: Consultancy; Verastem/Securabio: Research Funding. Noy: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Rafael Parhma: Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Batlevi: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Moderna: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Viatris: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; BMS: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Autolus: Research Funding; Pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Medscape: Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Regeneron: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; TouchIME: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Life Sciences: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; GLG Pharma: Consultancy; Xynomic: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding. Matasar: Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; ImmunoVaccine Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Palomba: Nektar: Honoraria; Notch: Honoraria, Other: Stock; PCYC: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Ceramedix: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Priothera: Honoraria; Juno: Patents & Royalties; Wolters Kluwer: Patents & Royalties; Lygenesis: Honoraria; Pluto: Honoraria; Rheos: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy; Seres: Honoraria, Other: Stock, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; WindMIL: Honoraria; Magenta: Honoraria. Lee: Intellisphere, LLC: Consultancy. Dogan: EUSA Pharma: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Peer View: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria. Salles: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Rapt: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Loxo: Consultancy; Miltneiy: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Bayer: Honoraria; Velosbio: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy. Younes: AZ: Current Employment, Other: Senior Vice President, Global Head of Haematology (Early and Late Stage) Oncology R&D at AstraZeneca. von Keudell: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding.

Introduction: Primary cutaneous diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, leg type (PCDLBCL,LT) is a rare subtype of lymphoma that has been reported to have aggressive clinical behavior and carry a poor prognosis. However, due to the extreme scarcity of data, optimal management of this entity remains poorly defined, particularly with respect to optimal induction therapy and the role for central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis. We therefore reviewed our institutional experience with patients with PCDLBCL,LT to better delineate their clinical course and risk of CNS relapse. Methods: We searched our electronic database and individual electronic medical records for cases of skin-only PCDLBCL,LT and analyzed the presenting characteristics, treatment approaches, use of CNS prophylaxis, and clinical outcomes, including skin, systemic, and CNS relapse. Primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma, and skin-only DLBCL arising in patients with a concurrent or antecedent indolent B-cell lymphoma were excluded. Additionally, cases with DLBCL involving both skin and nodal and/or extranodal sites at diagnosis were excluded. All patients underwent staging with positron emission tomography-computerized tomography (PET-CT). Diagnostic specimens were independently reviewed by hematopathologists with expertise in cutaneous lymphoma. Results: We identified 38 patients with PCDLBCL,LT followed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between July 2002 and October 2020. Fifteen (39%) were female and the median age was 76 years (range, 40-96). The disease was localized to the lower extremity in 15 cases (39%) and consisted of multiple lesions in 11 cases (29%). All but one patient had IPI 0-2. By Hans algorithm 79% of the samples had a non-GCB phenotype, 79% expressed MUM-1, 3% expressed CD10, and 82% exhibited Bcl2 expression. The median Ki-67 was 85% (range, 20%-100%). According to the CNS-IPI score, 25 out of 36 evaluable patients (69%) had low-risk disease and 11 (31%) intermediate-risk disease; no patient had high-risk disease. Induction therapy consisted of R-CHOP immunochemotherapy in 13 patients (33%), R-CHOP followed by radiation therapy (RT), at doses of 30-40 Gy, in 12 (31%), and RT alone, at doses of 30-45 Gy, in 10 (26%). One patient underwent excision alone, one received rituximab after excisional biopsy, and one best supportive care. Three patients (2 treated with chemotherapy + RT and one with chemotherapy only) received CNS prophylaxis with intrathecal methotrexate. Among 35 patients evaluable for response, the objective response rate was 86%, all of which were complete responses. One patient treated with rituximab had stable disease and 4 (2 treated with chemotherapy only, one RT, and one best supportive care) progressed. At a median follow-up of 8.9 years [range, 2.9-14.7], the 5-year progression-free survival for the cohort is 42% (Figure panel A). CNS relapse occurred in 5 patients (13%) involving leptomeninges in 1 case, parenchyma in 2, and both in 2. None of these patients received CNS prophylaxis. Of note, none of the three who did receive prophylaxis experienced CNS relapse. The 2-year and 5-year cumulative risk of CNS relapse are 7% and 19%, respectively (Figure panel B). At the time of this analysis, the 5-year overall survival rate is 66% (Figure Panel A), and in all, 16 patients (42%) have died. Among the 7 patients with known cause of death, 5 succumbed to progressive disease (including 3 with CNS disease), one to sepsis, and one to secondary acute myelogenous leukemia. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study analyzing the risk of CNS relapse in PCLBCL,LT patients treated with rituximab-containing immunochemotherapy. Our findings indicate that PCLBCL,LT is a highly aggressive disease associated with poor prognosis and high risk of CNS relapse. The 13% rate of CNS relapse in a population of patients with limited-stage disease, none of whom had high-risk CNS-IPI, suggests that alternate models of risk prediction are needed for patients with PCLBCL,LT and that clinical trials aimed at improving rates of cure and reducing the risk of CNS relapse for patients with PCLBCL,LT are needed. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Falchi: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding. Ewalt: Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acceleron Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Batlevi: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Viatris: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Life Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding; BMS: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; TouchIME: Honoraria; Moderna: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria; Regeneron: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; GLG Pharma: Consultancy; Xynomic: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding. Caron: Astra-Zeneca: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; bristol myers: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; GlaxoSmithKlein: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Johnson and Johnson: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Novartis: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Teva: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Hamlin: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease (formerly Portola Pharmaceuticals): Other: Study investigator, Research Funding; Incyte, Janssen, Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Kite, Karyopharm, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Horwitz: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium /Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Tubulis: Consultancy; SecuraBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Khan: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kumar: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: advisory board , Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Abbvie Pharmaceticals, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Moskowitz: Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Janpix Ltd.: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Imbrium Therapeutics L.P./Purdue: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Noy: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Rafael Parhma: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Palomba: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. von Keudell: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Zelenetz: MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Verastem: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; MethylGene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; LFR: Other. Dogan: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Peer View: Honoraria; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy. Salles: Allogene: Consultancy; Miltneiy: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Velosbio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genmab: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Matasar: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ImmunoVaccine Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy.

Introduction Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the ocular adnexa (OA-DLBCL) is extremely rare and historically was associated with poor prognosis and higher risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse. In the rituximab era its prognosis may be more favorable, particularly in individuals with limited-stage disease. However, published series of patients with extranodal limited-stage DLBCL, including a study from our group (Bobillo et al. Blood 2021), rarely included OA-DLBCL. Studies specifically looking at OA-DLBCL reported diverse treatment approaches, including some that are no longer current, such as chemotherapy without rituximab or radiation alone. Thus, the optimal management of limited-stage OA-DLBCL remains poorly defined. To address this knowledge gap, we reviewed treatments and outcomes of OA-DLBCL patients treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MKSCC). Methods We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records of consecutive patients with DLBCL managed at MSKCC who had ocular adnexal involvement and stage IE or IIE disease, and complete clinical information. Patients with stage III-IV disease, or evidence of intraocular or CNS involvement were excluded. Results Between 2000 and 2020 we identified 17 patients with limited-stage OA-DLBCL. The median age at diagnosis was 66 years [range: 24-84], all had ECOG PS 0-1, 94% had IPI 0-1 and 94% CNS-IPI 0-1. Primary sites of ocular adnexal involvement included: extraconal orbit (9), intraconal orbit (2), lacrimal gland (4), and eyelid (2). Median greatest diameter of lesions was 3.0 cm [range: 0-4.8 cm]. Among 11 evaluable patients, the cell of origin by Hans algorithm was GCB in 64%, non-GCB in 36% (Table). Staging procedures included brain and/or orbit imaging in 100% (MRI in 88%, CT in 12%), PET-CT in 94%, bone marrow evaluation in 69% (negative in all cases), and CSF evaluation in 47% (negative in all cases). Sixteen patients were treated with R-CHOP and one with CHOP. Eleven patients received short-course chemotherapy (3 cycles in 7 patients, 4 cycles in 4), and 6 received full-course therapy (i.e., 6 cycles). Thirteen patients (76%) received radiation therapy (RT) to the ocular adnexa, including 9/11 patients treated with short-course treatment and 3/6 receiving 6 cycles. One patient with stage IIE disease received RT to the left neck after 3 cycles R-CHOP, but did not receive RT to ocular adnexum. Six patients received CNS prophylaxis, all with intrathecal methotrexate (Table). First-line systemic therapy resulted in complete response (CR) in all patients. At a median follow-up of 64 months [range: 11-147], the 2- and 5-year PFS are 93% (95% CI 79-100%), and 84% (95% CI 64-100%), respectively, and 2- and 5-year OS are 100% and 91.7% (95% CI 76-100%), respectively (Figure). One of 17 patients had systemic relapse 18 months after first-line therapy and underwent salvage therapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation, and remains in CR. There were no CNS relapses. Due to the paucity of events, we found no statistically significant associations between the number of chemotherapy cycles or the use of RT and PFS or OS. At the time of this analysis, four patients have died, none from lymphoma; one of the four died from acute myeloid leukemia 3 years after treatment. Discussion Our study demonstrates high response rates and highly favorable long-term outcomes in patients with limited stage OA-DLBCL treated with R-CHOP and RT. Our results are in line with those reported by Bobillo et al. in patients with stage 1 DLBCL involving other extranodal sites. With the limitation of a small sample size, short course R-CHOP was not associated with significantly worse response rates or increased risk of recurrence. Whether consolidation radiation therapy improves the results of chemotherapy alone remains to be determined in larger studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Batlevi: Dava Oncology: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Medscape: Honoraria; Viatris: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Regeneron: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Bayer: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TouchIME: Honoraria; Life Sciences: Consultancy; BMS: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Janssen: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Moderna: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Xynomic: Research Funding; GLG Pharma: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy. Caron: Astra-Zeneca: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; bristol myers: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; GlaxoSmithKlein: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Johnson and Johnson: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Novartis: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Teva: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Hamlin: Kite, Karyopharm, Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte, Janssen, Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease (formerly Portola Pharmaceuticals): Other: Study investigator, Research Funding. Horwitz: Tubulis: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma: Consultancy; Aileron: Research Funding; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Millennium /Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Joffe: AstraZeneca. Epizyme: Consultancy. Khan: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kumar: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: advisory board , Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Abbvie Pharmaceticals, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Matasar: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; ImmunoVaccine Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Moskowitz: Miragen: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janpix Ltd.: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics L.P./Purdue: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Noy: Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Rafael Parhma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy. Palomba: Wolters Kluwer: Patents & Royalties; BeiGene: Consultancy; Rheos: Honoraria; PCYC: Consultancy; Juno: Patents & Royalties; Kite: Consultancy; Pluto: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Notch: Honoraria, Other: Stock; Seres: Honoraria, Other: Stock, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Magenta: Honoraria; WindMIL: Honoraria; Lygenesis: Honoraria; Nektar: Honoraria; Ceramedix: Honoraria; Priothera: Honoraria. von Keudell: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding. Zelenetz: SecuraBio: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; NCCN: Other; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; MethylGene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; LFR: Other; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Dogan: Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Peer View: Honoraria; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria. Salles: Debiopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Velosbio: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Miltneiy: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria.

Background: In untreated Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), metabolic tumor volume (MTV) significantly declined following pembrolizumab monotherapy, regardless of baseline MTV, and may serve as a better measure of treatment response to PD-1 blockade than the Lugano Classification (Allen, et al. Blood 2021). Furthermore, standard PET evaluation can fail to differentiate between malignancy, pseudoprogression and physiological background in patients (pts) receiving PD-1 blockade. The predictive power and prognostic significance of MTV in patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) HL receiving PD-1 blockade is unknown. We sought to examine the role of MTV in HL pts treated with PD-1 blockade. Methods: We identified 30 pts who received pembrolizumab or nivolumab-based therapy off-study for RR HL between July 2015 and May 2021. In the PET/CT analysis, all lesions were visually identified, and all measurable lesions were selected for the analysis. Responses were assessed by Lugano Classification. Indeterminant response (IR) was defined as evidence of progression on PET without clinical deterioration as per the Lyric Criteria. MTV was obtained by summing the metabolic volumes of all measurable lesions, using the 41% SUVmax threshold to measure each lesion MTV using Beth Israel plugin. MTV was evaluated at baseline (MTV0) and at first reassessment (MTV1) after initiation of PD-1 blockade. Δ (delta) MTV was calculated as % change in MTV from MTV0 to MTV1. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was performed for ΔMTV and best overall response rate (BOR) to determine the optimal cut-off value. Overall survival (OS) was measured from PD-1 blockade initiation to death or last follow-up. We examined the association between MTV and clinical factors, PET-1 response, and overall survival using Cox proportional hazards model and Fisher exact test, respectively. Results: 25 patients had complete clinical data and PET/CT analysis (Table 1). The median age at first relapse was 39 years (range: 18-81); 64% were male. 6 pts previously received PD-1 blockade on clinical trials and discontinued treatment due to study completion or toxicity. The median time between PET0 and PET1 was 3.4 months (range 2.0-7.3). Median MTV0 and MTV1 values were 39.8 ml and 17.1 ml, respectively. With a median follow up from initiation of PD-1 blockade among survivors of 38.7 months, 5 pts (19%) died. The median OS of the entire cohort was not reached (95%CI: 76.4-NR) (Figure 1). The best response to PD-1 blockade included 15 (60%) with complete metabolic response (CMR), 5 (20%) with partial metabolic response (PMR), and 5 (20%) with progression of disease (POD). Median ΔMTV was -70% (range -100 to +909%). MTV0 was not predictive of OS, PET1 response, or BOR. However, ΔMTV predicted for PET1 response (p=0.004) and BOR (p=0.004). 18 (72%) pts had a reduction in ΔMTV (range: -100, -22), while 7 (28%) pts had an increase in ΔMTV (range: 33-909). The optimal ΔMTV threshold for prediction of BOR was 120% (Figure 1). ΔMTV Among pts with IR on PET-1, ΔMTV Conclusions: Quantitative change in MTV from baseline to first reassessment may aid in predicting treatment response and long-term outcomes in patients with RR HL receiving PD-1 blockade, particularly those initially characterized as achieving indeterminate response. Further prospective clinical trials are needed to validate the role of ΔMTV in predicting response and long-term outcomes for RR HL pts receiving PD-1 blockade. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Moskowitz: Merck & Co., Inc.: Research Funding. Matasar: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; ImmunoVaccine Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zelenetz: Amgen: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; MethylGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; NCCN: Other; LFR: Other; Gilead: Honoraria. Joffe: AstraZeneca. Epizyme: Consultancy. von Keudell: Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Batlevi: Medscape: Honoraria; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Current Employment; Moderna: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Regeneron: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TouchIME: Honoraria; BMS: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Bayer: Research Funding; Viatris: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Life Sciences: Consultancy; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; GLG Pharma: Consultancy; Xynomic: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding. Caron: Astra-Zeneca: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; bristol myers: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; GlaxoSmithKlein: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Johnson and Johnson: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Novartis: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Teva: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Noy: Rafael Parhma: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Salles: Velosbio: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Allogene: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Miltneiy: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Moskowitz: ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Janpix Ltd.: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics L.P./Purdue: Consultancy.

Introduction: The prognostic significance of immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) mutational status in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is well established. Previous studies have shown that CLL patients with mutated IGHV (M-IGHV) have a better prognosis, manifested in a longer time-to first treatment (TTFT) and overall survival (OS). Here we present an analysis on the impact of IGHV mutational status in an Israeli cohort of patients with CLL. Methods: A total of 254 patients with CLL (diagnosed from 1991 to 2020), followed at the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center were included. The IGHV mutational status has been determined by next-generation sequencing (NGS) or cDNA Sanger. The sequences with a germline homology 98% or higher were considered unmutated, and those with a homology less than 98% as mutated CLL. IGHV subsets were analyzed using the ARResT/AssignSubsets website. All data were statistically analyzed by IBM SPSS Statistics 27 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA), P-values were two-sided, and the significance level was determined at a Results: Out of 254 patients, 132 (52.0%) had an unmutated IGHV gene (UM-IGHV), and 122 (48.0%) were mutated (M-IGHV). At diagnosis, most patients (Table 1) were ≤65 years of age (n=157, 61.8%), males (n=160, 63.0%) and had an absolute lymphocytic count equal to or less than (≤)15.0 x10 9/L (n=115, 52.5%). Advanced Binet stage was more commonly associated with UM-IGHV (n=44, 57.9%) (P=0.033). Among 240 patients (94.1%), the most frequently used VH gene segments (Figure 1) included; VH1-69 (n=35, 14.6%), VH4-34 (n=24, 10.0%), VH1-2 (n=17, 7.1%), and VH3-23 (n=16, 6.7%). Six major B-cell receptors (BCR) subsets (Figure 2) were identified in 21/180 of patients (11.7%), which most commonly included: CLL#1 (n=6, 28.6%), CLL#4 (n=5, 23.8%), and CLL#2(n=3, 14.3%). Patients with M-IGHV had a longer time to first treatment (TTFT) (P In multivariate analyses of the entire cohort; for TTFT (Table 2A), males (P=0.002, HR=1.9, [1.3-2.9]), >65 years of age at diagnosis (P=0.008, HR=1.8, [1.2-2.7]), advanced Binet stage (P65 years of age at diagnosis (P=0.010, HR=2.6, [1.3-5.5]) and UM-IGHV mutational status (P=0.004, HR=2.9, [1.4-5.9]) were found to be significant factors for shorter OS. In multivariate analyses performed separately for each IGHV mutational status group; males (P=0.021, HR=2.1, [1.1-4.0]), age >65 years (P=0.002, HR=3.2, [1.5-6.4]) and advanced Binet stage (P65 years at diagnosis (P=0.039, HR=4.3, [1.1-17.0]) was the only independent predictor in M-IGHV patients, while no variable maintained its statistical significance in UM-IGHV cases. Conclusion: As previously studied, our cohort demonstrates that M-IGHV CLL patients have better TTFT and OS. However, the rate of BCR subsets in Israel appears to be lower than expected. A separated multivariate analysis for M-IGHV and UM-IGHV patients revealed different independent predictors for TTFT and OS to each of the IGHV mutational status groups. Further studies with larger cohorts are required to deeply study these differences and provide further clinical insight into the pathophysiology of CLL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Joffe: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy. Herishanu: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria.

Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.

Purpose/Objective(s) Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL), such as follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) are highly radiosensitive. Previously untreated patients with localized disease are potentially curable (PC) with RT. While standard of care remains 24Gy, de-escalation to very low dose radiotherapy (VLDRT) of 4Gy reduces toxicities and treatment duration. Use of VLDRT outside of palliation remains controversial, however, we hypothesize it may be sufficient for most lesions. Materials/Methods We present the largest single institution VLDRT experience of adults with FL/MZL treated between 2005-2018 with modern principles including PET staging and involved site radiotherapy (ISRT). Outcomes include best clinical/radiographic response using Lugano criteria between 1.5-6 months post-VLDRT, and cumulative incidence of local progression (LP), distant progression and overall progression, all using death as competing risk. Outcomes were stratified by VLDRT intent; lesions considered PC were localized sites without prior treatment. All other sites were considered non-curable. Competing risk regression was used to identify potential histologic/clinical predictors of LP. Results In total, 250 patients were treated to 299 lesions including 52 potentially curative (PC) sites (Table 1). Post-VLDRT, overall response rate was 90% for all treated sites with 68% achieving complete response (CR). With median follow-up of 2.4y, the 2y cumulative incidence of LP was 25% for the entire cohort. PC patients had considerably lower 2y-LP of 9% (95% CI 3-19%) compared to 29% (95% CI 23-34%) for the non-curable. Lesion size > 6cm was associated with lower odds of CR and greater risk of LP relative to lesions 0-2cm. There was no suggestion of inferior outcomes for PC patients relative to non-curable. The probability of receiving additional RT to the same site 2y post VLDRT is 15% (95% CI 11-19%), and subsequent response after additional RT was 68% CR (n = 30/45), 18% partial response (n = 8), and 14% non-response (n = 6). Conclusion We demonstrate that modern VLDRT approaches utilizing PET staging and ISRT result in excellent ORR with nearly 70% CR. Importantly, the cumulative incidence of LP at 2 years post VLDRT is low at 25%, highlighting the possibility of durable remissions. Given clinical versatility and apparent efficacy for PC patients, we support an adaptive ISRT stepwise strategy where patients will be treated initially with VLDRT, reserving full dose treatment for those with suboptimal response. A prospective, multicenter study by ILROG has been developed to compare PC patients randomized to standard 24 Gy versus this proposed response-adapted approach.

Decreased absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) following frontline therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia may be associated with disease control, even in patients without evidence of minimal residual disease. We studied the prognostic significance of ALCs during the first year following treatment with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR). We evaluated 99 patients who achieved a partial response without lymphocytosis ( 1.8 vs not reached for ALC ≤ 0.7 at 9 months, P

Introduction: The standard approach for relapsed or refractory (RR) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) following front-line treatment failure is second line therapy (SLT) aimed to achieve complete response (CR), followed by consolidation with high dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HDT/AHCT). No one standard SLT exists and options include regimens containing platinum, gemcitabine, and more recently brentuximab vedotin (BV). Complete response rates associated with these regimens range from 50-70%. Due to the increasing use of BV in the front-line setting, development of SLT regimens that are both highly effective and BV-sparing are needed. Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors are highly active in RR cHL and have the potential to enhance the efficacy of standard chemotherapy. Here we report the results of our phase II study evaluating a novel anti-PD-1-based regimen, pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and liposomal doxorubicin (pembrolizumab-GVD), as SLT for RR cHL. Methods: Transplant eligible patients (pts) with RR cHL following failure of 1-line of therapy were eligible. Treatment consisted of 2 to 4 cycles of pembrolizumab (200mg IV, day 1), gemcitabine (1000mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8), vinorelbine (20mg/m2 IV, days 1 and 8) and liposomal doxorubicin (15mg/m2, days 1 and 8), given on 21-day cycles. Pts who achieved CR by PET (Deauville ≤3) after 2 or 4 cycles proceeded to HDT/AHCT. HDT/AHCT was carried out according to institutional standards and BV maintenance was allowed following HDT/AHCT. The primary endpoint was CR rate after 2 or 4 cycles of pembrolizumab-GVD. Enrollment occurred according to a Simon 2-stage design with sample size based upon a projected CR rate of 70%. In stage 1, 23 pts enrolled and 12 or more CRs were required to proceed to stage II; in stage II, an additional 16 pts enrolled. Out of a total of 39 pts, 24 CRs were required to declare this regimen promising. Results: Among 39 patients enrolled, 37 are evaluable for toxicity (2 pts have not yet started treatment) and 34 are evaluable for response (4 pts too early, 1 pt found to have composite lymphoma after enrollment). Of 37 treated pts, median age is 36 (range 21-71), 43% are male, 23 (62%) had advanced stage disease, and 15 (41%) had primary refractory disease. With regard to RR cHL risk factors (B-symptoms, extranodal disease, and relapse/refractory disease within 1 year of initial treatment), 4(11%) had no risk factors (RFs), 21 (57%) had 1 RF, 9 (24%) had 2 RFs, and 3 (8%) had all 3 RFs. Treatment was well tolerated with most adverse events being grade 1 or 2 (see figure 1). Grade 3 AEs included rash (n=1), elevated AST/ALT (n=3), oral mucositis (n=2), and neutropenia (n=3). Figure 2 shows the outcome for all 37 treated pts. Among 34 evaluable pts, 31 (91%) achieved CR after 2 cycles and 3 achieved partial response. An additional 1 pt achieved CR after 4 cycles of pembrolizumab-GVD, therefore in total, 32 of 34 (94%) achieved CR following pembrolizumab-GVD. 4 pts with CR after 2 cycles received an additional 2 cycles of pembrolizumab-GVD in order to delay HDT/AHCT during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (n=3) or due to refusing HDT/ASCT (n=1). To date, 32 have undergone HDT/AHCT following 2 (n=27) or 4 (n=5) cycles of treatment. 1 pt is awaiting HDT/AHCT; 1 pt refused HDT/ASCT and received pembrolizumab maintenance instead. 2 pts received involved site radiation therapy to initial area of relapsed disease prior to planned HDT/AHCT and 10 pts received post-HDT/ASCT maintenance with BV. Median follow-up post-HDT/AHCT is 9 mos (range 0.03-20.9 mos) and all pts remain in remission to date. Conclusion: Second-line therapy with pembrolizumab-GVD is a highly effective and well-tolerated regimen that can efficiently bridge pts with RR cHL to HDT/AHCT. Updated results including all 39 enrolled pts will be presented at the meeting. Given the high CR rate observed with pembrolizumab-GVD, an expansion cohort evaluating 8 cycles of pembrolizumab maintenance (instead of HDT/AHCT) for patients who achieve CR after 4 cycles of pembrolizumab-GVD is planned. Disclosures Moskowitz: Merck: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Shah:Amgen Inc.: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Lahoud:MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board. Batlevi:Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Hamlin:J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Molecular Templates: Research Funding. Straus:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Horwitz:ASTEX: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Falchi:Genmab: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Joffe:Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy. Matasar:Teva: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Vardhana:Other: Other: SAV has received honoraria from Agios Pharmaceuticals and Rheos Pharmaceuticals, is an advisor for Immunai and has consulted for ADC Therapeutics. von Keudell:Genentech: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma

Background: With the incorporation of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging as part of the standard staging evaluation of follicular lymphoma (FL), it is generally recommended to obtain the diagnostic biopsy from a lesion with the highest standardized uptake value (SUV) to rule out de novo histologic transformation (HT). In some cases such an approach might be impractical, while in other cases a biopsy from a diseased area with a high SUV may still demonstrate an indolent histology. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with FL with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of HT. Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, provide a better outcome than R-Bendamustine (BR). Furthermore, it is unknown whether rituximab (R) maintenance is beneficial in this setting. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of R-CHOP vs BR in newly diagnosed FL pts with high SUVmax at baseline PET and to clarify the role of maintenance. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified 261 consecutive pts with newly diagnosed biopsy-proven FL1-3A and a SUVmax≥13 on baseline PET, who were treated with frontline R-CHOP (n=183) or BR (n=78) at 7 US cancer centers based on the physician's choice. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from starting treatment until progression, relapse or death. Cut-offs of SUVmax ≥13≤18 and SUVmax>18 were used for sub-analysis (Haematologica;2020;105:1907-1913). Results: Median age was 59 years. The baseline characteristics of the two groups differed significantly for a younger age (58 vs 62 years, p=0.009), a higher rate of B-symptoms (26% vs 10%, p=0.005) and baseline SUVmax>18 (49% vs 36%, p=0.04) in the R-CHOP group. A diagnostic biopsy was obtained from the site at the highest SUV in 129 (71%) and 43 (55%) pts, respectively (p=0.01). These suggest a potential selection of R-CHOP in pts with adverse features. At the end of therapy (EoT), R-CHOP treated pts achieved higher PET-CT complete response rates (CR 82% vs 69%, p=0.02). This superiority held in pts with diagnostic biopsy at the highest SUV site (CR 83% vs 67%, p=0.03), but not in the others (CR 80% vs 71%, p=0.37). Progression occurred at EoT in 11 and 14 pts receiving R-CHOP and BR (6% vs 18%, p=0.02), with a higher rate of HT in the BR group (13% vs 4%, p=0.006). After a median follow-up of 76 months (range, 4-208 months), there was no significant difference in PFS between R-CHOP and BR treated pts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, p=0.34). PFS was strongly associated with FLIPI 2 (HR 2.32, p=0.01) and 3-5 (HR 2.69, p=0.003) in the univariate as well as in the multivariate analysis (FLIPI 2 HR 2.19, p=0.02; FLIPI 3-5 HR 2.51, p=0.01). There was a trend toward overall survival (OS) benefit in the R-CHOP group (Fig.1A). In the univariate analysis for OS, BR regimen (HR 2.12, p=0.03), age >60 (HR 2.54, p=0.006), FLIPI 3-5 (HR 5.13, p=0.03) and biopsy at the highest SUV site (HR 0.44, p=0.01) were prognostic, however none of those remained significant in the multivariate analysis (BR regimen HR 1.84, p=0.09; age >60 HR 1.92, p=0.08; FLIPI 3-5 HR 3.11, p=0.14; biopsy at the highest SUV site HR 0.60, p=0.13; SUVmax>18 HR 1.87, p=0.055). Among pts with EoT response after R-CHOP or BR (n=170 and n=64, respectively), one third in each group (36% vs 41%, respectively) received R-maintenance for a median of 8 administrations (range, 2-12). A significant PFS advantage (landmark analysis) was observed with R-maintenance (Fig.1B; HR 0.53, p=0.02); however, this did not translate in survival benefit (HR 0.67, p=0.49). In a multivariable model, R-maintenance (HR 0.53, p=0.02), FLIPI 2 (HR 2.47, p=0.03) and 3-5 (HR 2.79, p=0.01) remained independent prognosticators of PFS, while no parameters significantly affected OS. The 2-year HT rate (10% vs 17%) and cumulative incidence did not statistically differ between R-CHOP and BR groups (Fig.1C, p=0.159). Early progression (POD24) occurred in 43 and 22 pts who received R-CHOP and BR, respectively (24% vs 28%) and resulted in a significantly higher risk of death (HR 4.12, p=0.006). Conclusion: In newly diagnosed FL pts with SUVmax≥13 at baseline PET, R-CHOP was more effective in achieving CR and reducing the risk of early HT compared with BR, and it was associated with a trend toward survival advantage. Rituximab maintenance significantly prolonged PFS. A prospective evaluation with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Joffe: Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ruella:Abclon, BMS, NanoString: Consultancy; Abclon: Consultancy, Research Funding; UPenn/Novartis: Patents & Royalties. Svoboda:Adaptive: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy. Witzig:Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding. Armand:Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria; Gamida Cell: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Younes:BioPath, Xynomic, Epizyme, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Janssen, Curis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Curis (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Novartis (Inst): Research Funding; Janssen, AbbVie, Merck, Curis, Epizyme, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda Millennium: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; MSKCC: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

Introduction Marginal Zone Lymphoma (MZL) includes three subtypes of indolent lymphoma: splenic MZL, extranodal MZL of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) and nodal MZL. The diagnosis of MZL is often made by exclusion of other lymphoma subtypes based on phenotype. One of the markers that are often involved in this discernment is CD5. The CD5 is not expressed in most of the cases of MZL, probably independently of the subtype, while it is usually expressed in different diseases such as Mantle Cell Lymphoma and Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma/Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. A subgroup of MZL, however, unequivocally expresses CD5, and very little is known about the characteristics and outcomes of these patients compared to their CD5 negative counterparts. Methods From our pathology database, we collected all the reports of indolent lymphoma containing the words "marginal zone" and/or "MALT" diagnosed or reviewed at MSKCC. We reviewed the text of the selected pathology reports to identify all cases that were unequivocally MZL and reported positivity or negativity of the CD5 marker in the lymphoma cells. From the electronic medical records, we collected all the relevant clinical information for all CD5+ MZL cases, and for a subset of CD5- MZL cases with a 1:2 match for age at diagnosis and sex. The survival and baseline characteristics analyses only included patients that were followed by our lymphoma group. We report differences between groups with the chi-squared test. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the cumulative incidence method, and time to treatment (TTT) was estimated using the subdistribution function to adjust for semi-competing risk of death on treatment initiation. A modified proportional hazards model was used to compare the subdistribution hazard between groups, and a standard Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the hazard of death between groups. Results From 03/1998 to 09/2019, 64 patients were diagnosed with CD5+ MZL and followed by the Lymphoma Service at MSKCC. The control group of CD5- MZL included 137 patients that matched the CD5+ positive patients for age at diagnosis and sex. 20.3% of the CD5+ vs 14.6% of the CD5- MZL were nodal (p=0.30); Extra-nodal (EN) localizations included: GI tract - other than stomach (5.9% CD5+, 9.4% CD5-), stomach (17.7% CD5+, 17.1% CD5-), skin (7.8% CD5+, 12.0% CD5-), lung (9.8% CD5+, 12.0% CD5-), eye (9.8% CD5+, 7.7% CD5-), spleen (25.5% CD5+, 18% CD5-), multiple sites (13.7% CD5+, 10.3% CD5-), other single EN sites (9.8% CD5+, 13.7% CD5-). IPI score was low in 52% CD5+ vs 61% CD5-; low intermediate in 28% CD5+ vs 19% CD5-; high intermediate in 21% CD5+ vs 13% CD5-; no CD5+ had high IPI, while 7% of CD5- did (chi-square p=0.04). Transformation to DLBCL was similar in the 2 groups with 7% events in CD5+ and 4% in CD5- (p=0.42). Bone marrow involvement seemed to be more prevalent in the CD5+ MZL (67.5% vs 47.2% of the CD5-; p=0.04). IGHV was mutated in 80% of the CD5+ and 64% of the CD5- (p=0.24). OS analysis was performed first considering death by any cause: median OS was not reached for CD5+ MZL (95% C.I. 8.8 years - NE) and it was 27 years for CD5- (95% C.I. 14.3 years - NE). No difference was observed between CD5+ vs CD5- (p=0.9, Figure 1A). We also calculated MZL related survival, including deaths related to transformation to high grade lymphoma. No difference was observed between CD5+ vs CD5-, (p=0.3, Figure 1B). Median time to 1st treatment (including topical treatment and radiation therapy) was 1.4 years (95% C.I. 0.4 - 2.3) for CD5+ and 0.4 years (95% C.I. 0.3 - 0.9). No difference was observed between CD5+ vs CD5- (p=0.2, Figure 1C). Median time to first systemic treatment was 4.3 years (95% C.I. 1.6 - 12.9) for CD5+ and 7 years (95% C.I. 3.1 - 15.4) for CD5- MZL. No difference was observed between CD5+ vs CD5- (p=0.6, Figure 1D). Conclusions In this retrospective case-control analysis assessing the differences between CD5+ and CD5- MZL in terms of clinical presentation, survival, transformation occurrence and time to first topical or systemic treatment, we demonstrate that the two subgroups might have some differences in terms of bone marrow involvement but probably no difference in terms of outcome. Our sample size is small, and larger studies on a population with more events might clarify, with multivariate analysis, if these differences are real. Figure Disclosures Joffe: Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Palomba:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Regeneron: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Noy:Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding. Matasar:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamlin:J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy. Kumar:Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy. Falchi:Genmab: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. von Keudell:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Straus:Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Horwitz:Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Corvus: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; ASTEX: Consultancy. Dogan:Takeda: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding. Zelenetz:BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sandoz: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding.

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is frequently curable after frontline therapy, however, relapses can occur after achievement of a PET-negative complete remission (CR). Early detection of relapse may be associated with improved outcomes with second-line curative intent therapy or novel therapies. Controversy exists regarding the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging which is associated with patient (pt) anxiety, radiation exposure, false-positive results, and cost. A retrospective study found that serial minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring during DLBCL surveillance could identify pts at risk of relapse before clinical evidence of disease (Roschewski, Lancet Oncol, 2015). In this multicenter prospective study, we assessed whether a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based MRD assay could be used for early detection of molecular relapse in DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were enrolled across five cancer centers. In pts who achieved a PET-negative CR, serial peripheral blood samples were obtained every 3 months (mos) and CT scans every 6 mos for 2 years (yrs) post-treatment. The clonoSEQ® next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci and translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH was used. MRD positive was defined as any detectable rearrangement and MRD negative as no evidence of rearrangement. We also reported MRD positivity above the limit of detection (LOD) (observations required to have 95% reproducibility). Interim futility analysis was performed after approximately 50% of anticipated relapses occurred to assess the preliminary sensitivity of the assay. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from treatment start date to relapse or death. Results: 501 pts were enrolled and 401 were evaluable (pre-treatment tumor pathology available, completed frontline treatment, and achieved PET-negative CR at end-of-treatment). Baseline characteristics were median age of 62 yrs (range 19-95), male sex 58%, advanced stage 61%, and poor-risk by R-IPI 40% (Table 1). Histologies included DLBCL, NOS (86%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (6%), HGBCL (5%), T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma (1%), and other (1%). Pts received regimens including RCHOP x 6 cycles (36%), REPOCH x 6 cycles (20%), clinical trial (15%), combined modality therapy (RCHOP+RT) (10%), and other RCHOP variations (19%). Among the 401 evaluable pts, 44 relapses have occurred as of June 1, 2020. In 47% of pts (18/38), clinical relapse was detected using surveillance imaging alone (typically CT CAP with IV contrast) in an otherwise asymptomatic pt with a normal physical exam and laboratory evaluation. Clinical relapse was detected by clinical symptoms alone in 11% (4/28), by the evaluation of an oncologist alone in 0%, and by imaging and clinical symptoms and/or evaluation by an oncologist in 42% (16/38) (missing data in 6 pts). With a median follow-up of 2.2 yrs, the 2-yr PFS was 88.1% (84.8, 91.4) (Figure 1). Advanced age, advanced stage, and poor-risk R-IPI were associated with inferior PFS. Of the 44 relapses, 43 pts were included in the interim analysis and tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 39 pts (91%). In 56% (22/39), the MRD assay was positive at or before clinical relapse. In 38% (15/39), the MRD assay was positive above the limit of detection at or prior to clinical relapse, with only 10 relapses detected more than 3 mos prior to relapse, reflecting the poor clinical sensitivity of the assay. The NGS-MRD assay was more sensitive in the acellular (plasma cell-free DNA) than in the cellular (circulating leukocytes) compartment. Results: Overall outcomes are excellent for DLBCL and HGBCL pts who achieve PET-negative complete remission. In interim analysis, surveillance MRD assessment using the clonoSEQ® assay fails to consistently identify pts at risk of recurrence before clinical evidence of relapse in DLBCL. In a prospective analysis, a substantial proportion (47%) of clinical relapses are detected by imaging in asymptomatic pts, supporting the value of CT surveillance imaging in DLBCL, particularly for pts with advanced stage or high-risk disease. Additional analyses are forthcoming for MRD assessment in all pts, including those in remission. Disclosures Kumar: Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board. Westin:Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Lossos:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; NCI: Research Funding; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other. Batlevi:Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Drullinsky:Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Gerecitano:Janssen: Current Employment. Hamlin:Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy. Horwitz:ASTEX: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jacob:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. von Keudell:Bayer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Lahoud:MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board. Matasar:Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Mullins:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment, Other: shareholder. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy. Straus:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Younes:Takeda: Consultancy; HCM: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Zelenetz:MEI Pharma: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: Interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) is essential for toll-like receptor (TLR) and interleukin-1 receptor (IL-1R) signaling in immune cells including B lymphocytes. It forms the Myddosome complex with the MYD88 adaptor protein, with IRAK4 being essential for downstream signaling, maximal activation of NFkB with inflammatory and immune response and tumor promotion [Treon 2012; Rhyasen 2015]. CA-4948 is a novel small molecule, oral inhibitor of IRAK4, first-in-class and only suppressor of the TLR pathway currently tested in hematological malignancies. When combined with the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib that blocks parallel BCR signaling and NF-kB activating pathway, it has shown synergy in in-vivo B-cell NHL models, providing strong rationale for clinical evaluation [Booher 2018]. Recent preclinical studies demonstrated the role of IRAK4 activation as a driver of secondary, adaptive tumor resistance and survival mechanisms of hematological and solid tumor malignancies [Melgar 2019] that could be blocked by CA-4948 to delay or reverse resistance. Study Design and Methods: This is a multicenter, open-label trial of oral CA-4948 combined with ibrutinib in adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies. (NCT03328078). It has 2 parts: a dose escalation (Part A2), and expansion basket of 4 cohorts (Part B). Part A2: Is a truncated 3+3 design: CA-4948 starting is 200 mg BID with subsequent escalation to 300 mg BID. Both dose are safe and active against NHL as seen in the nearly completed monotherapy Part A1 of this trial Patients will receive CA-4948 with ibrutinib at the labeled dose for the respective NHL subtype (560 mg or 420 mg) until toxicity or progression. Primary objectives are safety/tolerance (MTD, RP2D); 2nd objectives are pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy; exploratory objectives include biomarker correlations (e.g., MYD88-L265P mut, IRAK4 pathway, NFκB inhibition). Part B basket has four cohorts: 1 -MZL, 2 - ABC-DLBCL, 3 - PCNSL, and 4 - NHL with adaptive ibrutinib resistance. Cohorts 1-3 must be BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 includes ibrutinib treated NHLs after developing adaptive, secondary resistance. All will receive the combination of ibrutinib and CA-4948. Cohort 4 patients will be allowed a Samples sizes, statistical considerations: Approx. 18 patients in Part A2. In Part B, a Simon 2-Step design will be applied to each cohort. Early stopping rule for futility after approx. 20 patients in Stage 1: full accrual with Stage 2 will add about 25 patients. Successful signal efficacy identification in a cohort may support further expansion or a subsequent controlled trial. The safety population will include all patients in the study who received any test dose. The efficacy population will have a valid baseline and post-baseline disease assessment. Safety assessments include TEAEs, safety labs, vitals, physical exams, PK, and ECGs; efficacy assessments: tumor imaging, para-protein determination, and histo/cyto-morphologic examinations. Part A2 inclusion: Histopathologically confirmed B-cell NHL as per the WHO 2016 classification. Eligible NHL subtypes: FL, MZL, MCL, DLBCL (including extranodal lymphomas of leg, testicle, or other sites, excluding mediastinal lymphoma), CLL/SLL, primary or secondary CNS lymphoma, and WM/LPL. Patients with FL, MCL, MZL, WM/LPL, or CLL/SLL should meet clinical treatment criteria. Part B inclusion: Cohorts 1-3 include patients with MZL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL who are BTK-inhibitor naïve. Cohort 4 will include ibrutinib pre-treated MCL, MZL, CLL/SLL, WM/LPL, ABC-DLBCL, or PCNSL with adaptive resistance. Exclusions for both Parts A2 and B: Significant acute or chronic toxicity from prior anti-cancer therapy that has not resolved to Grade ≤ 1, as determined by NCI CTCAE v 4.03 within 7 days prior to start of study or serious co-morbidities. Disclosures Nowakowski: NanoString: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leslie:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: 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. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning:Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acrotech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aeratech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Landsburg:Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Fenske:Medical College of Wisconsin: Current Employment. Ramchandren:Merck, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Genentech: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Sandoz-Novartis, Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Skarbnik:Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; CLL Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding.

Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) is a rare subtype of lymphoma that, like other Hodgkin lymphomas, has historically been treated aggressively. However, in most cases, NLPHL has an indolent course, which raises the question of to what extent these patients require aggressive upfront treatment. We describe the management and outcomes of consecutive NLPHL patients diagnosed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), with a focus on evaluating active surveillance. All patients aged 16 years or older diagnosed and followed at MSK between 1974 and 2016 were included. Treatment outcomes were compared between management with active surveillance and other strategies. We identified 163 consecutive patients who were treated with radiotherapy alone (46%), active surveillance (23%), chemotherapy (16%), combined modality (12%), or rituximab monotherapy (4%). Median follow-up was 69 months. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS), second PFS (PFS2), and overall survival (OS) estimates were 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78-90), 97% (95% CI, 92-99), and 99% (95% CI, 95-100), respectively. Only 1 of 7 deaths was lymphoma related. Patients managed with active surveillance had slightly shorter PFS than those receiving any active treatment, with 5-year PFS of 77% (95% CI, 56-89) vs 87% (95% CI, 79-92; P = .017). This difference did not translate into better PFS2 or OS. Only 10 patients managed with active surveillance (27%) eventually required treatment, after a median of 61 months, and none died. NLPHL has an excellent prognosis. Within the limitations of a retrospective analysis, active surveillance is a viable initial management strategy for selected NLPHL patients.

Background: Previous studies reported that early progression of disease (POD) after initial therapy predicted poor overall survival (OS) in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). Here, we investigated whether pre-treatment imaging modality had an impact on prognostic significance of POD. Methods: In this retrospective study, we identified 1,088 patients with grade 1-3A FL of whom 238 patients with stage II-IV disease were initially treated with R-CHOP and 346 patients treated with R-chemotherapy. Patients (N=484) from the FOLL05 study served as an independent validation cohort. We risk-stratified patients based on pre-treatment radiographic imaging (PET, vs. CT) and early POD status using event defining and landmark analyses. A competing risk analysis evaluated the association between early POD and histologic transformation. Findings: In the discovery cohort, patients with POD within 24 months (PFS24) of initiating R-CHOP therapy had 5-year OS of 57·6% for CT-staged patients compared with 70·6% for PET-staged patients. In the validation cohort, the 5-year OS for patients with early POD was 53·9% and 100% in CT- and PET-staged patients, respectively. The risk of histologic transformation in patients whose disease progressed within one year of initiating therapy was higher in CT-staged patients compared with PET-staged patients (16·7% vs. 6·3%), which was associated with a 9.7 fold higher risk for death. Interpretation: In FL, pre-treatment PET-staging reduced the prognostic impact of early POD compared with CT-staging. Patients with early POD and no histologic transformation have an extended OS with standard therapy. Funding: NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748). Declaration of Interest: 1) Connie L. Batlevi: Research Support: Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics; Honorarium: Dava Oncology. 2) Fushen Sha: None 3) Anna Alperovich: None. 4) Andy Ni: None. 5) Katy Smith: None 6) Zhitao Ying: None. 7) John F. Gerecitano: Currently employed by Janssen. Honoraria: Bayer, Epizyme, Roche, Genentech, Abbvie. 8) Paul A. Hamlin: consultancy at Portola Pharmaceutics, Celgene, Karyopharm, Juno Therapeutics; research funding from Portola, Molecular Templates, Incyte, JJ research funding from ADCT therapeutics, Aileron,Celgene, Forty-Seven, Infinity/Verastem, Kyowa-Hakka-Kirin, Millenium/Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trillium. 10) Anita Kumar: Research Support: Abbvie, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics; Scientific Advisory Board: Celgene. 11) Matthew J. Matasar: Honoraria: Genentech, Roche, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, GlaxoSmithKline. Consulting: Genentech, Bayer, Merck, Juno, Roche, Teva, Rocket Medical, Seattle Genetics. Research: Genentech, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Rocket Medical, Seattle Genetics. Travel: Genentech, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Bayer. 12) Alison J. Moskowitz: consultancy at Kyowa Hakko Kirin Pharma, Miragen Therapeutics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, ADC therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Cell Medica, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Erytech Pharma; research funding from Incyte, Seattle Genetics, BMS, and Merck. 13) Craig H. Moskowitz: Consulting: Astra Zeneca, BMS, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Seatle Genetics, Takeda, Vaniam Group; Scientific Advisory Board: Astra-Zeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Vaniam Group; Research support: BMS, Merck, Seattle Genetics. 14) Ariela Noy: Research funding from Pharmacyclics, NIH, Raphael Pharma; consulting for: Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Medscape, Targeted Oncology. 15) Maria Lia M. Palomba: Honoraria from Merck, Celgene, Juno and Pharmacyclics. 16) Carol Portlock: None 17) David Straus: Advisory Board and research support: Seattle Genetics. 18) Andrew D. Zelenetz: consultancy at Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Novartis, Adaptive Biotechnology; research funding MEI Pharma, MorphoSys, Sandoz, Celgene, Roche, Gilead; Board of Directors (DMC Chair) Beigene. 19) Venkatraman E Seshan: None. 20) Stefano Luminari: Consulting/Advisory boards: Roche, Celgene, Sandoz, Gilead 21) Luigi Marcheselli: None. 22) Massimo Federico: Research support: Mundipharma s.r.l., Chephalon/Teva, Celgene, Millennium/Takeda, and Roche. Consulting/Advisory boards: Takeda, Roche, Celgene, Sandoz, and Spectrum. 23) Anas Younes: Research Support: Janssen, Curis, Merck, BMS, Syndax, and Roche; Honorarium: Janssen, AbbVie, Merck, Curis, Epizyme, Roche, Takeda; Consulting: Biopath, Xynomics, Epizyme, Roche. Ethical Approval: This is a retrospective study of adult patients (≥18 years old) diagnosed between the years of 1998 to 2009 with FL managed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). The institutional review board approved this study.

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a multi–subclonal malignancy with relatively high heterogeneity. Patients who initially presented with both monoclonal-protein (MP) and free light chain (FLC) secretion but then relapsed with a light chain escape pattern have been shown to reflect disease clonal evolution and to bare a worse prognosis. We hypothesized that a discordant MP/FLC pattern at diagnosis may reflect a similar clonal evolution that had occurred prior to diagnosis of active myeloma, conferring a worse outcome. We analyzed 255 consecutive newly diagnosed MM patients who received first line bortezomib-based therapy between 2007 and 2014, hypothesizing that their MP/FLC fingerprint at diagnosis reflects clonal heterogeneity and, therefore, affects outcome. An involved FLC level ≥ 700 mg/L and MP ≥ 2.5 g/L were used as cutoffs for low vs high FLC and MP levels, respectively. Patients were divided into 4 subgroups according to their involved FLC and MP blood levels at diagnosis: HiLC and HiMP for patients with either a predominant FLC or a predominant MP, respectively, and HiLC-MP and LoLC-MP when both FLC and MP were increased or decreased, respectively. There were 68 (27%) patients with HiLC, which presented more often with International Staging System-3 stage (P

e19201 Background: Automated extraction of key clinical features from imaging reports, such as the site, size and FDG avidity of lesions would allow for automatic determination of disease stage, response to treatment and relapse. Since the language used in clinical notes is domain and often task-specific, generic Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools are of limited utility. We describe a strategy for a rapid construction of task-specific NLP algorithms. As a test case, we aimed to identify bone involvement with lymphoma from PET/CT reports. Methods: We use an adaptive-learning approach to facilitate the generation of task-specific lexicons by a domain expert. In the case of identifying bone lymphoma, these include words describing the primary aspect (PA: e.g., “ uptake”, “SUV”); the secondary aspect, in this case, osseous sites (SA: e.g., “skeleton”, “T5”); modifiers such as context-specific affirmation/ negation/ uncertainty (e.g., “increased”/ “likely reactive”/ “possibly disease”) and generic negation (e.g., “no evidence of”). Presented with sentences containing seed PA terms, an expert is tasked with an exhaustive identification of terms for the other lexicons. In an iterative process, unseen sentences that do not include terms previously identified are presented for lexicon expansion. The process is repeated until no further expansion is possible. An explicit rule-based algorithm is built based on the lexicons to classify sentences as supporting, negating or inconclusive (i.e., requiring manual review) for the feature of interest. We used 500 reports to develop the algorithm, evaluated performance against 516 unseen reports that were independently classified by a blinded annotator, and measured the amount of effort (number of iterations) required to complete the PA and SA lexicon expansion. Results: Of 44 reports with bone involvement identified by the algorithm, 43 had an actual involvement and 1 was a negative case (PPV: 98%). Of 380 reports flagged as negative, 379 were truly negative and 1 was positive (NPV: 99.7%). Sensitivity was 64% (43/67); specificity 84% (379/449); 18% (93) reports were flagged for manual review. It took 13 and 5 iterations to build the PA and SA lexicons, each involving the review of up to 10 sentences. Conclusions: With minimal effort, we were able to construct a high-accuracy NLP system specific for identifying bone lymphoma. This approach can be extended to other contexts (e.g., lung involvement), domains (e.g., pathology reports), or to be utilized in machine learning.

e20017 Background: FDG avidity above liver on interim PET (PET2) during frontline ABVD is considered a marker of impending treatment failure and an indication to switch to an intensified regimen. However, in clinical practice the utility of PET2 for treatment decisions is less clear. We describe outcomes of patients with positive PET2 who continued treatment with ABVD in the clinical setting. Methods: A retrospective study of all patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with frontline ABVD at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2008-2017. Eligibility criteria were set to correspond with the RATHL inclusion criteria (stage IIB - IV, or IIA bulky or ≥ 3 involved sites). We identified all PET2 reports indicating suspected residual uptake. All positive PET2 images were then reviewed by a single study radiologist. To increase reproducibility and avoid selection of borderline cases, we defined as PET2 positive only those cases with a lesion-to-liver (mean) SUV ratio ≥ 1.3. We also used a recently published stringent criterion of lesion-to-liver (max) ratio ≥ 1.4 (mPET2+). Progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) were calculated from the date of initial treatment until progression or death of any cause. Consolidative radiation was not considered a PFS event, and all progressions were verified by biopsy. Results: We identified 227 patients fitting RATHL inclusion criteria treated with ABVD. Median age was 34, with 25% (58) ≥ 45 years, 12% (26) had an IPS ≥ 4; 28% (64) stage II (5% II-X) and 38% (87) with extranodal involvement. 57 (25%) patients had a PET2 report indicating suspected residual lymphoma (PET2+), however, only 32 (14%) met the more stringent mPET2+ criterion. Most patients with PET2+ continued ABVD (84%, 48), and 9 switched to escBEACOPP (this subset of patients had substantially worse disease and are not the focus of this analysis). 21 (9%) patients received consolidative radiation. With a median follow-up of 47 months (42-54m), PET2+ patients who continued ABVD had a 3yPFS of 70% (58-85%, n = 48); mPET+ had a 3yPFS of 71% (55-92%, n = 24). Overall survival was excellent regardless of PET2 status (5yOS 97%). Conclusions: The outcome of PET2+ patients in this analysis was better than previously reported and the continuation of ABVD was appropriate for most patients. Use of a confirmatory biopsy is important for identifying true progressions. Patients with PET2+ had an excellent OS. Evaluation of the superiority of alternative regimens in PET2+ patients requires an ABVD comparator arm.

8062 Background: Immunotherapy with anti CD20 is often associated with mild easily manageable infusion reactions. In rare cases, patients experience severe drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) serum sickness or anaphylaxis. These in turn may lead to discontinuation of the drug. In our experience, switching to a different anti-CD20 agent is a feasible alternative to discontinuation or desensitization protocols. Methods: From our pharmacology database we identified all the patients that received rituximab and/or obinutuzumab, and/or ofatumumab, and/or all the patients who received a flat dose of less than 50 mL of the same drugs and were followed at our institution. From the medical record, we identified all the cases where the anti-CD20 antibody was changed due to allergy, serum sickness or other types of DHR, and all those who received minimal doses of anti-CD20 in the context of a desensitization protocol. DHRs were evaluated either by an allergist, or by retrospective review following the World Allergy Organization guidelines. Our primary comparison, was to assess the proportion of pts able to completed planned infusion of abs using either approach (Fisher’s exact Test). Results: Among 343 patients receiving at least two different anti-CD20 antibodies or a flat dose of < 50 mL, we identified 44 patients experiencing severe DHRs needing intervention. At the time of the reaction, 16 (36%) received the anti-CD20 as single agent, 24 (54%) in combination with chemotherapy, 4 (9%) in combination with ibrutinib or lenalidomide. In 9 (20%) patients the reaction was defined as anaphylactoid (8 rituximab; 1 obinutuzumab) and in 8 (18%) patients, all receiving rituximab, as serum sickness. Episodes of DHR were addressed with either desensitization (n = 29) or change of anti-CD20 agent (n = 25), 9 patients received both of these approaches, one patient switched anti-CD20 antibodies twice. Overall, 21 desensitizations were successful (72.4%), 8 failed; 23 changes of anti-CD20 were successful (92%) and 2 failed (p = 0.09). Conclusions: In patients with DHR use of an alternative anti-CD20 antibody is safe and is an alternative or complementary approach to anti-CD20 desensitization.

TPS8072 Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) escapes host immune responses via inhibition of the B2M and CD58 pathways and upregulation of PD-1 ligands. However, treatment results with PD-1 blockade have been disappointing. One potential mechanism is the recruitment of intra-tumoral regulatory T-cells (Tregs) which suppress anti-tumor immunity and inhibit NK cell cytotoxicity. Targeting regulatory T cells with the CCR4 antibody mogamulizumab (KW-0761) represents a molecularly informed strategy to overcome this resistance. Mogamulizumab has been safely administered in combination with pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in patients with solid malignancies and may promote CD8 T-cell dependent effector and NK cell-dependent cytotoxicity in lymphomas. Methods: This is a multi-center NIH-ETCTN phase Ib/randomized phase II study. The phase I will evaluate the safety and tolerability of mogamulizumab in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with R/R DLBCL and determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). A traditional 3+3 design with a starting dose of pembrolizumab 200mg IV on day 1 of a 21-day cycle and mogamulizumab 1mg/kg IV on days 1, 8, 15 and then 1.5 mg/kg IV every 21 days. The phase II will evaluate the efficacy of the combination by PFS (primary endpoint) ORR and CR (secondary endpoints). This will be a randomized 1:1 study with allowed crossover, comparing the combination to single agent pembrolizumab Correlative studies will evaluate the association of tumor infiltrating CD8 and NK cells with response to treatment, somatic mutations in B2M and CD58 and with MHC-I expression on DLBCL cells. Functional characterization of circulating immune cells in the peripheral blood and measurement of pro and anti-inflammatory cytokines will be used to assess the levels, activation status and effector function of Tregs and circulating T cells. Inclusion criteria include measurable disease, ≥2 prior lines of therapy including or ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, ECOG ≤ 2 and normal organ function. Prior or planned allogeneic stem cell transplant, as well as prior treatment with an anti PD-1/PD-L1/CTLA4 antibody, preexisting autoimmune disease or CNS involvement by lymphoma are exclusion criteria. The study aims to enroll up to 12 patients on the phase I and up to 58 patients on the phase II and can be opened at any ETCTN participating site. To date it has been opened at two sites and is accruing the first patients for the phase I portion. Clinical trial information: NCT03309878 .

8006 Background: Venetoclax (Ven)-Obinutuzumab (O) is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) achieving frequent undetectable minimum residual disease (uMRD; Fischer NEJM 2019). Ven-Ibrutinib is synergistic with frequent uMRD but with grade >3 neutropenia in 33-48% patients (pts; Tam ASH 2019; Jain NEJM 2019). Zanubrutinib (B) is a highly specific BTK inhibitor that demonstrated 100% occupancy in lymphoid tissues, so may be preferred to combine with OVen. We hypothesize that treatment (tx) with BOVen using an MRD driven discontinuation strategy will achieve frequent uMRD and durable responses. Methods: In this multicenter, investigator initiated phase 2 trial (NCT03824483), eligible pts had previously untreated CLL requiring tx per iwCLL, ECOG PS 1, PLT >75 (ANC >0, PLT >20 if due to CLL). BOVen was administered in 28D cycles: B 160 mg PO BID starting D1; O 1000 mg IV D1 or split D1-2, 8, 15 of C1, D1 of C2-8; Ven ramp up initiated C3D1 (target 400 mg QD). Tx duration was determined by a prespecified uMRD endpoint (min 8 cycles). MRD was assessed in peripheral blood (PB; flow cytometry, sensitivity >10−4) starting C7D1 then every 2 cycles. Once PB uMRD was determined and confirmed in bone marrow (BM), tx continued 2 additional cycles. Adverse events (AE) were assessed per CTCAE v5. Median (med) time to uMRD (primary endpoint) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The study accrued 39 pts (3-10/19): med age 59 years (23-73), 3:1 male, CLL IPI >4 26/39 (67%), unmutated IGHV 28/39 (72%), 17p del/ TP53 mutated 4/39 (10%), all pts were evaluable for toxicity with 37 evaluable for efficacy. At a med follow up of 8 months (mo; 3-10), 25/37 (68%) pts achieved PB uMRD. Med time to PB uMRD is 6 mo (4-8+). Another 8/37 (22%) had PB MRD < 0.1%. Of 25 with PB uMRD, 19 had BM uMRD with 10/19 completing 2 additional cycles and discontinued; 3 had BM MRD (all

We sought to define the genomic landscape of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) by using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsy specimens. We used targeted sequencing of genes altered in hematologic malignancies, including DNA coding sequence for 405 genes, noncoding sequence for 31 genes, and RNA coding sequence for 265 genes (FoundationOne-Heme). Short variants, rearrangements, and copy number alterations were determined. We studied 198 samples (114 de novo, 58 previously treated, and 26 large-cell transformation from follicular lymphoma). Median number of GAs per case was 6, with 97% of patients harboring at least one alteration. Recurrent GAs were detected in genes with established roles in DLBCL pathogenesis (e.g. MYD88, CREBBP, CD79B, EZH2), as well as notable differences compared to prior studies such as inactivating mutations in TET2 (5%). Less common GAs identified potential targets for approved or investigational therapies, including BRAF, CD274 (PD-L1), IDH2, and JAK1/2. TP53 mutations were more frequently observed in relapsed/refractory DLBCL, and predicted for lack of response to first-line chemotherapy, identifying a subset of patients that could be prioritized for novel therapies. Overall, 90% (n = 169) of the patients harbored a GA which could be explored for therapeutic intervention, with 54% (n = 107) harboring more than one putative target., Key points This study demonstrates the applicability of CLIA-compliant targeted FFPE sequencing for large-scale clinical trials.TP53mut is the main predictor of refractoriness or early relapse.

The risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma increases with age, yet elderly patients are under-represented in clinical trials. Here, we evaluate a combination regimen including ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide with or without rituximab (ICE ± R) in 32 fit elderly patients (median age 75.6 years) with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. ICE ± R was generally administered in reduced doses and was well tolerated. The overall response rate (ORR) was 53.1% with a complete response (CR) rate of 40.6%. The median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9 and 17.0 months, respectively. Patients who responded to ICE ± R achieved median PFS of 47.2 months and OS of 78.9 months. Patients ineligible for autologous transplantation who responded to ICE ± R were treated with additional cycles, and achieved a median PFS of 18.9 months and OS of 21.7 months. Previous response to first-line therapy was the strongest predictor of response, PFS and OS to second-line treatment.