Search

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

Diffuse follicular lymphoma (FL) variant is a rare condition that shows distinctive clinical, morphological, immunophenotypic, and molecular features that distinguish it from classical FL. Diffuse FL variant is characterized by a predominantly diffuse growth pattern, absence of the t (14;18) IGH/BCL2 translocation, CD23 expression, and presence of 1p36 deletion. Gene mutations involving STAT6 have been reported, with nuclear expression of STAT6 and phosphorylated STAT6 detected by immunohistochemistry. Patients frequently present with inguinal node involvement and low clinical stage. We describe the case of an 80-year-old female diagnosed with diffuse FL variant, presented with a classic diagnostic pattern and an unusual aggressive clinical onset.

BACKGROUND The significance of discrepant findings between histology (BMB) and flow cytometry (FC) in bone marrow (BM) examination at diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosis is uncertain. METHODS We performed a 5-year retrospective single-center study of patients diagnosed by DLBCL not otherwise specified (n = 82), divided into three groups according to BM infiltration at diagnosis: BMB-/FC- (75.6%), BMB+/FC+ (13.4%), and BMB-/FC+ (11%). RESULTS Median infiltration by FC analysis of the BMB-/FC+ group was 0.8% and if we considered BM infiltration as positive in all cases, 4/9 would be upstaged. Median follow was 33 months. Event-free survival (EFS) after 18 months was 82, 23, and 27% for BMB-/FC-, BMB-/FC+, and BMB+/FC+, respectively (p

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

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

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

Introduction: The BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Ven) has been approved on monotherapy or combined with rituximab in relapsed/refractory CLL patients (pts) and combined with obinutuzumab in previously untreated CLL pts. However, evidence from clinical trials can be difficult to generalize to real-world patient populations. The VENARES study assesses the real-world use of Ven following approval to inform of subpopulations underrepresented in clinical trials. Methods: This is Spanish non-interventional retrospective, multicenter post-marketing observational study. The main objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of Ven in adult CLL pts by the overall response rate (ORR) at 9 months (mo) after the first Ven dose administration. Secondary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness for the Ven monotherapy and the Ven combined with rituximab subpopulations. Consecutive adult pts with diagnosis of CLL who have initiated Ven at least 9 mo before the inclusion in the study were included. Data of pts are retrospectively reviewed until the date of last follow-up or death. Results: 125 pts diagnosed with CLL and who met the eligibility criteria were analyzed. The median age was 72 years (67 - 77) with 76.8% being older than 65 years. Most patients were male (68.8%), had a concurrent disease (65.6%). ECOG PS was recorded in 76 pts: 40 pts (32%) had PS 0, 30 pts (24%) PS 1 and 6 pts (4.8%) PS 2. Pts had received a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range 1-13 lines). At baseline, among the 92 pts with known Binet stage, 31 (33.7%) had stage C and 38 (41.3%) had stage B; bulky nodes ≥ 5 cm were present in 20 of 87 pts; 49 pts (39.2%) had an absolute lymphocyte count ≥ 25 x 10 9/L and 33 of 54 pts (61%) baseline beta-2 microglobulin value above of 3500 ng/mL. In total, 29 of 90 patients (32%) assessed had Cr 17p deletion, 28 of 86 patients (32%) tested had TP53 mutations, and 46 of 56 patients (82%) who were tested had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable (IGHV) status. Ven was administered as monotherapy in 71 pts (57.6%), combined with rituximab in 36 pts (28.8%), combined with obinutuzumab in 5 pts (4%) and combined with other drugs in 13 pts (10.4%). 83 of 125 patients included were evaluable for the primary objective of the study: the ORR at 9 mo was 84.3% (70 patients): CR/CRi in 44 (53%) pts, PR/nPR in 26 pts (31.3%), SD in 9 pts (10.8%) and PD in 4 pts (4.8%). By treatment, in the evaluable patients, ORR at 9 months were 79.2% (38 of 48 patients) in the Ven monotherapy group, with 45% of CR/CRi, and 92.3% (24 of 26 patients) in the Ven combined with rituximab, with 61% CR/Cri. The median duration of PFS was not reached at the time of the analysis (1-June-2021). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the probability of PFS at 24 mo was 75.4% (95% CI, 58.2 - 86.3). Disease progression occurred in 21 pts. Assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) was available for 32 patients (25.6%) on the basis of peripheral-blood samples, bone marrow or both. Best undetectable MRD was reached in fourteen patients (43.8%). uMRD was more common in pts treated with Ven combined with R (83.3%, 5 of 6 pts) than in pts treated with Ven monotherapy (33.3%, 7 of 21 pts). Adverse events (AEs) were reported during Ven therapy in all 125 patients, 93 of these pts reported AEs related to Ven. Related to Ven, 67 patients (53.6%) experienced at least one AE: 52 pts (41.6%) had neutropenia being grade 3 and 4 in 22 (42.3%) and 9 (17.3%) pts, respectively. 9 pts (7.2%) had febrile neutropenia. Thrombocytopenia and anemia were less common occurring in 5.6% and 2.4%, respectively. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) occurred in 4 of 125 pts during ramp-up (3 laboratory and 1 clinical), 2 of them were related to Ven both lab TLS. None of the pts discontinued therapy due to TLS. Richter transformation was observed in 6 pts (4.8%). Other common AEs was diarrhea (10.4%), but most cases were mild. Conclusions: Our first real-world data show that Ven monotherapy or combined with rituximab is effective in highly pre-treated CLL patients, ORR at 9 mo was 84.3% in all population and PFS estimate at 24 mo was 75.4% with similar outcomes to those in the pivotal clinical trials. The safety profile of Ven was consistent with prior experience of Ven in monotherapy or combined with rituximab and no new safety signals were detected. Disclosures Baltasar: Janssen, Abbvie: Consultancy. Terol: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel; Hospital Clinico Valencia: Current Employment. Moreno: Janssen, Abbvie: Research Funding; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Osorio: Janssen, Abbvie, Roche: Consultancy. De la Cruz: Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EUSA Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JANSSEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirkin: 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. de la Serna: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Roche: Speakers Bureau; ABBVIE, ASTRAZENECA,ROCHE: Research Funding; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Jazzpharma, Novartis, Roche: Consultancy. Arguiñano: Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, BMS-Celgene, Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen, BMS-Celgene, Abbvie: Consultancy. Loscertales: Janssen, Abbvie, Roche, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Abbvie, Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Roche, Gilead: Consultancy. García: Janssen, Roche, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen, AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen, Roche, Gilead, AbbVie, Celgene: Other: medical meetings funding. Pérez Persona: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Pérez-Encinas: Janssen: Consultancy. Caballero: Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Janssen, Amgen: Consultancy. Ruiz-Zorrilla: Abbvie: Current Employment. Moreno: abbvie: Current Employment. Ferrà: Janssen, Roche, Gilead, Takeda, Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen, Roche, Gilead, AbbVie: Other: medical meetings funding.

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

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

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

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

COVID-19 is affecting many countries all around the world. Unfortunately, no treatment has already been approved for the management of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. It seems that SARS-CoV-2 can induce the activation of an exaggerated immune response against itself according to different mechanisms that are not really well known. Inflammatory interleukins, such as IL-6 among others, play a central role in this uncontrolled immune response. There is a strong rational under ibrutinib use in in the treatment of immune-based diseases, such a as GVHD or RA. Ibrutinib achieves a reduction in the production of TNFα, IL1, IL-6 and Monocyte chemo-attractant protein-1 (MCP-1) by neutrophils and macrophages, that are key players in keeping the inflammatory process. We present our clinical experience about ibrutinib use in ARDS secondary to SARS-CoV-2 in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

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

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) occurs in older individuals with a median age at diagnosis of 72 years. In recent years, there has been considerable progress in the frontline therapy of elderly/physically unfit patients with CLL. The German CLL11 trial showed that addition of obinutuzumab to chlorambucil (G-Clb) prolongs progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to chlorambucil alone or in combination with rituximab. More recently, obinutuzumab together with ibrutinib or venetoclax were shown to be superior to G-Clb with regard to PFS, but there was no advantage in terms of OS. In this retrospective, multinational and multicenter co-operative study the European Research Initiative on CLL (ERIC) and the Israeli CLL Study Group (ICLLSG) evaluated the efficacy of frontline treatment with G-Clb in patients with CLL, in a "real-world" setting. Our analysis excluded CLL patients with documented del(17p) or TP53 mutations since they are no longer treated with chemotherapy. Results: A total of 437 treatment-naïve patients with CLL from 51 medical centers located in 13 countries were included. The median age of this patient population was 75.9 years; 59.7% were men, median CIRS total score was 8 and estimated creatinine clearance 61.1 mL/min. Seventy four patients had Binet stage A (17.2%), 167 (38.8%) stage B and 190 (44.1%) stage C. Results of FISH and IGHV mutational status were available for 332 and 115 patients, respectively. High-risk cytogenetics, del(11q) was documented in 18.7% patients and IGHV-unmutated gene in 64.4%. The vast majority of patients were treated with G-Clb (N=408) and the rest with obinutuzumab monotherapy (G-monotherapy, N=29). The clinical overall response was 86.5%, including clinical complete and partial responses in 41.6% and 45.8% of cases, respectively. The median observation time was 14.1 months (m) and the median PFS of the entire cohort was 27.6m (95% CI, 24.2-31.0). The PFS for G-Clb was significantly better than G-monotherapy (P=0.001; HR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.22-0.67), being the 2-year PFS estimates 61.8% and 52.8%, respectively. The median PFS was significantly shorter for patients with del(11q) (19.2m) compared to those with normal FISH (not reached, P5cm, G-monotherapy, reduced cumulative dose of obinutuzumab and status less than CR, were independently associated with shorter PFS. Seventy patients (16%) received a second-line treatment. The median OS for the entire cohort has not been reached yet and 2-year OS estimate is 88%. In conclusion, in a "real-world" setting, frontline treatment with G-Clb achieves PFS comparable to that reported in clinical trials. Inferior outcomes were observed in patients with high-risk disease [del(11q) and/or IGHV-unmutated] and those treated with G-monotherapy. Thus, even today in the era of novel drugs, G-Clb can be considered a legitimate frontline treatment in unfit CLL patients with low-risk disease [non-del(11q) and IGHV-mutated]. Disclosures Herishanu: Roche: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Simkovic:Roche: Honoraria; University Hospital Hradec Kralove: Employment; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mauro:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coscia:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Scarfo:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Tedeschi:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen spa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SUNESIS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria. Gimeno Vázquez:JANSSEN: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Assouline:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Levato:Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Rigolin:Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Speakers Bureau. Loscertales:Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Ghia:Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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