Search

Supplementary Figure 1. Represents CD30 serum levels at various time during the therapy in 22 patients

Supplementary Tables. Includes 4 tables: a) Supplementary Table 1 describing clinical characteristics of all HL patients b) Supplementary Table 2 describing disease characteristics of HL responding patients c) Supplementary Table 3 describing adverse events observed during the month of therapy with perifosine alone d) Supplementary Table 4 describing association of serum soluble cytokine levels with therapy response

Legend of Supplementary Figure 1

Purpose: To evaluate safety and activity of perifosine and sorafenib combination therapy in patients with lymphoproliferative diseases.Experimental Design: Patients with relapsed and refractory lymphoproliferative diseases received perifosine (50 mg twice daily) for 1 month. Patients achieving less than partial response (PR) after perifosine alone were administered the combination therapy [perifosine plus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily)] until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity occurred. The pERK and pAKT in peripheral blood lymphocytes as well as serum cytokine levels were investigated as predictive biomarkers of response.Results: Forty patients enrolled in this study. After 1 month of perifosine alone, 36 who achieved less than PR went on to combination therapy, whereas four patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who achieved PR continued with perifosine alone for a median of 10 months (range, 4–21). The most common drug-related toxicities were grade 1–2 anemia (17%), thrombocytopenia (9%), diarrhea (25%), joint pain (22%), and hand–foot skin reaction (25%). Three patients experienced grade 3 pneumonitis. Eight patients (22%) achieved PR, 15 (42%) achieved stable disease, and 13 (36%) experienced PD. A 28% PR rate was recorded for 25 patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Among all patients, median overall survival and progression-free survival were 16 and 5 months, respectively. Early reductions in pERK and pAKT significantly correlated with the probability of clinical response.Conclusions: Perifosine and sorafenib combination therapy is feasible with manageable toxicity and demonstrates promising activity in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. The predictive value of pERK and pAKT should be confirmed in a larger patient cohort. Clin Cancer Res; 20(22); 5641–51. ©2014 AACR.

PURPOSE We compared 2 years of rituximab maintenance (RM) with a response-adapted postinduction approach in patients with follicular lymphoma who responded to induction immunochemotherapy. METHODS We randomly assigned treatment-naïve, advanced-stage, high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma patients to receive standard RM or a response-adapted postinduction approach on the basis of metabolic response and molecular assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD). The experimental arm used three types of postinduction therapies: for complete metabolic response (CMR) and MRD-negative patients, observation; for CMR and MRD-positive (end of induction or follow-up) patients, four doses of rituximab (one per week, maximum three courses) until MRD-negative; and for non-CMR patients, one dose of ibritumomab tiuxetan followed by standard RM. The study was designed as noninferiority trial with progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary end point. RESULTS Overall, 807 patients were randomly assigned. After a median follow-up of 53 months (range, 1-92 months), patients in the standard arm had a significantly better PFS than those in the experimental arm (3-year PFS 86% v 72%; P < .001). The better PFS of the standard versus experimental arm was confirmed in all the study subgroups except non-CMR patients (n = 65; P = .274). The 3-year overall survival was 98% (95% CI, 96 to 99) and 97% (95% CI, 95 to 99) in the reference and experimental arms, respectively ( P = .238). CONCLUSION A metabolic and molecular response-adapted therapy as assessed in the FOLL12 study was associated with significantly inferior PFS compared with 2-year RM. The better efficacy of standard RM was confirmed in the subgroup analysis and particularly for patients achieving both CMR and MRD-negative.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous disease, including one-third of cases overexpressing MYC and BCL2 proteins (double expressor lymphoma, DEL) and 5-10% of patients with chromosomal rearrangements of MYC, BCL2 and/or BCL-6 (double/triple-hit lymphomas, DH/TH). TP53 mutations are detected in 20- 25% of DEL. We report the efficacy of dose-adjusted EPOCH and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) in a series of 122 consecutive patients, including DEL (n=81, 66%), DEL-MYC (n=9, 7%), DEL-BCL2 (n=13, 11%), or high-grade lymphomas (DH/TH) (n=19, 16%). Central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis included intravenous methotrexate (n=66), intrathecal chemotherapy (IT) (n=40) or no prophylaxis (n=16). Sixty-seven patients (55%) had highintermediate or high International Prognostic Index (IPI) and 30 (25%) had high CNS-IPI. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire study population were 74% and 84%, respectively. There was a trend for inferior OS for DH/TH (2-year OS: 66%, P=0.058) as compared to all the others. The outcome was significantly better for the IPI 0-2 versus IPI 3-5 (OS: 98% vs. 72%, P=0.002). DA-EPOCH-R did not overcome the negative prognostic value of TP53 mutations: 2-year OS of 62% versus 88% (P=0.036) were observed for mutated as compared to wild-type cases, respectively. Systemic CNS prophylaxis conferred a better 2-year OS (94%) as compared to IT or no prophylaxis (76% and 65%, respectively; P=0.008). DA-EPOCH-R treatment resulted in a favorable outcome in patients with DEL and DEL with single rearrangement, whereas those with multiple genetic alterations such as DEL-DH/TH and TP53 mutated cases still have an inferior outcome.

Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be more susceptible to COVID-19 related poor outcomes, including thrombosis and death, due to the advanced age, the presence of comorbidities, and the disease and treatment-related immune deficiency. In this retrospective multicenter study, conducted by ERIC, the European Research Initiative on CLL, we assessed the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in patients with CLL affected by severe COVID-19.Methods: The study included patients from 79 centers across 22 countries. Data collection was conducted between April and May 2021.Results: A total of 793 patients from 79 centers were included in the study with 593 being hospitalized (74.8%). Among these, 518 were defined as having severe COVID: 162 were admitted to the ICU while 356 received oxygen supplementation outside the ICU. Most patients (90%) were receiving thromboprophylaxis. During COVID-19 treatment, 8.8% developed a thromboembolic event, while 4.8% experienced bleeding. Thrombosis developed in 20.5% of patients who were not receiving thromboprophylaxis, but only in 8.1% of patients who were on thromboprophylaxis. Bleeding episodes were more frequent in patients receiving intermediate/therapeutic versus prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) (11.1% vs. 4.2%, respectively) and in elderly. In multivariate analysis, peak D-dimer level was a poor prognostic factor for thrombosis occurrence (OR=1.020, 95%CI 1.006‒1.033), while thromboprophylaxis use was protective (OR=0.194, 95%CI 0.061‒0.614). Age and LMWH intermediate/therapeutic dose administration were prognostic factors in multivariate model for bleeding (OR=1.055, 95%CI 1.013-1.103 and OR=2.490, 95%CI 1.044-5.935, respectively). Conclusions: Patients with CLL affected by severe COVID-19 are at a high risk of thrombosis if thromboprophylaxis is not used, but also at increased risk of bleeding under the LMWH intermediate/therapeutic dose administration.

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

Objectives To compare cognition in a group of older long-term survivors from Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) and in a corresponding group of non-cancer controls of the same age. Functional status, polypharmacy and multimorbidity were also evaluated. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed in a population of 63 outpatient long-term survivors from NHL, aged 65 or more and 61 non-cancer controls. Socio-demographic, clinical and functional data were collected. Cognitive function was assessed through neuropsychological tests. Results NHL survivors showed a slightly worse functional status than controls, they were affected by more chronic conditions (3.4 vs 2.3; p = .003) and were taking a higher number of medications (3.4 vs 2.3; p = .03). The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) was not significantly different between the groups. NHL survivors performed worse than controls in executive functioning (Trail Making Test B-A 47.9 vs 32.1 p = .04, OR for Stroop test time over 75th percentile in survivors: 2.66; CI 95% 1.04–6.61; OR for Multiple Features Target Cancellation time over 75th percentile in survivors: 2.84; CI 95% 1.10–7.31). A small, statistically significant difference was also observed in verbal memory scores between the two groups. . Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that, compared with non-cancer controls, older survivors from NHL may have a lower cognitive performance, especially in the executive functioning and attention domains, regardless of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Further evidence from larger samples is needed to confirm such findings and better characterize cognitive decline in NHL survivors.

Undetectable measurable residual disease (uMRD) is achievable in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) with the BCL2-inhibitor venetoclax alone or combined with the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib. This phase 2, multicenter, MRD-driven study was designed to discontinue treatment upon reaching uMRD4 (

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be more susceptible to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to age, disease, and treatment-related immunosuppression. We aimed to assess risk factors of outcome and elucidate the impact of CLL-directed treatments on the course of COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective, international study, collectively including 941 patients with CLL and confirmed COVID-19. Data from the beginning of the pandemic until March 16, 2021, were collected from 91 centers. The risk factors of case fatality rate (CFR), disease severity, and overall survival (OS) were investigated. OS analysis was restricted to patients with severe COVID-19 (definition: hospitalization with need of oxygen or admission into an intensive care unit). CFR in patients with severe COVID-19 was 38.4%. OS was inferior for patients in all treatment categories compared to untreated (p

Summary Patients affected by lymphoid malignancies (LM) are frequently immune‐compromised, suffering increased mortality from COVID‐19. This prospective study evaluated serological and T‐cell responses after complete mRNA vaccination in 263 patients affected by chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, B‐ and T‐cell lymphomas and multiple myeloma. Results were compared with those of 167 healthy subjects matched for age and sex. Overall, patient seroconversion rate was 64·6%: serological response was lower in those receiving anti‐cancer treatments in the 12 months before vaccination: 55% vs 81·9% (P

Background. The PI3Kδ inhibitor idelalisib given in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (R/R CLL) has been associated with an objective response in 81% of cases with a median PFS of 20.3 months in a phase-3 clinical trial (Sharman et al, JCO 2019). Because the efficacy of new drugs reported in clinical trials may not translate into similar results in the day-to-day practice, we performed an observational retrospective-prospective study on the efficacy and safety of idelalisib and rituximab (IR) in R/R CLL patients treated outside of clinical trials in Italian centers belonging to the GIMEMA group. Methods. R/R CLL patients treated with IR outside of clinical trials between July 2014 and May 2017 were enrolled. Treatment was initiated at symptomatic progression; treatment response and disease progression were assessed according to the NCI criteria. The data were extracted from the medical files and entered into case record forms (CRF) by each treating physician. Computerized and manual consistency checks were performed by the GIMEMA data center on newly entered forms and queries were issued in case of inconsistencies. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), the percentage of patients on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, overall survival (OS) and response to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment. Results. 149 R/R CLL patients from 35 Italian centers were included in the study. The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. At a median follow-up of 39.4 months, the median PFS was 22.9 months (95% CI 20.5-28.8). In univariate analysis, a shorter PFS was associated with ≥3 lines of therapy (p=0.0175) (Fig. 1a). The ORR (CR + PR) was 72.5%. Age ≤70 yrs (p=0.037) and a PS grade 3 during RI treatment were neutropenia (35% of cases), gastrointestinal disorders (17%), infections (17%) and transaminitis (6%). Conclusions. The results hereby observed show that the efficacy of IR in a cohort in a real-life RR/CLL with a long follow-up is superimposable to those reported in the pivotal clinical trial, suggesting that the patient population who received IR in the day-to-day clinical practice mirrored that enrolled in the trial. Advanced clinical stage and 3 or more previous lines of therapy were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Interestingly, PFS and objective measures of efficacy such as the proportion of patients still on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, as well as OS, were not influenced by the TP53 status. Furthermore, the majority of patents responded to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment and relatively durable responses were observed in patients who discontinued IR due to toxicity. Disclosures Rigolin: Abbvie: Honoraria, 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; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Visentin:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Coscia:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Farina:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesys: 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. Murru:Janssen: 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; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Varettoni:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses. Sportoletti:Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Laurenti:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Marasca:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Marchetti:Takeda: Other: Sponsored meetings; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Sponsored meetings; Pfeizer: Other: Sponsored meetings. Mauro:Jannsen: 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; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octopharma: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Molica:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Pane:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis pharma SAS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gozzetti:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Galieni:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Krampera:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trentin:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Montillo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Foà:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction The association between hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and B-cell non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas (NHL) is well established. Antiviral therapy (AVT) is the first-line treatment for HCV-related indolent NHL whereas diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) requires immediate start of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), usually deferring AVT. However, an early HCV elimination may reduce the risk of CIT-induced liver toxicity and consequent CIT interruption or withdrawal. To date few data are available on safety and efficacy of concomitant administration of direct-acting antivirals (DAA) and CIT in HCV-associated DLBCL. Methods 7 consecutive patients (5 males, median age 65 years) with HCV infection (four genotype 2a/2c, two genotype 1b, one genotype 4; one patient with compensated cirrhosis) and DLBCL received different DAA regimens concurrently with CIT. Results All patients completed the scheduled AVT and CIT with neither interruption nor withdrawal of the latter. One case of neutropenia was observed during concomitant therapy, no liver toxicity occurred. All patients achieved sustained virological response and complete DLBCL response (median follow-up of 12 months). Conclusions Concomitant administration of DAA and CIT for HCV-associated DLBCL is safe and may prevent CIT-induced liver toxicity. Large, prospective studies are needed to confirm these preliminary data and to assess prognostic implications.

HLA molecules are important for immunoreactivity in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The Gruppo Italiano Trapianto di Cellule Staminali e Terapie Cellulari, Italian Bone Marrow Donor Registry, and Associazione Italiana di Immunogenetica e Biologia dei Trapianti promoted a retrospective observational study to evaluate HLA matching and the impact of allelic HLA mismatching and non-HLA factors on unrelated Italian HSCT outcomes. From 2012 to 2015, 1788 patients were enrolled in the study. The average donor age was 29 years and the average recipient age was 49 years. As a conditioning regimen, 71% of the patients received myeloablative conditioning. For GVHD prophylaxis, 76% received either antithymocyte or anti-T lymphocyte globulin, cyclosporine A, and methotrexate. Peripheral blood was the stem cell source in 80%. The median duration of follow-up was 53 months. Regarding HLA matching, 50% of donor-recipient pairs were 10/10 matched, 38% had 1 mismatch, and 12% had 2 or more mismatches. A total of 302 pairs shared Italian origin. Four-year overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, GVHD-free relapse-free survival, and relapse rates were 49%, 40%, 22%, and 34%, respectively. The 4-year NRM was 27%, and the 100-day cumulative incidence of grade ≥II acute GVHD (aGVHD) was 26%. In multivariate analysis, 9/10 and ≤8/10 HLA allele-matched pairs were associated with worse OS (P = .04 and. 007, respectively), NRM (P = .007 and P < .0001, respectively), and grade III-IV aGVHD (P = .0001 and. 01, respectively). Moreover, the incidences of grade II-IV aGVHD (P = .001) and chronic GVHD (P = .002) were significantly lower in Italian pairs. In conclusion, 10/10 HLA matching is a favorable prognostic factor for unrelated HSCT outcome in the Italian population. Moreover, the presence of 2 HLA-mismatched loci was associated with a higher NRM (P < .0001) and grade II-IV aGVHD (P = .006) and a poorer OS (P = .001) compared with 1 HLA-mismatched locus in early or intermediate disease phases. Finally, we found that Italian donor and recipient origin is a favorable prognostic factor for GVHD occurrence.

Allogeneic stem cell transplantation from haploidentical donors using unmanipulated bone marrow and posttransplantation cyclophosphamide has been largely employed to cure high-risk lymphomas. However, the increased incidence of relapse associated with the use of a nonmyeloablative conditioning regimen is still considered a concerning issue. The aim of our study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen, including thiotepa, cyclophosphamide, and fludarabine, in high-risk lymphoma patients. This was a prospective multicenter study. We enrolled 49 patients, of whom 47 were evaluable. Graft source (bone marrow) and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis were the same for all patients. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients free of disease progression at 1 year. The primary endpoint was met, as 29 out of 47 patients were alive and free of disease at 1 year (1-year progression-free survival, 60%). Forty-five recipients engrafted and achieved full donor chimerism at day 100. The cumulative incidences (CIs) of ANC engraftment at 30 days and platelet engraftment at 60 days were 89% and 83%, respectively. Two patients experienced graft failure. The CIs of day 100 grades 2 to 4 acute GVHD and 2-year moderate-to-severe chronic GVHD were 26% and 16%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 47.5 months (range, 22 to 74), the 4-year progression-free survival and overall survival were 54% and 64%, respectively. The 4-year CI of relapse was 28%, and the 4-year nonrelapse mortality was 15%. Thiotepa-based reduced-intensity conditioning was well tolerated with encouraging survival in a cohort of patients with poor-prognosis lymphoma. Both the incidence of relapse and nonrelapse mortality were acceptable.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a disease of the elderly, characterized by immunodeficiency. Hence, patients with CLL might be considered more susceptible to severe complications from COVID-19. We undertook this retrospective international multicenter study to characterize the course of COVID-19 in patients with CLL and identify potential predictors of outcome. Of 190 patients with CLL and confirmed COVID-19 diagnosed between 28/03/2020 and 22/05/2020, 151 (79%) presented with severe COVID-19 (need of oxygen and/or intensive care admission). Severe COVID-19 was associated with more advanced age (≥65 years) (odds ratio 3.72 [95% CI 1.79–7.71]). Only 60 patients (39.7%) with severe COVID-19 were receiving or had recent (≤12 months) treatment for CLL at the time of COVID-19 versus 30/39 (76.9%) patients with mild disease. Hospitalization rate for severe COVID-19 was lower (p < 0.05) for patients on ibrutinib versus those on other regimens or off treatment. Of 151 patients with severe disease, 55 (36.4%) succumbed versus only 1/38 (2.6%) with mild disease; age and comorbidities did not impact on mortality. In CLL, (1) COVID-19 severity increases with age; (2) antileukemic treatment (particularly BTK inhibitors) appears to exert a protective effect; (3) age and comorbidities did not impact on mortality, alluding to a relevant role of CLL and immunodeficiency.

Refractory/early relapsed and 17p deletion/p53 mutation (del(17p)/TP53mut)-positive chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has been conventionally considered a high-risk disease, potentially eligible for treatment with allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT). In this multicenter retrospective analysis of 157 patients, we compared the outcomes of patients with high-risk CLL treated with alloSCT, a B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor (BCRi), and both. Seventy-one patients were treated with BCRis, 67 patients underwent reduced-intensity conditioning alloSCT, and 19 received alloSCT with a BCRi before and/or after transplantation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses were performed to compare the alloSCT and no-alloSCT groups; in the 2 groups, 5-year OS, PFS, and cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) and relapse were 40% versus 60% (P = .096), 34% versus 17% (P = .638), 28% versus 5% (P = .016), and 38% versus 83% (P = .005), respectively. Patients treated with alloSCT plus BCRi had a 3-year OS of 83%. The 3-year OS and NRM by year of alloSCT, including patients treated with BCRi, were 53% and 17% in 2000 to 2007, 55% and 30% in 2008 to 2012, and 72% and 18% in 2013 to 2018. In conclusion, the combination of pathway inhibitors and alloSCT is feasible and may further improve the outcome of high-risk CLL patients.

Introduction. The administration of immuno-chemotherapy (ICT) followed by rituximab maintenance (RM) is the recommended approach for the front-line therapy of high tumor burden follicular lymphoma (HTB-FL) patients. Among available ICT regimens, RB (Rituximab-bendamustine) and R-CHOP regimen, are preferred options with high, similar efficacy. Regarding RM, its use is strongly supported after R-CHOP by the results of the PRIMA randomized trial; conversely, no prospective data are available to confirm the efficacy of RM in patients initially treated with RB. The FOLL12 trial was conducted to try to demonstrate that a response adapted post induction management of patients with HTB-FL could be as effective as standard RM in terms of Progression Free Survival (PFS). The trial actually showed the better efficacy of standard RM compared to the experimental approach thus providing indirect confirmation of the efficacy of RM after ICT, 10 years after the PRIMA trial. We here analyse the impact of initial ICT in the FOLL12 study that left treatment choice between RB and R-CHOP at physician discretion and on an individual patient basis. Methods. FOLL12 is a multicenter, randomized, phase III trial that compared standard RM vs. a response adapted post induction management in treatment naïve adult patients with grade 1-3a, stage II-IV and a HTB-FL. All patients received induction immunochemotherapy with 6 cycles of either R-CHOP or R-Bendamustine both followed by two additional doses of rituximab. Choice of ICT was at the physicians' discretion. After ICT, patients in the standard arm received bimonthly rituximab for up to two years. Patients in the experimental arm were managed according to centrally reviewed metabolic and molecular response. Patients achieving complete metabolic (CMR) and molecular response were managed with observation only, those in CMR with molecular persistence received 4 weekly rituximab doses. Patients not achieving CMR were treated with radioimmunotherapy with ibritumomab tiuxetan followed by standard RM. Primary study endpoint was 3 years progression free survival (PFS). Results. A total of 786 eligible patients were enrolled and 1:1 randomized either to standard or experimental arm. By backbone therapy, 341 patients received RB and 445 received RCHOP induction immunochemotherapy. RB was more frequently prescribed in older and female patients (OR 1.6, p=0.001) whereas RCHOP was preferred in patients with bulky disease (>6cm) and grade 3a histology (OR 0.65, p=0.013). The median follow-up of the analysis was 56 months (range 1-71). In the non-randomized comparison between RB and RCHOP, no difference in terms of PFS was observed between the two regimens (HR for RB 1.07, 95%CI 0.83-1.38, p=0.597, Figure 1). Standard maintenance arm was more effective than experimental arm both in patients initially treated with RCHOP and in those treated with RB (HR RCHOP 1.61, 95% CI 1.16-2.25; HR RB 1.89, 95% CI 1.27-2.82). An unequal interaction between RB and RCHOP and post-induction therapy was observed for sex and for bone marrow involvement. Considering grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs), neutropenia was less frequently observed in RB (35.7%) compared to RCHOP (46.2%). Among extra-hematological AEs, higher frequency of grade 3-4 infections and of cutaneous toxicity were observed in RB treated patients (3.8% vs. 1.2% and 2.4% vs. 0.2%). Overall, 54 second malignancies (SM) have been observed including 23 hematologic malignancies and 31 solid cancers. Cumulative incidence of secondary cancer (excluding non melanoma skin cancers) at 3 and 5 years was 3.7% (95%CI 2.4-5.3%) and 8.1% (95%CI 5.8-10.9%). Conclusion. The current update of the FOLL12 trial demonstrated superiority of standard RM compared to the response adapted post induction management irrespective of prescribed regimen thus proving a first prospective non-randomized evidence of RM efficacy in patients with high tumor burden follicular lymphoma patients treated with RB. Both R-CHOP and RB were associated with a similar efficacy profile. Figure 1. Progression free survival for the standard maintenance arm (A) versus response oriented experimental arm (B) of the FOLL12 trial in patients treated with R-CHOP or R-Bendamustine (RB). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Luminari: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Janssen: Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Consultancy; GENELAB SRL: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tucci: janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gentili: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ferrero: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Clinigen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Speakers Bureau. Arcaini: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bayer, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Roche, Sandoz, Janssen-Cilag, VERASTEM: Consultancy; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Celgene, Roche, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead: Other: Travel expenses. Pulsoni: Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda, Pfizer, Sandoz, Merk: Consultancy; Gilead, Bristol: Speakers Bureau. Musuraca: Janssen, Roche, Incyte: Honoraria; Janssen, Roche, Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen, Incyte, Roche: Consultancy.

Many efforts have been made to predict prognosis of newly diagnosed Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) patients. Objective of this study was to investigate the association between early reduction of Thymus and Activation-Regulated Chemokine after the first ABVD cycle (TARC-1) and prognosis of HL patients.Serum samples of 116 HL patients were collected at baseline, after every ABVD cycle and during follow-up. The 99th centile of TARC distribution in a group of 156 independent healthy subjects (800pg/ml) was considered as cut-off for discriminating between abnormal and normal TARC values.101 patients out of 116 had baseline TARC above 800pg/ml (median value 27515pg/ml (IQR, 11001-68139)) and were the object of this analysis. TARC-1 significantly decreased to a median value of 556pg/ml (IQR, 378-977pg/ml). TARC-1 values below 800pg/ml were associated with success of therapy (p=0.0003) and PET-2 negativity (p=0.001). TARC-1≤800pg/ml identified a population with a significantly higher 5-years PFS in the whole cohort (90.1% vs 55.6%; p0.0001) and in both subgroups of advanced (p=0.003) and early stage patients (p=0.021). At multivariable analysis, TARC-1 was significant independent predictor of PFS (p=0.0035).Early reduction of TARC serum levels can predict success of treatment, being associated with achievement of interim PET-2 negative and favorable long-term outcome in HL patients receiving ABVD as front-line therapy.

The treatment of patients with refractory/relapsed B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is evolving because of the availability of novel drugs. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) can be curative, but its morbidity and mortality remain a matter of concern. We conducted a multicenter prospective phase II trial to evaluate the benefit of including only 1 dose of rituximab in the conditioning regimen before alloSCT. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The study enrolled 121 patients with relapsed/refractory B cell lymphomas. The conditioning regimen consisted of thiotepa, cyclophosphamide, fludarabine, and rituximab (500 mg/m2). Rabbit antithymocyte globulin was administered only in case of unrelated donors. Sixty-seven (55%) and 54 (45%) patients received grafts from related and unrelated donors, respectively. The crude cumulative incidence (CCI) of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 21% at 3 years. The CCIs of chronic graft-verus-host disease (GVHD) at 3 years were 54% and 31% in recipients of matched sibling and unrelated grafts, respectively. At a median follow-up of 41 months, the estimated 3-year progression-free and overall survival were 50% and 61%, respectively. Long-term outcome was also evaluated with the composite endpoint of GVHD-free and relapse-free survival (GRFS). This is the first work evaluating the GRFS in a prospective trial of lymphoma patients: the 1-year and 3-year GRFS were 40% and 34%, respectively. AlloSCT can cure a fraction of patients with rather low NRM and an encouraging PFS and GRFS.

The treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has been radically changed in the last years thanks to the targeted therapies, including kinase (i.e. ibrutinib) and BCL2 (i.e. venetoclax) inhibitors. Venetoclax (VEN) in particular is able to obtain undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), though only in a proportion of patients (pts) when given as single agent, thus warranting the need of different strategies in those not achieving uMRD. We designed a phase 2 multicenter Italian study where ibrutinib (IBR) is added to VEN based on a MRD-driven strategy aiming at obtaining uMRD and discontinuing both treatments in pts who did not achieve uMRD with VEN mono. Study treatment started with VEN (ramp up to 400 mg/day as per current label) for 12 months. MRD status in peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) was evaluated using the 6-color flow cytometry assay recommended by ERIC (CD5/CD81/CD79b/CD19/CD43/CD20). Pts with uMRD in both PB and BM at C12D1 discontinued VEN at C12D28 and entered the follow-up phase. Pts with detectable MRD in PB and/or BM added IBR 420 mg/day starting from C13D1 and continued both drugs up to maximum C24D28, uMRD, progression or unacceptable toxicity (whichever occurs first). After C24D28, pts with detectable MRD and still in response continued IBR alone. The primary endpoint was uMRD4 ( Thirty-eight pts (recruited from Nov 2017 to Jul 2018) fulfilled eligibility and started VEN. Baseline characteristics included: median number of prior therapies 1 (range 1-4) (60.6% previously treated with FCR or FC); del(17p) in 8/33 (24%); TP53 mutations in 10/30 (33%), and unmutated IGHV in 24/30 (80%). At the data cut-off, 35/38 evaluable pts still in the study have reached C24D1, 1 pt discontinued treatment due to myelodisplasia (considered unrelated to study treatment) before C12D1 and 1 pt progressed on VEN monotherapy shortly before that timepoint, 1 evaluation is still missing due to COVID-19 restrictions. At C12D1, uMRD4 in PB was achieved in 19/38 (50%) pts (Figure 1), 17/19 (89.5%) had uMRD4 confirmed in BM. Overall response rate with VEN single-agent was 36/38 (94.7%), 9 CR and 27 PR. As per protocol, the 17 pts (45%) with uMRD4 in PB and BM at C12D1 discontinued VEN at C12D28. Nineteen responsive cases with detectable MRD at C12D1 added IBR to VEN starting from C13D1. The combination of IBR and VEN led to an improved reduction of the depth of MRD in all but 3 pts with 16/19 (84%) achieving uMRD4 in both PB and BM between C16D1 (first MRD assessment after starting IBR) and C24D1, thus stopping both therapies as per protocol. After a median follow-up of 25.4 months (range 6.1-33.5) from treatment initiation, no clinical progression was observed among those discontinuing treatment in uMRD, while MRD4 relapse occurred in 21/33. Median time to MRD4 relapse in those who achieved uMRD at any timepoint and discontinued treatment was 4 months (range 2-13). Twelve pts (6 treated with VEN only) remain uMRD after stopping treatment, with a median observation of 13 months (range 3+-18+) since confirmed uMRD4. Safety data were analyzed in the intention-to-treat cohort (39 pts). No cases of clinical tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) and/or biochemical TLS were reported in the 39 pts exposed to VEN. Adverse events (AEs) were mild, with no treatment discontinuations or dose reductions. Five Serious AEs (Table 1) and 130 AEs (Table 2) occurred in 28 patients, without any SUSARs. All 5 SAEs were deemed unrelated to study drug(s) and 4/5 have resolved without sequelae. In conclusion, we here present the updated results of our study including the combination phase of VEN with IBR. This sequential MRD-guided approach was feasible and led to deeper responses in about 85% of pts not achieving uMRD4 after VEN alone. With this tailored and time-limited strategy 33 out of 38 pts (87%) obtained uMRD4 in PB and BM either after VEN monotherapy or the IBR-VEN combination, indicating we may reach identical depth of response with a personalized intensification and avoid unnecessary drug exposure. Time to clinical progression and response to VEN retreatment in this cohort remain to be established as well as the biological characteristics of those pts with persistent MRD despite the combined treatment. Updated results with further sequential MRD and clinical monitoring after treatment discontinuation will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Scarfo: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Farina:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Reda:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coscia:Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Laurenti:Roche: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Varettoni:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses. Ghia:Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive, Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; MEI: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

This study aims to explore the relation between the dimension of fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) in haematological cancer patients relapse-free for at least 2 years and socio-demographic, related to the disease, psychological and existential factors. A sample of 75 haematological cancer patients agreed to participate in the study through a self-reported online questionnaire (51.9% males). A total of 70.1% had a low recurrence risk. The questionnaire included socio-demographic (gender, age, civil status, level of education and number of children), related to the disease (diagnosis, therapeutic line and years since diagnosis), psychological (anxiety and depression), existential (purpose in life; PIL) factors and Fear of Cancer Recurrence Concerns Inventory (FCRI). Simple and multiple linear regressions were conducted for the analyses, and we performed some preliminary analysis on the reliability of the FCRI. A total of 53.3% of participants showed clinical levels of FCR on the severity dimension, which was higher than found in previous research in other cancer patients. The coping strategies, triggers, severity and psychological distress dimensions showed higher mean values. Women, patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, years since diagnosis, anxiety and purpose in life are significantly related to one or more dimensions of FCRI. It is important that the clinicians have at their disposal multiple possibilities to help patients cope with haematological cancer. If future research will confirm the results of this study, the negative correlation between FCR and PIL can suggest indications for planning interventions based on a salutogenic approach.

International audience; Background: International guidelines suggest hepatitis C virus (HCV) eradication by direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) after first-line immunochemotherapy (I-CT) in patients with HCV-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), although limited experiences substantiate this recommendation. Moreover, only a few data concerning concurrent administration of DAAs with I-CT have been reported.Subjects, materials, and methods: We analyzed hematological and virological outcome and survival of 47 consecutive patients with HCV-positive DLBCL treated at 23 Italian and French centers with DAAs either concurrently (concurrent cohort [ConC]: n = 9) or subsequently (sequential cohort [SeqC]: n = 38) to first-line I-CT (mainly rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone [R-CHOP]-like).Results: Median age was 61 years, 89% of patients had stage III/IV, and 25% presented evidence of cirrhosis. Genotype was 1 in 56% and 2 in 34% of cases. Overall, 46 of 47 patients obtained complete response to I-CT. All patients received appropriate DAAs according to genotype, mainly sofosbuvir-based regimens (n = 45). Overall, 45 patients (96%) achieved sustained virological response, 8 of 9 in ConC and 37 of 38 in SeqC. DAAs were well tolerated, with only 11 patients experiencing grade 1-2 adverse events. Twenty-three patients experienced hepatic toxicity (grade 3-4 in seven) following I-CT in SeqC, compared to only one patient in ConC. At a median follow-up of 2.8 years, two patients died (2-year overall survival, 97.4%) and three progressed (2-year progression-free survival, 93.1%).Conclusion: Excellent outcome of this cohort of HCV-positive DLBCL suggests benefit of HCV eradication by DAAs either after or during I-CT. Moreover, concurrent DAAs and R-CHOP administration appeared feasible, effective, and ideally preferable to deferred administration of DAAs for the prevention of hepatic toxicity.Implications for practice: Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-associated diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) represent a great therapeutic challenge, especially in terms of hepatic toxicity during immune-chemotherapy (I-CT) and long-term hepatic complications. The advent of highly effective and toxicity-free direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) created an exciting opportunity to easily eradicate HCV shortly after or in concomitance with first-line immunochemotherapy (usually R-CHOP). This retrospective international study reports the real-life use of the combination of these two therapeutic modalities either in the concurrent or sequential approach (DAAs after I-CT) in 47 patients. The favorable reported results on long-term outcome seem to support the eradication of HCV with DAAs in all patients with HCV-positive DLBCL. Moreover, the results from the concurrent approach were effective and safe and displayed an advantage in preventing hepatic toxicity during I-CT.

Lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL) is usually associated with a serum IgM paraprotein, corresponding to Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia (WM). Cases presenting with IgG or IgA, or without a monoclonal protein are extremely rare. We analyzed clinical characteristics, frontline treatment, and the outcome of 45 patients with non-IgM LPL, and compared them with a control group of WM patients. The median age was similar, with significantly higher prevalence of females in non-IgM LPL, than in WM patients (60% vs 39%, P = .016). Patients with non-IgM LPL more frequently presented with lymphadenopathies (53% vs 15%, P

Peach and apricot can cause allergic reactions with symptoms ranging from mild to very severe, including anaphylaxis. Sometimes subjects allergic to fruits of the Prunus genus have been reported to be also allergic to rubber latex products. The objective of this study is the characterization of a newly identified peach and apricot protein showing similarities with the allergens Hey b 5 from rubber latex and Man e 5 from manioc. This protein has been named ENEA on the basis of the single letter amino acid code of the first four N-terminal residues of the isolated molecule. It has been found in very variable amounts in different peach cultivars and batches. ENEA was isolated from peach pulp extracts by chromatographic separations and identified by direct protein sequencing. At that time, the full length sequence was available only for the homologous protein of the taxonomically closely related apricot, which was produced as a recombinant molecule in Escherichia coli. The following availability of the full length sequence of peach ENEA revealed a very high identity (97%) with the apricot homolog. Similarly to Hey b 5 and to Man e 5, the structural characterization indicated that ENEA is an intrinsically disordered protein. The immunological properties, investigated by dot blotting, the ABA system and the FABER test, showed that ENEA is recognized by specific IgE of allergic patients. In a selected population of 31 patients reporting allergic reactions to peach fruit and/or IgE positive to Hey b 5, 28 and 27 subjects resulted co-sensitized to rENEA and Hey b 5 in the ABA and ISAC test, respectively. In a random population of 3305 suspected allergic patients, analyzed with the FABER test, 17 of them were sensitized to rENEA and 10 of them were also positive to Hey b 5. In addition, both the natural molecule from peach and the recombinant protein of apricot partially inhibited the IgE binding to Hey b 5. In conclusion, a new peach and apricot IgE-binding protein, cross-reacting with the major latex allergen Hey b 5, has been identified. Its variable concentration in the fruit might explain some occasionally occurring allergic reactions. The apricot molecule has recently been registered by the WHO/ IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Sub-Committee with the allergen name Pru ar 5. The recombinant form of apricot ENEA, now available, will contribute to allergy diagnosis.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is related with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). In indolent subtypes, regression of NHL was reported after HCV eradication with antiviral therapy (AT). In 2008 in Lombardy, a region of Northern Italy, the "Rete Ematologica Lombarda" (REL, Hematology Network of Lombardy-Lymphoma Workgroup) started a prospective multicenter observational cohort study on NHL associated with HCV infection, named "Registro Lombardo dei Linfomi HCV-positivi" ("Lombardy Registry of HCV-associated non-Hodgkin lymphomas"). Two hundred fifty patients with a first diagnosis of NHL associated with HCV infection were enrolled; also in our cohort, diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) are the two most frequent HCV-associated lymphomas. Two thirds of patients had HCV-positivity detection before NHL; overall, NHL was diagnosed after a median time of 11 years since HCV survey. Our data on eradication of HCV infection were collected prior the recent introduction of the direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) therapy. Sixteen patients with indolent NHL treated with interferon-based AT as first line anti-lymphoma therapy, because of the absence of criteria for an immediate conventional treatment for lymphoma, had an overall response rate of 90%. After a median follow-up of 7 years, the overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in indolent NHL treated with AT as first line (P = 0.048); this confirms a favorable outcome in this subset. Liver toxicity was an important adverse event after a conventional treatment in 20% of all patients, in particular among DLBCL, in which it is more frequent the coexistence of a more advanced liver disease. Overall, HCV infection should be consider as an important co-pathology in the treatment of lymphomas and an interdisciplinary approach should be always considered, in particular to evaluate the presence of fibrosis or necroinflammatory liver disease.