Abstract: Background Stage I/II or early-stage follicular lymphoma (ESFL) is considered potentially curable with radiotherapy (XRT). While XRT does achieve local disease control in 〉 90% of cases, more than half the patients (pts) relapse by 10 years (yr), generally outside of the radiation field. A recent randomized controlled trial (TROG 99.03) demonstrated that combined modality therapy (CMT), with sequential XRT and systemic therapy, significantly improved PFS but not overall survival (OS) compared to XRT alone in ESFL. However, only half the pts were staged with 18F‐FDG positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET) and 58% of CMT pts did not receive rituximab.Compared with CT staging, 20-60% of cases are upstaged by PET. Consequentially, there are limitations in applying this trial to modern populations. Despite the support of current guidelines, only one third of pts in clinical practice are treated with XRT. This suggests a need to better understand the role of other treatments, including watchful waiting (WW), in the PETera. Our aim was to compare outcomes with real-world treatment approaches in rigorously staged ESFL patients. Methods We conducted an international, multicenterretrospective study of stage I and II FL pts rigorously staged with bone marrow biopsy and PET. Eligible pts were 〉 18yr with newly-diagnosed grade 1-3A FL and ≥3 months follow up. Primary outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), OS and risk of transformation. Survival curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and uni- and multi-variate analysis was performed using Cox regression model. Results A total of 387 pts treated at 13 Australian and 3 Canadian centres between 2005-2017 were studied. Median follow-up was 45 months (range 3.1 - 164.0).5-yrPFS and OS rates were 73.5% (95% CI 66.0-78.5) and 94.4% (95% CI 89.4-93.6) respectively. 22 patients had stage IE duodenal FL with 5-yr PFS and OS rates of 100% and 100% respectively. Considering the unique biology and favorable prognosis of duodenal FL, these cases were excluded from subsequent analyses. Treatment approaches 365 pts included WW (defined as absence of treatment within 6 months from diagnosis) (23.2%), XRT (46.8%), immunochemotherapy (17.2%) and CMT (12.6%). Treatment regimens were: R-CHOP (48.1%), R-CVP (24.4%), BR (9.9%), other (17.6%). First-line therapies for actively treated pts yielded comparable ORRs of 95.6%, 96.7% and 95.9% for XRT, immunochemotherapy and CMT, respectively (P=0.94). Overall, 18.2% of pts relapsed at distant sites, 88.2% of all relapses. Treatment cohorts differed in baseline clinical characteristics. WW pts were significantly older (P=0.007) but otherwise comparable to those treated actively. Compared to chemotherapy or CMT pts, those treated with XRT had more favorable features including fewer B symptoms (4.2% vs 11.2% p=0.029), bulk (≥7cm) (6.8% vs 25.3%, p 〈 0.001), nodal sites (≥3) (1.9% vs 9.5% p=0.005) and a higher frequency of stage I FL (73.1% vs 42.1% p 〈 0.001). Outcomes differed among treatment approaches. Active treatment was associated with superior PFS compared with WW pts (HR 0.54 p=0.004) however, 49.4% of WW pts remained untreated at 5-yrs (Fig 1a). Considering actively treated pts, systemic therapy (immunochemotherapy or CMT) was associated with superior PFS compared to XRT by univariate analysis (HR 0.49, p=0.009) (Fig 1b). This association remained after multivariate adjustment for bulk, B symptoms, nodal sites and stage (HR 0.41 p=0.002). Treatment with immunochemotherapy and CMT demonstrated a comparable PFS (p=0.2). Maintenance rituximab (n=45) was associated with superior PFS compared with observation after systemic therapy (HR 0.24, p=0.017). There were no differences in OS among treatment approaches (P=0.734). There was a higher incidence of transformation in XRT pts compared to systemic therapy pts (6.4% vs 1.6% p=0.046). Conclusion In the largest assessment of rigorously-staged ESFL pts in the PETera, pts treated with systemic therapy (chemotherapy or CMT) had a superior PFS and a lower rate of transformation compared to pts treated with XRT, although treatments were not randomized. These findings are similar to the TROG 99.03 trial and challenge the paradigm that ESFL should be uniformly treated with XRT alone. Half the pts observed from diagnosis remained treatment-free at 5-yrs, suggesting that WW may be appropriate in selected pts. Disclosures Tobin: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Educational Travel. Tam:Roche: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Travel funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; Beigene: Honoraria, Other: Travel funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Abro:Amgen: Other: education support congress attendance; Celgene: Other: education support congress attendance; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: education support congress attendance; Novartis: Consultancy. Hawkes:Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Speaker fee, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Speaker fee; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Research Funding; Merck KGA: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory board, Research Funding; Merck: Other: Advisory board; Roche: Other: Speaker fee; advisory board. Talaulikar:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Gandhi:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

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

Abstract: CNS progression or relapse is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. There is no consensus regarding the optimal approach to CNS prophylaxis. This study was designed to determine whether high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is effective at preventing CNS progression in patients at high risk of this complication. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age 18-80 years with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and high risk of CNS progression, treated with curative-intent anti–CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy, were included in this international, retrospective, observational study. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and cumulative risks of CNS progression were calculated according to use of HD-MTX, with time to CNS progression calculated from diagnosis for all patients (all-pts) and from completion of frontline systemic lymphoma induction therapy, for patients in complete response at completion of chemoimmunotherapy (CR-pts). RESULTS Two thousand four hundred eighteen all-pts (HD-MTX; n = 425) and 1,616 CR-pts (HD-MTX; n = 356) were included. CNS International Prognostic Index was 4-6 in 83.4% all-pts. Patients treated with HD-MTX had a lower risk of CNS progression (adjusted HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.90]; P = .014), but significance was not retained when confined to CR-pts (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.30] ; P = .29), with 5-year adjusted risk difference of 1.6% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.4; all-pts) and 1.4% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.1; CR-pts). Subgroups were underpowered to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of HD-MTX in individual high-risk clinical scenarios; however, there was no clear reduction in CNS progression risk with HD-MTX in any high-risk subgroup. CONCLUSION In this large study, high-risk patients receiving HD-MTX had a 7.2% 2-year risk of CNS progression, consistent with the progression risk in previously reported high-risk cohorts. Use of HD-MTX was not associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in risk of CNS progression.