Abstract: When a student struggles with a mathematics task, adults may rephrase or expand initial task instructions to clarify instructions or scaffold problem solving. Yet expanded instructions may not benefit all children, especially children with a mathematics learning disability (MLD). Here, we explore whether expanded instructions differentially affect fractions comparison performance for children with or without MLD. Fifth graders ( N = 190) completed two consecutive sets of 24 fraction comparison items, each accompanied by initial or expanded instructions, respectively; and also completed vocabulary, spatial reasoning, verbal working memory, executive function, and number knowledge tasks. Results showed that fraction comparison performance was generally worse following expanded rather than initial instructions, particularly for difficult items or for children with MLD. Fixed ordered regressions showed that the strength of cognitive skills as predictors of performance varied depending on instructions format and MLD status, that the five cognitive predictors collectively accounted for more performance variation with initial compared to expanded instructions, and that vocabulary’s relative predictive strength as a single predictor increased when instructions were expanded, but only for children with mathematics difficulties. These findings support the notion that problem features differentially affect children with or without MLD and that not all children benefit from hearing expanded instructions for difficult mathematics tasks.

Abstract: In this multi-institutional retrospective study, we examined characteristics and outcomes of 160 patients with high-grade B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBL-NOS). This rare lymphoma category is defined by high-grade morphologic features, most commonly Burkitt-like, and lack of MYC rearrangements with BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (so-called double-hit). Our results show that HGBL-NOS tumors are heterogeneous: 83% had a germinal center B-cell immunophenotype, 37% a dual expressor immunophenotype (MYC and BCL2 expression), 28% (single-hit) MYC rearrangement, 13% BCL2 rearrangement, and 11% BCL6 rearrangement. Most patients presented with stage 4 disease, a high serum lactate dehydrogenase, and other high-risk clinical factors. Most frequent first-line regimens included DA-EPOCH-R (43%), R-CHOP (33%), or other intensive chemotherapy programs (11%). We found no significant differences in the rates of complete response (CR, P=0.32), progression-free (PFS, P=0.82), or overall survival (OS, P=0.60) between these chemotherapy regimens. CR was attained by 69% of patients. PFS at 2 years was 55.2% (95%CI, 46.9-62.7), and OS was 68.1% (95%CI, 59.7-75.0). In a multivariable model, the main prognostic factors for PFS and OS were poor performance status, lactate dehydrogenase & gt;3x upper limit of normal, and a dual expressor immunophenotype. Age & gt;60 years or presence of MYC rearrangement were not prognostic, but patients with TP53 alterations had a dismal PFS (13% at 2 years). Presence of MYC rearrangement was not predictive of better PFS in patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R versus R-CHOP. Improvements in the diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approaches beyond dose-intense chemotherapy are needed to overcome the unfavorable prognosis of patients with HGBL-NOS.

Abstract: Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) that fails to achieve a complete response (CR) or relapses early after standard immunochemotherapy (IC, e.g., R-CHOP or similar) is referred to as primary refractory DLBCL and has a poor prognosis. The clinical course with regards to frontline IC is heterogenous, and different definitions have been used in literature, e.g., progressive or refractory during therapy (narrow definition), or not achieving complete remission at the end of IC, or relapsing within 6 or 12 months after completing IC (broad definition). A small proportion of patients may still have chemosensitive disease and be able to achieve durable disease control with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). However, it is challenging to identify such patients, with clinical and molecular predictors highly needed. In this study, we examined the association of time to refractory status with survival outcomes in patients with primary refractory disease. Methods Adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL between 2002 and 2015 and seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester were identified from the prospective Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort study of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. The current study included patients with primary refractory disease, which was defined as no response to frontline IC (primary progression), partial response (PR) at end of treatment (EOT PR), or relapse with 12 months after achieving CR at EOT (early relapse). Clinical characteristics, treatment and response data, and follow-up data were abstracted from MER and collected by medical record review if needed. Clinical characteristics between groups were compared using Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from confirmation of refractory disease to the time of death from any cause and was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Out of 949 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, 122 (12.8%) had primary refractory disease, 36 with primary progression, 36 with EOT PR, and 50 with early relapse. The baseline clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1. No significant differences in age, gender, ECOG performance status, number of extranodal sites, stage, International Prognostic Index, or cell of origin were found between the 3 groups. The proportion of MYC2 and BCL2/BCL6 rearrangements or Myc/Bcl2 double expressor was small and not different among the 3 groups. Salvage therapies were mainly platinum based high-dose chemotherapy (e.g., R-ICE, R-DHAP, or similar) for systemic disease, MTX-based therapy for CNS relapse, or radiotherapy or resection for localized disease (Table 1). The response to salvage chemotherapy was significantly different between the 3 groups. The CR/PR rate was 8.6%/28.6% for patients with primary progression, 16.7%/46.7% for patients with EOT PR, and 35.6%/33.3% for patients with early relapse (P & lt;0.01, Table 1). At a median follow-up time (of living patients) of 113 months, 93 patients had died. The 2-year OS was 13.9% for patients with primary progression, which was significantly worse compared to that of patients with EOT PR (2-year OS 41.7%) or early relapse (2-year OS 44%), (P=0.001)(Figure 1A). In patients with early relapse, the 2-year OS was not significantly different among those who relapsed with 3 months, between 3-6 months, or between 6-12 months (Figure 1B). Conclusion Our data suggest that broadly defined primary refractory DLBCL has heterogenous survival outcomes. DLBCL patients with primary progressive disease represent an ultra-high risk group that has particularly poor survival outcomes with current standard salvage regimens. Novel therapies such CAR T-cell therapy or targeted agents should be studied in this patient population. In contrast, patient who only achieve PR at EOT and those who relapse within 1 year of achieving CR had better OS. A fraction of these patients may still have chemosensitive disease and benefit from salvage chemotherapy and ASCT. The survival difference in the two groups also has important implications for clinical trial design. The definition of primary refractory DLBCL in clinical trials should be carefully and clearly defined. When evaluating novel therapies in single arm trials, the benchmark for efficacy (i.e., historical outcomes) may differ according to the population included in the trial (e.g., time to refractory status). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: BMS: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Bennani: Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding.

Abstract: Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon hematological malignancy with an estimated incidence of 1 per 100,000 persons per year in the United States and represents only about 5% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Several studies have shown that treatment at academic centers and a higher hospital case volume are associated with improved outcomes for uncommon hematological malignancies, probably due to increased provider expertise and access to novel therapies. Treatment of MCL can be complex given the heterogenous nature of the disease and a frequent need for autologous stem cell transplantation in eligible patients. However, the impact of treatment at an academic center and facility patient volume on the survival of patients with MCL has not been well studied in large cohorts. In this study, we utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to investigate the impact of treatment at an academic center and treatment facility volume on the overall survival (OS) of patients with MCL. Methods: The NCDB was used to identify adult patients (≥ 18 years) with newly diagnosed MCL from 2004 through 2017. For facility patient volume analysis, patients were divided into groups based on the average number of new MCL patients seen annually: Tercile 1 [T1] (1-3 patients/year), Tercile 2 [T2] (4-5 patients/year) and Tercile 3 [T3] (≥6 patients/year). Treating centers were divided into Academic and Non-academic using the NCDB definitions. Academic centers were defined as centers that accessions more than 500 newly diagnosed cancer cases per year, participate in postgraduate medical education in at least four program areas including internal medicine and surgery and participates in cancer-related clinical trials. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox hazards proportional model. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25. Results: We identified 22,752 patients with MCL during the study period. 9,484 (42%) patients were treated at academic centers and 13,070 (57%) were treated at non-academic centers. In terms of facility patient volume 10,948 patients (48%) were in the T1 group, 4,637 (20%) were in the T2 group and 7,166 (31%) were in the T3 group. No significant differences were found in baseline demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, comorbidity scores), socioeconomical variables (insurance type, median income, area of residence) and disease-related factors (B-symptoms, Ann Arbor stage) between patients treated academic vs nonacademic centers, or between patients in T1 vs T2 vs T3 groups. Notably, compared to lower volume facilities, T3 facilities were more likely to be academic centers (T3: 81% vs T2: 42% vs T1: 16%, p & lt;0.001) . After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, the median overall survival (OS) was 5.6 years for the entire cohort. The median OS was inferior for patients treated at lower volume facilities (4.1 years for T1, 5.1 years for T2 and 9.0 years for T3, p & lt;0.001) (Figure 1A). Similarly, the median OS was shorter for patients treated at non-academic centers vs academic centers (4.3 years vs 7.5 years respectively, p & lt;0.001) (Figure 1B). In a multivariate analysis, treatment at a lower patient volume facility (Hazard ratio [HR] Q1= 1.26 [95%CI = 1.18-1.34] ) and treatment at a non-academic center (HR = 1.1, 95%CI = 1.01-1.12) were both independent prognostic factors of inferior OS, after adjusting for demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, area of residence) and socioeconomic variables (income and insurance status). Conclusion: Patients with MCL treated at academic and higher volume facilities had a higher OS compared to patients treated at non-academic and lower volume facilities.. Additional research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms behind these differences. Patients with MCL may benefit from an early referral to academic and high-volume centers. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Kyowa: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Nowakowski: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy. Wang: Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.