Abstract: Background: Addition of rituximab to chemotherapy in patients with diffuse large B cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) has been shown to improve survival in several recent clinical studies. A study from British Columbia confirmed those results in a population-based cohort. No similar population based studies were conducted in the USA. Our study aims to address outcome of DLBCL in the era of rituximab in the VA health system. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis. The VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) database was used to identify patients with DLBCL diagnosed between 1995 and 2005. There are approximately 120 VA medical centers diagnosing and/or treating patients with cancer. The VACCR aggregates the data collected by the medical centers’ cancer registries. Data were extrapolated and analyzed using bio-statistical software SPSS. Variables included age, sex, stage of disease, histology subtype, date of diagnosis, date of last contact, date of relapse, vital status, whether patients received chemotherapy and or radiation. Use of rituximab was not specifically recorded in the registry. Due to that we divided the patients into two groups, patients diagnosed with DLBCL before 2001 (pre rituximab era group) and patients diagnosed after 2001 (rituximab era group). The initial results of rituximab in DLBCL were presented in 2000 and published in January 2002. Independent t test was used for comparing continuous variables and chi square test for categorical variables. Wilcoxon test was used to compare survival among the two groups. Results: There were 2792 patients with DLBCL at the VACCR between 1995 and 2005, 1772 patients in pre rituximab era and 1020 patients in the rituximab era. The mean age at diagnosis was to 64 in pre rituximab group and 66 in rituximab group (P-value 0.015). Race distribution was similar between the two groups. More patients were diagnosed at advanced stage (stage III and IV) 61 % in rituximab group compared to 57% in pre rituximab group (P-value & lt;0.005), IPI score data were not available. More patients in pre rituximab era did not receive multi-agent chemotherapy 28% versus 22% (P-value & lt; 0.005). More patients received radiation 21 % in pre rituximab group compared to 16% in rituximab era group (P-value & lt; 0.005). The 5-year overall survival was 26% in pre rituximab era and 36% after rituximab (P-value 0.0025). Using Cox regression multivariable analysis age, use of mutli-agent chemotherapy, radiation and whether patients were diagnosed and treated before or after 2001 were statistically significant independent variables affecting survival. Conclusions: Overall survival of DLBCL in VA patients had improved in the rituximab era. The magnitude of improvement observed in this study is similar to what was described in previous studies. Other factors contributing to improvement in outcomes such as supportive care could not be differentiated in this study. This is a population-based study suggesting improvement in survival in DLBCL in the rituximab era.

Abstract: Background: Diffuse Large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the commonest subtype of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). Data on outcome of DLBCL in large cohorts of patients or community practices outside clinical trials are lacking. Treatment and outcomes of DLBCL among the VA patients have not been reported previously. We utilized the VA Central Cancer Registry to study cases of DLBCL in the VA system. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis. The VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) database was used to identify patients with DLBCL diagnosed between 1995 and 2005. There are approximately 120 VA medical centers diagnosing and/or treating patients with cancer. The VACCR aggregates the data collected by the medical centers’ cancer registries. Data were extrapolated and analyzed using bio-statistical software SPSS. Variables included age, sex, stage of disease, histology subtype, date of diagnosis, date of last contact, date of relapse, vital status, whether patients received chemotherapy and or radiation. Results: There were 2792 patients with DLBCL at the VACCR between 1995 and 2005, 2402 were white, 323 black patients, and 67 patients from other racial groups. The mean age at diagnosis was to 65. Majority were males (2721 patients). More patients were diagnosed at advanced stage (stage III and IV) (40%), in 34% of cases stage was not known or missing. IPI score data were not available. Most patients received multi-agent chemotherapy 70%, and 20% of patients received radiation (31 % in early stage and 12% in late stage). The 5-year overall survival was 28%. 5 year OS was 41% for stage I, 32% for stage II, 25% for stage III and 17% for stage IV. Using Cox regression multivariable analysis age and use of mutli-agent chemotherapy were the only statistically significant independent variables affecting survival. Conclusions: Outcome of DLBCL in VA patients seems inferior to what is reported in clinical studies. The age of patients treated in the VA as well as sex could be factors affecting the outcome. There are no data available on outcome of DLBCL in such large cohort of patients outside context of clinical trials to make meaningful comparisons.

Abstract: Background: Racial disparities in diffuse large B cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (DLBCL) are not well studied. Racial differences in outcome are not well recognized given majority of patients with DLBCL are white. The VA health care system offers a platform to study those racial differences given similar other variables and socioeconomic status among those patients. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis. The VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) database was used to identify patients with DLBCL diagnosed between 1995 and 2005. There are approximately 120 VA medical centers diagnosing and/or treating patients with cancer. The VACCR aggregates the data collected by the medical centers’ cancer registries. Data were extrapolated and analyzed using bio-statistical software SPSS. Variables included age, sex, stage of disease, histology subtype, date of diagnosis, date of last contact, date of relapse, vital status, family history of cancer, tobacco history, alcohol history, Agent orange exposure and whether patients received chemotherapy and or radiation. Independent t test was used for comparing continuous variables and chi square test for categorical variables. Wilcoxon test was used to compare survival among the two groups. Results: There were 2792 patients with DLBCL at the VA system, 2402 white and 323 black patients. Sixty-seven patients from other racial groups were excluded from this analysis. The mean age of presentation among blacks was 57.8 years compared to 65.7 years among whites (P-value & lt; 0.005). More Black patients had history of alcohol use, and smoking. More white patients had family history of cancer. No differences in histology subtypes were observed. Other baseline characteristics were similar. No difference in stage of disease was noted at presentation. IPI score data were not available. Similar proportion of patients received multi-agent chemotherapy among the two groups, 70 % for blacks and 67% for whites (P-value 0.58). Among blacks 16 % of patients received radiation while 19.5 % white patients did (P-value 0.73). The 5-year overall survival for blacks was 24 % compared to 29% for whites (P-value 0.92, Wilcoxon test). No statistically significant differences in survival were noted between the two races within each clinical stage. Using Cox regression multivariable analysis age, stage and chemotherapy were the only statistically significant independent variables affecting survival. Conclusions: DLBCL is less common among blacks. Blacks diagnosed with DLBCL are more likely to present at younger age. The treatment and outcome of DLBCL among blacks are not different from whites within the VA system.

Abstract: Case Report: 18 year old male presents with 2 weeks history of sore throat, fever, and hemoptysis. Physical examination revealed exudative and hemorrhagic tonsillo-pharyngitis, posterior cervical lymphadenopathy, mild splenomegaly, and petechieal rash involving the extremeties and the trunk. On presentation, CBC showed Hgb of 15.5gm/dl, WBCs of 11.8 K/uL, Platelets count of 4 K/uL. Differential count showed lymphocytes of 56%, reactive lymphocytes 1%. Monospot test was positive. CT abdomen confirmed the physical finding of splenomegaly, and showed mild hepatomegaly. Treatment was initiated with pulse methylprednisone 1g/d, and IVIG 1g/kg/day. Both were given for 2 days. One unit of SDP was transfused on days 2, 4, 5. On day 4 platelets count was 6 K/uL. 2–3% blasts were detected on the peripheral smear on days 4 and 5. Bone marrow biopsy and aspiration were done on day 5. They revealed reactive marrow changes with no increase in blasts. Flow cytometry revealed reactive marrow lymphocyte subpopulations and no inrease in immature myeloid cells. Subsequently, EBV serology was reported; EBV capsid IgM and IgG were both positive at & gt;4-fold higher than upper normal limit. In addition, Platelets antibodies were reported positive for IIB/IIIA, IB/IX, and IA/IIA. Platelets count on day 7 was 58 K/uL without platelets transfusion in the previous 24 hours. Conclusion: Literature review reveals rare cases of Infectious Mononucleosis presenting with severe thrombocytopenia. Most of these cases were treated successfully with steroids and /or IVIG, similarly to ITP. However, no previous association with peripheral blood blasts has been described. Moreover, only two previous reports have described the association between Infectious Mononucleosis and the presence of platelets antibodies but without details of the receptors involved.

Abstract: Background: Only a small subset of Lower risk (LR) MDS patients benefit from treatment with rhu-Erythropoietin (Epo). We previously reported that lenalidomide (LEN) restores sensitivity to Epo in MDS progenitors by inducing the formation of lipid rafts that are enriched for signaling competent, JAK2/Epo-receptor complexes (McGraw K, et. al. PLoS One 2014; Basiorka A, et. al. Cancer Res 2016). In the MDS-002 and MDS-005 trials, treatment with LEN monotherapy gave rise to RBC transfusion-independence (TI) in 26% of azanucleoside-naïve, transfusion-dependent (TD) LR, non-del(5q) MDS patients for a median of 10.2 and 7.75 months, respectively. In a pilot study of Epo-refractory LR-MDS patients, the addition of epoetin alfa (EA) to LEN treatment yielded erythroid responses in 28% of patients who were unresponsive to LEN alone, suggesting that LEN may overcome clinical resistance to augment response to rhEpo (Komrokji R, et. al. Blood 2012). To test this hypothesis, we performed a randomized phase III trial comparing treatment with LEN to LEN+EA in LR non-del(5q) MDS patients who were refractory to, or not candidates for treatment with rhEpo. Methods: Patients with Low or Intermediate-1 IPSS risk MDS with hemoglobin & lt;9.5 g/dL who were unresponsive to rhEpo treatment or were TD ( & gt;2 units/month) with serum Epo & gt;500mU/mL were eligible. Patients were stratified by serum Epo level and prior rhEpo (EA vs. darbepoetin vs. none) then randomized to treatment with LEN 10 mg/d x21d q4wk (Arm A) or LEN + EA 60,000U SC/wk (Arm B). The primary endpoint was major erythroid response (MER) at week 16 which was defined according to transfusion status at baseline: (1) achievement of RBC-TI for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks AND a sustained ≥1 g/dL hemoglobin rise compared to mean pre-transfusion baseline value in TD patients; and (2) a & gt;2 g/dL rise in hemoglobin without transfusion for ≥ 8 consecutive weeks in non-TD patients ( & lt;4U RBC/8 wks). Arm A non-responders were offered cross-over to combined therapy. Results: Among 205 patients randomized, 14 were excluded from the primary analysis due to a 4 month interruption in drug supply. Among the 195 evaluable patients, 96 were assigned to Arm A and 99 to Arm B. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms with 85% of patients heavily TD, receiving a median of 4 units/8 weeks. Overall, 93% of patients received prior treatment with Epo and 18% azanucleosides. In an intent to treat analysis, 28/99 patients (28.3%) in Arm B achieved MER compared to 11/96 (11.5%) in Arm A (P=0.004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 28/72 (38.9%) and 10/64 (15.6%) achieved MER, respectively (P=0.004). Forty-four Arm A non-responders crossed over to combination-therapy with 11 patients (25%) experiencing a MER. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified only treatment with LEN + EA as an independent covariate for erythroid response (P=0.01). Responses were durable with MER median duration of 23.8 months in Arm B compared to 13 months in Arm A. There was no significant difference in the frequency or distribution of & gt;Grade 3, non-hematologic adverse events between treatment arms. Two patients progressed to AML while on study (Arm A), and no thromboembolic events were reported. Conclusions: LEN restores sensitivity to rhEpo in otherwise refractory, LR-non-del(5q) MDS patients to yield a significantly higher frequency of durable major erythroid responses compared to LEN alone. The addition of LEN to EA treatment is an effective strategy for the management of Epo-refractory patients with a potential duration of benefit extending to years. Disclosures List: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Verma:Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Stelexis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Maciejewski:Novartis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Komrokji:JAZZ: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; JAZZ: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; pfizer: Consultancy. Luger:Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Cyslacel: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria; Genetech: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Daichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Kura: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Theradex: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; France Foundation: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; prIME Oncology: Speakers Bureau; PeerView: Speakers Bureau; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Biosight: Other: US Lead. Claxton:Astellas Pharma: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Medimmune Inc.: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Celgene Corporation: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies; Incyte Corporation: Other: Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Co. and Ambit Biosciences Corp: Other: Pharma support of clinical studies. Artz:Miltenyi: Research Funding. Tallman:Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tetraphase: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellerant: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nohla: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BioLineRx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Lenalidomide used for treatment non-del 5q myelodysplastic syndromes.

Abstract: Impaired response to erythropoietin underlies ineffective erythropoiesis and anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). We investigated whether treatment with lenalidomide (LEN), which augments erythropoietin receptor signaling in vitro, can restore and improve hemoglobin response to epoetin (EPO) alfa in patients with lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS who have anemia that is refractory to or have low probability of benefit from treatment with recombinant erythropoietin. METHODS In a phase III, US intergroup trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive either LEN and EPO alfa or LEN alone following stratification by serum erythropoietin concentration and prior erythropoietin treatment. RESULTS A total of 195 evaluable patients were randomly assigned: 99 patients to the LEN-EPO alfa cohort and 96 to LEN alone. After four cycles of treatment, the primary end point of major erythroid response (MER) was significantly higher (28.3%) with the combination compared with LEN alone (11.5%) ( P = .004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 38.9% and 15.6% achieved MER, respectively ( P = .004). Additionally, minor erythroid response was achieved in 18.2% and 20.8% of patients, for an overall erythroid response rate of 46.5% versus 32.3%. Among LEN nonresponders, 38 crossed over to the addition of EPO alfa with 10 patients (26.3%) achieving a MER. Responses to the combined treatment were highly durable with a median MER duration of 23.8 months compared with 13 months with LEN alone. CONCLUSION LEN restores sensitivity to recombinant erythropoietin in growth factor–insensitive, lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS, to yield a significantly higher rate and duration of MER compared with LEN alone (funded by the National Cancer Institute; E2905 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02048813 ).

Abstract: Background Outcomes in patients (pts) with secondary acute myeloid leukemia (sAML) (therapy related myeloid neoplasms and AML with myelodysplasia related changes (MRC) per WHO 2016 classification (Arber et al, Blood 2016)) are poor. Pts treated with hypomethylating agents (HMAs) have suboptimal responses to induction chemotherapy (IC) upon transformation to AML. Previously, it was retrospectively demonstrated that the IC with cladribine, cytarabine, filgrastim, and mitoxantrone (CLAG-M) yields significantly higher response rates (64%) than 7+3 (cytarabine and anthracycline) (29%) in pts with prior HMA exposure (Jaglal et al, Leukemia Research 2014). Following the recent approval of CPX-351 for induction in sAML subgroup, we investigated outcomes after CPX-351 to cladribine based regimens and 7+3 in pts with sAML with prior HMA exposure. Methods We identified pts with sAML who had prior HMA treatment for an antecedent hematologic malignancy (AHM) and later received induction chemotherapy upon AML transformation from Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) (n=229), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (n=11) and Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (n=2). Patients were divided into 3 cohorts based on induction regimen: (A) cladribine based (CLA+/-G+/-M) (B) standard 7+3 and (C) CPX-351. Demographics, disease-specific variables, and outcomes were collected in accordance with the institutional review board approved protocol. Responders (R) were defined as pts achieving CR or CRi as defined by the 2003 International Working Group (IWG) criteria after 1 or 2 cycles of the either induction regimen whereas non-responders (NR) were defined as responses other than CR/CRi. Pts receiving a second induction with a different regimen were considered NR. Fisher's exact test and the ANOVA test were used to determine significance for continuous and categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test was performed to estimate overall survival (OS). Results Among 242 pts who received IC for AML after HMA failure for prior AHM, 114 were treated with (A) cladribine based regimen (B) 94 pts with standard 3+7 and (C) 34 pts with CPX-351 (Cohort C). Baseline characteristics for all 3 cohorts are outlined in Table 1A. Median age for cohort A, B, and C were 65 (33-82), 66 (26-81), and 69 (36-82), respectively. Males comprised of 68.4%, 63% and 52.9% of the cohorts A, B and C, respectively. No pts had favorable-risk karyotype as defined by European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2017 criteria. Adverse risk karyotype was noted in 42.1% of cohort A, 34.6% of cohort B and 22.7% of cohort C (p=.337). The majority of pts received azacitidine as their HMA for their AHM (88.7%, 84.9% and 82.4% in cohorts A, B, C, respectively) and median number of cycles administered prior to transformation to AML were 6, 4 and 5 for cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. Response rates in each cohort are summarized in Table 1B. The CR/CRi rate was 53% in cohort A, 32% in cohort B and 41.1% in cohort C (p=.005 between cohort A and B) (p=.329 between cohorts A and C) (p=.526 between cohorts B and C). The early death rates ( 〈 60 days of induction) were not significantly different among the 3 cohorts, at 12%, 8% and 2.9% in cohorts A, B and C respectively (p=.200). In pts who received ≤ 4 cycles of HMAs prior to AML transformation, response rates to CPX-351 were higher (64.3%) than in pts who received 〉 4 cycles of HMAs (25.0%) (p=.0397). Cohort A (56.5% vs. 50.0%, p=.288) and B (39.1% vs. 25.5%, p=.175) did not demonstrate such a difference (Table 1C and 1D). There was a trend towards better OS (19.9 vs. 5.5mo) with CPX-351 treated pts with ≤ 4 cycles of HMAs compared to 〉 4 cycles (p=.092) (Figure 1). To date, 70.0% of responding pts in cohort A have undergone an allogeneic stem cell transplant compared to 31.0% in cohort B and 28.6% in cohort C (p=.15). There was no significant difference in median OS among the 3 groups, cohort A (7.27 months), cohort B (7.63 months) and cohort C (7.07 months) (p=.887). Among responders, the mOS did not differ (12.93, 21.7, and 19.9 months for cohorts A, B, and C respectively, p=.635). Conclusions We demonstrate that cladribine-based induction regimens and CPX-351 yield higher CR/CRi rates compared to 7+3 in pts with sAML after HMA failure. Prolonged duration of HMA exposure may lower response potential with CPX-351 upon AML transformation. Median OS remains poor and did not differ among the 3 groups illustrating the unmet need for therapy for sAML pts after HMA failure. Disclosures Goldberg: AROG: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Sallman:Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. List:Celgene: Research Funding. Wang:Amgen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: 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; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Tallman:AROG: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Orsenix: Other: Advisory board; Daiichi-Sankyo: Other: Advisory board; BioSight: Other: Advisory board. Komrokji:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Sweet:Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Phizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Phizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria.