Abstract: Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy is a frequently fatal central nervous system infection caused by reactivated latent JC virus. This infection has been linked to the administration of brentuximab vedotin, an anti‐CD30 monoclonal antibody‐drug conjugate that was approved in 2011 for the treatment of anaplastic large cell and Hodgkin lymphomas. Clinicians should be aware of this syndrome, particularly when neurologic changes develop after the initiation of treatment with brentuximab vedotin.

Abstract: Background: Several retrospective series have characterized the genomic landscape in many lymphoma subtypes. However, as these studies used different sequencing methods, depth of coverage, and specimen source, the incidence of alterations in many lymphoma subtypes remain unknown. Even when common genomic alterations were identified within a lymphoma subtype, the incidence and spectrum of the alterations varied. In this study, we prospectively examined the incidence of genomic alterations across different lymphoma subtypes using the Foundation One Heme (FOH) assay. Methods: FOH testing was offered to patients in routine clinical practice. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, bone marrow aspirate or peripheral blood were examined using the FOH targeted sequencing assay. Hybridization capture from 405 cancer related genes and 31 genes commonly rearranged in cancer was applied to ≥ 50ng of DNA extracted from 49 tumor specimens and sequenced to high, uniform coverage. Genomic alterations, which include: base substitutions, small insertions and deletions (indels), rearrangements, and copy number alterations, were determined. Results: Specimens from 48 non-consecutive patients with lymphoma (5 new diagnoses, 42 relapsed) were prospectively examined. Represented subtypes include DLBCL (44%), FL (17%), CLL (10%), MCL (10%), MZL (8%), T cell lymphoma (4%), and Hodgkin lymphoma (2%). Median age of diagnosis was 48.1 years (range 29.5-80.6) with a male predominance (69%). The majority (75%) had advanced stage disease at diagnosis, with a median of 3 lines of therapy (range 1-12, n=44). Forty-nine specimens, (1 patient with 2 specimens) were collected from FFPE (70%), peripheral blood (22%) or bone marrow aspirate (8%). Reports resulted after a median 28 days (range 10-48 days) from the time specimens were shipped to Foundation Medicine. Across 48 patients, 90 distinct alterations were detected with a median of 5 alterations/patient (range 0-11). Genomic alterations were more commonly observed in relapsed aggressive lymphoma compared to relapsed indolent lymphoma (median 6.4 vs 4 alterations/patient, p 〈 0.05) or in newly diagnosed patients. The most common alteration was various IgH translocations (46%) and alterations in cyclin dependent kinases (CDK) genes (CDKN2A, CDKN2B and CDKN2C) (31%). Alterations of p53 (23%) and MLL2 (21%) were also frequently observed. Several rare alterations not previously described in primary lymphomas were identified, including alterations in ATRX, CDH1, MSH6, pyruvate carboxylase, and thrombospondin receptor (CD36). Alterations associated with approved agents or clinical trials were found in 89% of patients and were more frequent in relapsed aggressive B-cell NHL (median 2/patient) versus relapsed indolent B-cell NHL (median 1/patient, p 〈 0.02). Commonly identified actionable alterations included CDK alterations in DLBCL, MCL and CLL, and alterations in the PI3K oncogenic pathway in DLBCL, FL and MZL. Conclusion: Application of a comprehensive next generation genomic sequencing assay provides an opportunity to both describe the spectrum and compare the incidence of genetic alterations across different lymphoma subtypes. Preliminary data suggest the vast majority of patients have one or more genomic alterations linked to approved agents or clinical trials. Data collection is ongoing. While the true incidence of each genomic alteration is not defined, the dataset provides the frequency of genomic alterations in a clinically relevant population. Moreover, these data will facilitate design of clinical trials by providing the opportunity to select patients based on shared genomic alterations rather than lymphoma subtype. Table 1.Clinical characteristics, N=48Age at diagnosis57.1 (29.5-80.6)N (% of patients)Sex Male Female33 (68.7%)16 (33.3%)Subtype DLBCL21 (43.8%)FL8 (16.7%)CLL5 (10.4%)MCL5 (10.4%)MZL4 (8.3%)T cell lymphoma2 (4.2%)Hodgkin lymphoma1 (2.1%)Other3 (6.3%)Stage at Diagnosis I/II III/IV Not recorded10 (20.8%)36 (75.0%)2 (4.2%)Biopsy sent At diagnosis At relapse6 (12.5%)42 (87.5%)Response to First line Therapy Near CR or CR PR SD PD Unknown22 (45.8%)9 (18.8%)5 (10.4%)3 (8.3%)8 (16.7%)Genomic Alterations with clinical value Potentially Prognostic Potentially Actionable Alterations previously not well described37 (77.0%)43 (89.6%)7 (14.6%) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Moskowitz: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Horwitz:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Kiowa]Kirin: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol] Myers Squibb,: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy. Hamlin:Gilead, Spectrum, Seattle Genetics, Genentech: Consultancy; Spectrum, GSK, Jansen and Jansen/Pharmacyclics, Portola, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Matasar:Genentech: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy. Miller:Foundation Medicine: Employment. Stephens:Foundation Medicine: Employment, Equity Ownership. He:Foundation Medicine: Employment. Younes:Novartis: Research Funding; J & J: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer; Bristol Meyer Squibb; Celgene; Incyte; Janssen R & D; Sanofi; Seattle Genetics; Takeda Millenium: Honoraria.

Abstract: To improve curability and limit long-term adverse effects for newly diagnosed early-stage (ES), unfavorable-risk Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS In this multicenter study with four sequential cohorts, patients received four cycles of brentuximab vedotin (BV) and doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD). If positron emission tomography (PET)-4–negative, patients received 30-Gy involved-site radiotherapy in cohort 1, 20-Gy involved-site radiotherapy in cohort 2, 30-Gy consolidation-volume radiotherapy in cohort 3, and no radiotherapy in cohort 4. Eligible patients had ES, unfavorable-risk disease. Bulk disease defined by Memorial Sloan Kettering criteria ( 〉 7 cm in maximal transverse or coronal diameter on computed tomography) was not required for cohorts 1 and 2 but was for cohorts 3 and 4. The primary end point was to evaluate safety for cohort 1 and to evaluate complete response rate by PET for cohorts 2-4. RESULTS Of the 117 patients enrolled, 116 completed chemotherapy, with the median age of 32 years: 50% men, 98% stage II, 86% Memorial Sloan Kettering–defined disease bulk, 27% traditional bulk ( 〉 10 cm), 52% elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 21% extranodal involvement, and 56% 〉 2 involved lymph node sites. The complete response rate in cohorts 1-4 was 93%, 100%, 93%, and 97%, respectively. With median follow-up of 3.8 years (5.9, 4.5, 2.5, and 2.2 years for cohorts 1-4), the overall 2-year progression-free and overall survival were 94% and 99%, respectively. In cohorts 1-4, the 2-year progression-free survival was 93%, 97%, 90%, and 97%, respectively. Adverse events included neutropenia (44%), febrile neutropenia (8%), and peripheral neuropathy (54%), which was largely reversible. CONCLUSION BV + AVD × four cycles is a highly active and well-tolerated treatment program for ES, unfavorable-risk Hodgkin lymphoma, including bulky disease. The efficacy of BV + AVD supports the safe reduction or elimination of consolidative radiation among PET-4–negative patients.

Abstract: e20017 Background: FDG avidity above liver on interim PET (PET2) during frontline ABVD is considered a marker of impending treatment failure and an indication to switch to an intensified regimen. However, in clinical practice the utility of PET2 for treatment decisions is less clear. We describe outcomes of patients with positive PET2 who continued treatment with ABVD in the clinical setting. Methods: A retrospective study of all patients with newly diagnosed advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma treated with frontline ABVD at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2008-2017. Eligibility criteria were set to correspond with the RATHL inclusion criteria (stage IIB - IV, or IIA bulky or ≥ 3 involved sites). We identified all PET2 reports indicating suspected residual uptake. All positive PET2 images were then reviewed by a single study radiologist. To increase reproducibility and avoid selection of borderline cases, we defined as PET2 positive only those cases with a lesion-to-liver (mean) SUV ratio ≥ 1.3. We also used a recently published stringent criterion of lesion-to-liver (max) ratio ≥ 1.4 (mPET2+). Progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) were calculated from the date of initial treatment until progression or death of any cause. Consolidative radiation was not considered a PFS event, and all progressions were verified by biopsy. Results: We identified 227 patients fitting RATHL inclusion criteria treated with ABVD. Median age was 34, with 25% (58) ≥ 45 years, 12% (26) had an IPS ≥ 4; 28% (64) stage II (5% II-X) and 38% (87) with extranodal involvement. 57 (25%) patients had a PET2 report indicating suspected residual lymphoma (PET2+), however, only 32 (14%) met the more stringent mPET2+ criterion. Most patients with PET2+ continued ABVD (84%, 48), and 9 switched to escBEACOPP (this subset of patients had substantially worse disease and are not the focus of this analysis). 21 (9%) patients received consolidative radiation. With a median follow-up of 47 months (42-54m), PET2+ patients who continued ABVD had a 3yPFS of 70% (58-85%, n = 48); mPET+ had a 3yPFS of 71% (55-92%, n = 24). Overall survival was excellent regardless of PET2 status (5yOS 97%). Conclusions: The outcome of PET2+ patients in this analysis was better than previously reported and the continuation of ABVD was appropriate for most patients. Use of a confirmatory biopsy is important for identifying true progressions. Patients with PET2+ had an excellent OS. Evaluation of the superiority of alternative regimens in PET2+ patients requires an ABVD comparator arm.

Abstract: Limited data exist regarding the activity of bendamustine in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). This phase II study evaluated the efficacy of bendamustine in relapsed and refractory HL. Patients and Methods Patients with relapsed and refractory HL who were ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT), or for whom this treatment failed, received bendamustine 120 mg/m 2 as a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 2 every 28 days with growth factor support. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). A secondary end point was referral rate to allogeneic stem-cell transplantation (alloSCT) for patients deemed eligible for alloSCT at the time of enrollment. Results Of the 36 patients enrolled, 34 were evaluable for response. Patients had received a median of four prior treatments, and 75% had relapsed after ASCT. The ORR by intent-to-treat analysis was 53%, including 12 complete responses (33%) and seven partial responses (19%). The response rate among evaluable patients was 56%. Responses were seen in patients with prior refractory disease, prior ASCT, and prior alloSCT; however, no responses were seen in patients who relapsed within 3 months of ASCT. The median response duration was 5 months. Five patients (20% of those eligible) proceeded to alloSCT after treatment with bendamustine. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were infrequent and most commonly included thrombocytopenia (20%), anemia (14%), and infection (14%). Conclusion This study confirms the efficacy of bendamustine in heavily pretreated patients with HL. These results support current and future studies evaluating bendamustine combinations in relapsed and refractory HL.

Abstract: Background T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma (THRLBCL) is an uncommon variant of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), characterized by low content of lymphoma cells in a background of extensive infiltrate of T-cells and histiocytes. Historically, THRLBCL was considered an aggressive variant of DLBCL with poorer outcomes and a 3-year OS & lt;50% (Achten et al., J Clin Oncol, 2002). To date, most series evaluating outcomes for patients (pts) with THRLBCL were published in the pre-rituximab era. Recent analysis suggested that outcomes for this disease may be better for pts treated in the rituximab era (Ollila et el., Leukemia & Lymphoma, 2009). However, data regarding treatment patterns and outcomes for pts with THRLBCL in the rituximab era is limited. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, prognostic factors, response to treatment, and outcome among pts diagnosed with THRLBCL at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in the rituximab era. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed all cases of THRLBCL who were diagnosed in our center from January 2000 to October 2019. We collected data for demographic and clinical characteristics, pathology results, disease stage and sites of involvement, treatment regimen, and outcome. Fisher's exact test was used to assess associations between patient characteristics and treatment regimen. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon test were used to assess associations between categorical or continuous characteristics and response to treatment, respectively. The likelihood ratio test was used to assess significance of Cox regression univariate models. Overall survival (OS) was measured from date of diagnosis until last follow up or death. Event-free survival (EFS) was measured from end of treatment to last follow up or pathology proven relapse or disease progression. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Results A total of 100 pts were diagnosed with THRLBCL at our center during the study period. We excluded 33 pts who had missing data regarding stage, frontline treatment, or response. A total of 67 pts were included for analysis in our cohort. Median follow up duration among survivors was 3.4 years (range 0.4-10.8 years). Baseline characteristics are summarized in table 1. Forty-eight were males (72%). Median age at diagnosis was 41 years (range 19-86). Fifty-three (72%) pts were diagnosed at stage IV. Thirty-five (52%) pts had involvement of more than 1 extra-nodal site. The most common extranodal site was bone (60%). Fourteen pts had a positive bone marrow biopsy (26% of those evaluated). Univariate analysis was performed for age, gender, ethnicity, stage, extra-nodal sites, presence of B symptoms, performance status, elevated LDH, IPI score & gt;=3, and history of NLPHL. None of these factors were found significantly associated with response rate, EFS, or OS. Frontline treatment is shown in table 2 and included R-CHOP or R-CHOP based treatment in 48% (n=32), R-EPOCH in 12% (n=8), R-CHOP/R-ICE (4 cycles of R-CHOP-14 followed by 3 cycles of R-ICE, Moskowitz CH, et al. JCO 2010) in 33% (n=22) and other regimens in 7.5% (n=5). CNS prophylactic treatment was given in 19 pts. One pt had an autologous stem cell transplant and 1 pt had an allogeneic stem cell transplant as part of frontline treatment. Fifty-one (76%) pts had a complete response (CR) to frontline treatment. Among these pts, 6 relapsed. Sixteen (24%) pts had refractory disease. Among pts with relapsed or refractory disease, 18 received additional therapy. In the whole cohort, 3-year EFS was 68% and 3-year OS was 85%. In a sub-group analysis of pts who received R-CHOP/R-ICE compared to pts who were treated with R-CHOP or R-EPOCH, CR rates were 95% and 70% respectively (p=0.014). The R-CHOP/R-ICE regimen was also associated with higher 3-year EFS of 86% compared to 62% (p=0.049) and a better 3-year OS of 100% compared with 79% (p=0.016). See figures 1-2. The 2 treatment groups were not significantly different with regards to baseline characteristics. Conclusions Our study demonstrates better outcomes among pts with THRLBCL compared to available historical data from the pre-rituximab era. In addition, with the limitation of a retrospective, single-center study, our data suggests that for newly diagnosed THRLBCL, treatment with a higher intensity regimen, such as R-CHOP/R-ICE, may be associated with favorable outcome. Disclosures Batlevi: Life Sci, GLG, Juno/Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Kite: Consultancy; Janssen, Novartis, Epizyme, Xynomics, Bayer, Autolus, Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Falchi:Roche: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Hamlin:Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceutics: Consultancy; J & J Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding. Horwitz:Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASTEX: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Affirmed: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding. Joffe:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:AbbVie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies,: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Honoraria for Advisory Board. Matasar:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Immunovaccine Technologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rocket Medical: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Noy:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Medscape: Consultancy; NIH: Research Funding; Rafael Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy. Palomba:Genentech: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Juno: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Straus:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Vardhana:Other: Other: SAV has received honoraria from Agios Pharmaceuticals and Rheos Pharmaceuticals, is an advisor for Immunai and has consulted for ADC Therapeutics. von Keudell:Bayer: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Moskowitz:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Miragen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Imbrium Therapeutics, L.P.: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

Abstract: Background: Prognosis of follicular lymphoma (FL) has long been defined by the FLIPI score (Solal-Céligny et al., 2004) which is a 5 factor risk model consisting of age, stage, lactate dehydrogenase, hemoglobin and number of nodal areas. The FLIPI model has been validated at diagnosis in both the pre- and post-Rituximab eras. However, many patients are initially observed and have prolonged lead time from diagnosis to first treatment. In this study, we investigated whether FLIPI risk group at diagnosis changed by the time of initial treatment, and whether change of FLIPI risk group impacted treated outcome. Patients and Methods: All adult (≥18 yo) patients with de novo follicular lymphoma (FL) treated at our center between 1998 and 2007 were evaluated. Study excluded patients with ≤2 follow up visits, known divergent of composite histology at diagnosis, and active concurrent malignancies. FLIPI was scored at diagnosis and at initiation of first treatment. For patients with missing FLIPI data, FLIPI category was scored if the omission did not alter the FLIPI category. Stable FLIPI risk group was defined as FLIPI score being low or intermediate at diagnosis and at initiation of first treatment (Low-Low, Int-Int). Progressed FLIPI risk group was defined by the population which changed categories from low or intermediate at diagnosis to a higher category at initiation of treatment (Low-Int, Low-High, Int-High). FLIPI scores were available for 570 patients at both diagnosis and initial treatment. Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank tests. Time of diagnosis was used as time origin for OS analyses. When OS analyses involved FLIPI score at the first treatment, time of the first treatment was used as the entry time to adjust the risk sets to account for the fact that FLIPI at first treatment is unknown before the onset of the first treatment. Chi-squared tests and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables by FLIPI score change status. Progression free survival before and after 24 months (PFS24) of initial therapy were calculated. Results: For 898 FL patients, median follow up was 9.2 years (range 0.23 - 16.84), median OS not reached. Based on FLIPI at diagnosis, the 5 year OS is 97.2% for low risk, 93.0% for int risk, and 80.2% for high risk, 10 yr OS is 90.9% for low risk, 77.7% for int risk, and 67.6% for high risk. Of 570 patients with FLIPI at diagnosis and first treatment, median time to first treatment was 0.18 years (range 0-12.5) for patients with stable FLIPI (N=280) and 2.70 years (range 0.01-13.33) for patients with progressed FLIPI (N=83). For patients observed ≥ 6 and 12 months, the median time to first treatment was 1.21 years (N=47, range 0.51-12.5) and 2.49 years (N=29, range 1.0-12.5) for patients with stable FLIPI and 3.77 years (N=62, range 0.54-13.3) and 3.92 years (N=57, range 1.13-13.3) for patients with progressed FLIPI, respectively. Progressed FLIPI was observed in 14.6% (83/570) of patients. The incidence of progressed FLIPI was 51.4% (57/111) in patients observed ≥1 year before initiating therapy. Parameters contributing to progressed FLIPI compared to stable FLIPI were decreased hemoglobin (29% versus 6%), increased nodal areas affected (43% versus 2%) and higher LDH (37% versus 5%). Patients with stable FLIPI had longer PFS at 12 and 24 months, 88.6% versus 73.8% (P=0.006) and 79.3% versus 66.1% (P= 0.031) (Figure 1). Analysis of patients initially observed ≥ 6 or 12 months demonstrated that progressed FLIPI negatively affected OS and PFS (Figure 2, observed ≥ 12 month data not shown). Median PFS for patients observed ≥ 6 months was 8.36 years for stable FLIPI, 3.14 years for progressed FLIPI. At observation of ≥ 12 months, median PFS was 6.25 and 3.22 years for stable and progressed FLIPI, respectively. Increased FLIPI was associated with increased risk of transformation throughout the disease course (25% vs 16%, P=0.039). Conclusion: Progressed FLIPI between diagnosis and first line treatment is associated with a reduced PFS, and increased incidence of histologic transformation. In patients who are initially observed, a progressed FLIPI reduces OS and PFS. The effect on PFS may be related to treatment bias and ongoing analysis is underway. Progressed FLIPI potentially identifies a population with heightened risk of transformation. Disclosures Hamlin: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Molecular Templates: Research Funding; Xencor: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Horwitz:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Huya: Consultancy; Infinity: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kumar:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Moskowitz:Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palomba:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Zelenetz:Gilead Sciences: Research Funding.