Abstract: The introduction of targeted therapies has revolutionized treatment and improved outcomes in patients with leukemias and lymphomas. However, many patients experience relapse caused by the persistence of residual malignant cells. Cytogenetic and molecular techniques are increasingly being used to assess and quantify minimal residual disease (MRD). The emergence of advanced technologies has led to the discovery of multiple novel molecular markers that can be used to detect MRD and predict outcome in patients with leukemias and lymphomas. Gene expression signatures that predict clinical outcomes in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have been identified. In chronic myelogenous leukemia, molecular monitoring has become more important in assessing response and detecting resistance to therapy. In acute leukemias, several new markers have shown potential in prognostication and monitoring treatment. In leukemias and lymphomas, microRNAs have been identified that may be useful in diagnostics and prognostication. To address these issues, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) organized a task force consisting of a panel of experts in leukemia and lymphoma to discuss recent advances in the field of molecular markers and monitoring MRD.

Abstract: Alliance/CALGB 50303 (NCT00118209), an intergroup, phase III study, compared dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received six cycles of DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary clinical objectives included response rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2013, 524 patients were registered; 491 eligible patients were included in the final analysis. Most patients (74%) had stage III or IV disease; International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk groups included 26% IPI 0 to 1, 37% IPI 2, 25% IPI 3, and 12% IPI 4 to 5. At a median follow-up of 5 years, PFS was not statistically different between the arms (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.27; P = .65), with a 2-year PFS rate of 78.9% (95% CI, 73.8% to 84.2%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 75.5% (95% CI, 70.2% to 81.1%) for R-CHOP. OS was not different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.59; P = .64), with a 2-year OS rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 82.3% to 91%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 85.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 90.2%) for R-CHOP. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common ( P 〈 .001) in the DA-EPOCH-R arm than the R-CHOP arm, including infection (16.9% v 10.7%, respectively), febrile neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucositis (8.4% v 2.1%, respectively), and neuropathy (18.6% v 3.3%, respectively). Five treatment-related deaths (2.1%) occurred in each arm. CONCLUSION In the 50303 study population, the more intensive, infusional DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and did not improve PFS or OS compared with R-CHOP. The more favorable results with R-CHOP compared with historical controls suggest a potential patient selection bias and may preclude generalizability of results to specific risk subgroups.

Abstract: Background: Studies of Id/KLH immunotherapy in treatment naïve (TN) fNHL pts following first remission from chemotherapy have demonstrated a prolonged duration of remission. We expanded this approach in a PhII trial to include TN and relapsed/refractory (R/R) pts with stable disease (SD) or PR or CR/CRu following 4 wkly doses of rituximab. We report here long term follow up of RRI, defined as the % of pts who converted from SD to PR or PR to CR/CRu following initiation of Id/KLH treatment, and analysis of disease progression. Treatment: Pts received rituximab (375mg/m2 i.v. wkly x 4 during wk1–4) and those with stable or responsive disease received Id/KLH (1 mg s.q. mo x 6) starting on wk 12 along with GM-CSF (250 mcg, s.q.) on days 1–4. Pts continued to receive booster injections on a reduced schedule until disease progression. Radiological scans, performed every 3 mos, were reviewed centrally. Disease progression and response were assessed using modified Cheson criteria. This data analysis was performed 32 mo from end of enrollment. Results: 103 pts were enrolled and received rituximab; 89 pts had ≥SD and received Id/KLH + GM-CSF of whom, 54 were R/R, and 35 were TN. The overall response rate (ORR) was 47% (42/89) at mo 3. After the initiation of Id/KLH dosing, ORR improved to 63% (56/89). In RRI pts, median time to best response was 9.1 mos from start of rituximab treatment (5.2 – 29.6 mos). 12 of 39 PR pts (31%) converted to CR/Cru. 14 of 43 SD pts (33%) converted to PR. Pt Groups # of Pts % Prog Free Median TTP Est by K-M (mo) Pts w/RRI 26 69% 37.9 TN rituximab responders 23 70% Not Reached (NR) Rituximab responders (All) 42 60% NR Non Responders (All) 47 36% 14.9 All Pts 89 47% 18.2 TN Pts (All) 35 66% NR Relapsed Pts (All) 54 37% 16.8 Conclusion: RRI following FavId is seen in nearly one third of pts. The magnitude of this improvement, the number of conversions to CR/CRu and median time to best response (9 mo and as late as 29.6 mo) suggests this is likely to be a FavId effect rather than late response to rituximab. Responders and TN pts show more durable responses compared to previously published data for rituximab therapy. FavId may also confer a benefit for nonresponders and R/R pts relative to rituximab alone. To confirm benefit of FavId following rituximab induction, a placebo controlled PhIII study was initiated; it completed enrollment in Jan 06. RRI data from this study is expected to be available in Nov 06.

Abstract: Abstract 949 Introduction: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has a highly variable outcome, and individual risk assessment is largely based on clinical features. Gene expression profiling (GEP) stratifies patients into those with germinal center B-cell (GCB) and activated B-cell subtype (ABC) subtype with different prognoses. These groups have been shown to predict prognosis in patients treated with CHOP or R-CHOP. Conversely, the role of other recognized prognostic markers, such as BCL2 gene abnormalities or Bcl2 expression has been questioned in the new therapeutic era. Materials and Methods: In 438 patients treated with R-CHOP for de novo DLBCL, we analyzed the tumors by immunohistochemistry for Bcl2 protein expression and by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for BCL2 translocation and other abnormalities. All cases were successfully studied by GEP. The cutoff for Bcl2 protein expression, 60%, used as prognostic factor was determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: The t(14;18)(q32;q21) was detected in 82 cases (18.7%) and BCL2 gains occurred in 63 cases (14.3%). Both t(14;18) and BCL2 gains strongly correlated with higher levels of Bcl2 protein expression (p 〈 0.0001 for both). Presence of t(14;18) was associated with the GCB subtype (p 〈 0.0001), whereas BCL2 gains were associated with the ABC subtype (p=0.004). BCL2 gains were not predictive of PFS in any patients' subgroups. Conversely, within the GCB subtype, patients with the t(14;18) displayed a significantly worse outcome compared to GCB patients without t(14;18) with a 5-year PFS of 45% vs 68%, respectively (p 〈 0.0001). Outcome of patients with DLBCL associated with t(14;18) was similar to patients with the ABC subtype (45% vs 48%, p=0.30, Figure 1). No impact of the t(14;18) and BCL2 gains was observed on patients with ABC-DLBCL. Using immunohistochemistry, patients with Bcl2 positive ( 〉 60%) tumors had significantly inferior PFS in the GCB subgroup (p=0.03), but not in the ABC subgroup (p=0.54). Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of the t(14;18), but not Bcl2 protein expression, was independent of the International Prognostic Index in predicting outcome of our patients. Conclusions: Patients with the GCB subtype and t(14;18) exhibit a significantly worse prognosis than patients without t(14;18) when treated with R-CHOP. The assessment of t(14;18) by FISH approach not only functions as a valuable prognosticator for individual risk estimation in GCB-DLBCL patients in addition to the established parameters, but also provides valuable result for therapeutic intervention. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract: Context and objective Approximately 5-10% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients carry MYC gene translocations (MYC-translocation+) with a poor prognosis after standard chemotherapy. MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients carrying BCL2 translocations (MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma) have a worse survival. The efficacy of adjuvant radiotherapy in this setting is unknown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of radiotherapy as a part of the therapeutic regimen for patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL. Patients and methods From the International DLBCL R-CHOP consortium program, we selected 581 patients with de novo DLBCL treated with standard R-CHOP immunochemotherapy (diagnosed and treated from 2000 to 2010). We excluded patients with transformed DLBCL, primary mediastinal, cutaneous, testicular or central nervous system large B-cell lymphomas, patients with HIV infection, and patients not treated with R-CHOP. The median follow-up was 54.9 months. Fluorescence in situ hybridization assessing MYC was performed for all the patients (n=581) and results were correlated with available clinical data to identify clinicopathologic features associated with MYC translocation, and to evaluate the prognostic significance of MYC translocations regarding overall survival (OS, from the time of diagnosis to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (PFS, from the time of diagnosis to relapse or death from any cause). In the MYC-translocation+ DLBCL group, 38 patients received chemotherapy alone and 21 patients received chemotherapy with adjuvant radiation therapy. The clinicopathologic features and survival of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients treated with (n=21) and without radiotherapy (n=38) after immunochemotherapy were compared to in order to evaluate the radiotherapy efficacy and other confounding factors. Results MYC translocations were detected in 59 DLBCL patients (10.2%). Patients with MYC-translocation+ DLBCL more often had bulky tumors, involvement of multiple extranodal sites, and poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] : 1.20 - 3.35, P= .0083) and PFS (HR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.22 - 3.13, P= .0005) independent of the International Prognostic Index score. Poor survival was primarily attributable to patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit DLBCL who were predominantly of germinal center B-cell subtype. Among MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, a better survival was achieved in patients who received radiotherapy (for OS, HR: .32, 95% CI: .15 - .71, P= .0049; for PFS, HR: .35, 95% CI: .17 - .73, P= .0043). Conversely, radiotherapy abolished the adverse impact of MYC translocations. In addition, radiotherapy was associated with better survival in the subset of patients with MYC+/BCL2+ double-hit lymphoma (P = .017 for OS, and P = .05 for PFS). However, owing to the common use of radiotherapy as consolidation therapy, the favorable prognoses in the group of patients who received radiotherapy could also be attributed to limited-stage disease and more frequent complete remission (CR) after first-line treatment and therefore these factors confound interpretation of the data. To address these issues, we evaluated radiotherapy efficacy in separate patient groups: patients who achieved CR, non-CR (PR/SD/PD) patients, and patient with stage I/II, or stage III/IV disease. The efficacy of radiotherapy appeared more apparent in patients with advanced disease who did not achieve CR after first-line chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis after adjustment for stage and IPI score validated that radiotherapy significantly improved OS (HR: .28, 95% CI: .10 - .81, P= .018) and PFS (HR: .32, 95% CI: .13 - .80, P= .015) of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Conclusions The presence of MYC translocations in DLBCL is an important biomarker that facilitates prognostic prediction and treatment stratification independent of the IPI score. For chemoresistant MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, radiotherapy seems to be an effective adjuvant regimen likely due to the higher frequency of extranodal involvement and bulky disease in MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients. Our results provide a rationale for larger scale studies to assess the potential role of radiotherapy in the management of MYC-translocation+ DLBCL patients, particularly patients with MYC+/BCL2+double-hit DLBCL. Disclosures: Winter: Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis : Research Funding; Pfizer (Wyeth): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Janssen (Pharmacyclics): Research Funding; Spectrum (Allos): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Tgen: Consultancy; AMBIT Biosciences (Spouse): Research Funding; Celgene (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other, Research Funding; Ariad Pharmaceuticals (Spouse): Research Funding; Novartis (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen (Spouse): Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas (Spouse): Research Funding; Caremark/CVS: Consultancy; Pfizer (Spouse): Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; Bristol Myers Squibb (Spouse): DSMB, DSMB Other; UptoDate, Inc.(Spouse): Patents & Royalties.

Abstract: Background: Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) is a highly active therapy for relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Nonetheless, most patients (pts) ultimately develop progressive disease (PD). There is little guidance on the optimal treatment approach(es) for these pts. We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis with a primary objective to assess treatment patterns and outcomes in pts with R/R aggressive B-cell lymphoma who develop PD after anti-CD19 CARTs. Methods: Pts with aggressive B-cell lymphoma treated with anti-CD19 CART between 2015 and 2020 across 12 US academic medical centers were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics were collected along with CART toxicities and response. Regimens administered as salvage post CART were assessed. Univariate analyses (UVA) were performed to determine impact of demographic and clinical variables on survival outcomes. All p-values were two-tailed. Survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 400 pts received anti-CD19 CARTs and were included for analysis. For the entire cohort: median PFS and OS from time of CART infusion were 11 months [mo] and 27 mo respectively. On log-rank testing, pts who received ≥3 lines of pre-CART therapy and those with refractory disease pre-CART had significantly worse PFS (p=0.004 & 0.001) and OS (both p & lt;0.001). With median follow-up 22.4 mo, 190 pts (48%) had PD after CART; demographic and clinical variables of pts with and without PD are detailed in Table 1. Biopsy to confirm PD and assess CD19 status was done in 69 pts (36%) with CD19 negative relapse seen in 11 (16%). Of pts with PD, median PFS and OS from time of PD was 83 days (in pts who received salvage) and 174 days (for all PD pts) respectively. Pts with PD were more likely to have elevated LDH (p=0.001) and extranodal disease (p=0.003) at apheresis. For pts with PD after CART: 125 (65.5%) received further therapies. Pts were more likely to receive salvage therapies if their best response to CART was CR (p=0.026) or PR (p=0.015). Response rates of select first- and second-line therapies and PFS of first line therapies received after CART failure are detailed in figure 1. ORR and CRs were highest for polatuzumab, bendamustine, & rituximab (pola-BR; 73% & 40%), followed by BTK inhibitors (BTKi; 50% & 38%), and bispecific antibodies (bsAb) (50% & 25%). Five of 7 pts who received a BTKi had non-germinal center (GC) cell of origin (COO; 1 unknown COO). On log-rank testing, pts with elevated LDH (p=0.003) at time of apheresis and those with intermediate/high IPI (p=0.013) had inferior PFS with first salvage regimens. Median PFS was highest for pola-BR (4.5 mo, n=14), followed by bsAb (2.5 mo, n=8), lenalidomide +/- anti-CD20 antibody (1.8 mo, n=13), checkpoint inhibitors (CPI; 1.6 mo, n=10), BTKi (1.2 mo, n=8), radiation alone (1.2 mo; n=17), chemotherapy (1.1 mo, n=12), and tafasitamab + lenalidomide (0.9 mo, n=5). Median PFS for all treated pts was 1.8 mo. OS from start of first salvage regimen was highest for CPI (OS 12.4 mo, n=10), followed by pola-BR (8.9 mo, n=14), BTKi (8.8 mo, n=8), lenalidomide +/- anti-CD20 (8.7 mo, n=13), radiation alone (7.1 mo, n =17), bsAb (5.9 mo, n=8), chemotherapy (5.4 mo, n=12), and tafasitamab + lenalidomide (1.2 mo, n=5). 12 pts (6.3%) later received an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT). In alloHCT pts at last follow-up, 10 were evaluable for response: 7 had CR and 5 remain in CR. Clinical characteristics of pts who received alloHCT are detailed in table 2. Notably, median age was 59 years (41-68), 1 (8.3%) had a prior alloHCT, and 6 (50%) had prior autologous HCT. The majority had CR or PR as best response to CART (CR n=6, 50%; PR n=3, 25%), and only 1 pt (8.3%) with PD as best response to CART was salvaged with alloHCT. Conclusions: This is the largest reported analysis to date of pts with aggressive B-cell lymphoma who develop PD post-CART. The highest ORRs were with pola-BR, bsAb, and BTKi as first line of salvage. High response rates with BTKi may be attributed to non-GC COO in the majority of treated pts and perhaps a beneficial immunomodulatory effect on previously administered CARTs. AlloHCT remains a potential curative therapy for select pts with over half with durable remission; however, few ultimately received alloHCT. Despite increased use of novel therapies, survival in pts who progress after CART is still dismal warranting more effective therapies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Epperla: Genzyme: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau. Torka: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Cohen: Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, BeiGene, Adaptive: Consultancy; Genentech, BMS/Celgene, LAM, BioINvent, LOXO, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, M2Gen, Takeda: Research Funding. Ma: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winter: Gilead: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Ariad/Takeda: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Epizyme: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: Husband: Consultancy; Actinium Pharma: Consultancy; BMS: Other: Husband: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Husband: Consultancy, Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Karyopharm (Curio Science): Honoraria. Gordon: Zylem Biosciences: Patents & Royalties: Patents, No royalties; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Danilov: Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Stephens: Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JUNO: Research Funding; Mingsight: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Arqule: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shah: Miltenyi Biotec: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Umoja: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Lily: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Shouse: Beigene Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau. Barta: Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Seagen: Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria. Karmali: Karyopharm: Consultancy; EUSA: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau.