Background: With the advance of novel therapeutic options, RFs for post-ASCT outcomes in patients with rrHL are of immediate interest. Several RFs for relapse have been previously documented; however, there are limited data with respect to the prevalence and distribution of RFs in post-ASCT rrHL patients who have and have not had a subsequent relapse. We aimed to describe the prevalence and distribution of RFs after ASCT in patients with rrHL in a sample of real-world patients in Germany and the UK. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients who were ≥18 years old at the time of HL diagnosis, received ASCT between 1 January 2008 and 30 June 2014, were not enrolled in an HL-related clinical trial and treated under real-world setting at 45 clinical sites in Germany and the UK. This analysis included randomly selected post-ASCT patients, and was augmented by patients who relapsed post-ASCT. RFs of interest included patient age, sex, B symptoms, extranodal disease, bulkiness, clinical stage, ECOG performance status, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), white blood cell (WBC) count, lymphocyte count, hemoglobin (Hgb), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) at the time of relapse preceding ASCT (ie, pre-ASCT relapse), number of salvage regimens prior to ASCT; response to salvage treatment; and time to relapse after front-line treatment. Results: A total of 398, predominantly male patients, with a median follow-up of 2.2 years post-ASCT were included (196 in Germany, 202 in the UK). The mean age at diagnosis was 43 years. In total, 329 (83%) had a relapse during the follow-up period. A greater proportion of patients who relapsed were ≥45 years old, had stage IV disease, B symptoms, bulky disease, ECOG ≥1, anemia, and elevated LDH at the time of pre-ASCT relapse (Table). The median number (range) of RFs present was 3 (0-7) in patients who relapsed and 1 (0-5) in patients who did not relapse. Conclusion: This real-world study demonstrates the prevalence and distribution of a myriad of RFs in patients post-ASCT rrHL. RF profiles are different in patients who did and did not have a subsequent relapse, and, as such, clinical evaluation of RFs is critical to identify patients at a truly increased risk of subsequent relapse.