Rajguru, Saurabh

Abstract Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive leukemia with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Previous studies on T-PLL patients receiving an allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) are limited by small numbers with limited data on disease and transplant characteristics. Further, recent data from our large national cohort of patients demonstrated significant survival difference between TCL1A+ and TCL1A- T-PLL, and CD8+ T-PLL vs CD8- T-PLL. In this large multi-center series, utilizing comprehensive disease subtype and alloSCT clinical data, we evaluated prognostic and survival therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients that had an alloSCT with a particular focus on T-PLL disease subtypes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 572 diagnosed with T-PLL at 21 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023, of which we performed a further evaluation on the169 that proceeded with alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Among n=169 alloSCT recipients with T-PLL, the median follow-up time was 20.9 months post-alloSCT (range: 0.2-182.9), the median age at transplant was 59 years (range: 35-77) and 52% were male. In evaluated patients (n=109), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 69%. As our recent analysis demonstrated significant differences in survival among specific subtypes of T-PLL, we evaluated outcomes in patients with CD4+CD8- T-PLL (n=90, 53%), CD4-CD8+ (n=17, 10%) T-PLL, and CD4+CD8+ T-PLL (n=52, 31%). 53% (87/164) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan and 45% (43/96) of known patients had minimal residual disease (MRD) at the time of transplant [defined as <5% T-PLL in marrow by flow, or +cytogenetics (e.g. TCL1A)] prior to alloSCT. At the time of alloSCT, 136 (80%) patients were in CR and 23 (14%) patients were in PR. Forty-nine (30%) had a myeloablative (MAC)conditioning regimen and 114 (70%) had a reduced intensity chemotherapy (RIC) conditioning regimen. Eighty (49%) patients had TBI as part of their regimen. The most common regimens were fludarabine (flu)/melphalan based regimens (n=44; 26.0%), flu/cyclophosphamide (cy) based regimens (n=33; 19.5%), flu/busulfan based regimens (n=22; 13.0%), flu/total body irradiation (TBI) (n=8; 4.7%), and cy/TBI (n=4; 2.4%). Across the whole cohort, the median OS and PFS post-alloSCT was 32.6 months (95% CI: 21.0-41.9) and 20.8 months (95% CI: 14.4-30.5) months while the 1-year cumulative incidences (CI) of NRM and relapse were 17% and 20%, respectively. The incidences of grade II-IV acute GVHD and cGVHD were 19% and 23%. There was no difference between patients with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (n=49, 29%) when compared to patients that received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (n=114, 67%) in OS (33.1 vs 29.2; p=0.68) and PFS (20.2 vs 20.8; p=0.97). Patients that were MRD+ (n=31) had worse OS (22.2 vs 48.6; p=0.1) and PFS (14.1 vs 32.5; p=0.04) and higher rates of relapse (1-year relapse 20% vs 8%; p=0.08) than patients that were MRD- (n=50). PFS was improved in those who received alloSCT though only trended towards significance due to low numbers (HR 0.76, p=0.09). In subtype analysis, TCL1A+ T-PLL had significantly worse outcomes compared to TCL1A negative T-PLL. TCL1A+ disease had significantly worse OS (21.6 vs 63.1; p=0.01) and PFS (12.4 vs 50.7; p=0.01) compared to TCL1A-. Additionally, in TCL1A+ disease CI of NRM (24% vs 3%; p=0.02) and relapse (25% vs 12%; p=0.86) was higher vs TCL1A- PLL. CD4+CD8-, CD4-CD8+, and CD4+CD8+ disease had no difference in survival via either OS (28.0 vs 34.4 vs 21.0; p=0.17) or PFS (29.4 vs 23.5 vs 13.6; p=0.09) as well as no difference 1-year CI of NRM ( 11.6 vs 23.5 vs 26.2; p=0.35) and relapse (18.5 vs 23.5 vs 20.0; p=0.67).Conclusions: AlloSCT significantly improved outcomes for patients with T-PLL compared to those who did not proceed to alloSCT and remains he only curative therapy for those with T-PLL. OS, PFS, and CI relapse were significantly worse for patients with TCL1A+ subtype of T-PLL, or those with MRD positivity or PR prior to alloSCT. Novel strategies to decrease relapse such as post-alloSCT maintenance therapy to improve outcomes are urgently needed in these patients.

Introduction: DH/THL also classified as high-grade B cell lymphomas (HGBCL) with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements have higher risk of progression after initial treatment and poor response to salvage therapies compared to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), NOS. Recently, CART cell therapy has shown encouraging responses in treatment of relapsed refractory (R/R) DLBCL. In this retrospective study, we evaluated whether survival of (R/R) DH/THL is improved in the CART era. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, adult pts (pts) with R/R DH/THL after anthracycline-based therapy were included. Demographic and clinical variables were obtained from electronic health records. Study objectives was overall survival (OS) at 2 year landmark. We utilized full propensity score matching to compare progression free survival (PFS) and OS of CART with 2 nd line chemoimmunotherapy. Results: 278 DH/THL pts treated between 2010-2020 were included. Median age was 63 years (range 52-74), 163 (58%) were male, 119 (43%) were classified as DLBCL and 116 (42%) as HGBCL; 40 (14%) were transformed from follicular lymphoma. 225 (82%) had advanced stage, 161 (67%) had elevated LDH, 85 (33%) had bulky disease, 74 (59%) had B symptoms. 105 (38%) pts treated for relapsed disease before 2018 were included in the pre-CART era cohort. 168 (60%) pts treated from 2018 onwards were included in the CART era cohort. 102 (60%) pts in CART cell era received CART cells, 40 (14%) received polatuzumab vedotin (pola), 10 (3.5%) received loncastuximab tesirine, tafasitamab and bispecific antibody each. Characteristics at relapse were similar in both groups. Median follow up was 8.9 (0.2-146) months. 2-year OS estimate was 36% (CI 95: 30-42%) in entire population. Patients treated in CART cell era had significantly higher OS (2 yr OS: 43% [CI 95: 35-53]) compared to pts treated in pre-CART cells era (2-year OS: 24% [CI 95: 16-34], p=0.0006) (Figure 1). In multivariable analyses, increasing age (HR = 1.02 (CI 95: 1.01, 1.04), p=0.003), extranodal disease (HR = 1.41 (CI 95: 1.00, 1.99), p<0.001), elevated LDH (HR = 1.57 (CI 95: 1.11, 2.24), p=0.01) were associated with inferior OS. Increasing time to relapse (HR = 0.98 (CI 95: 0.97, 0.99), p<0.001) was associated with superior OS. BCL6 rearrangement did not affect OS. When adjusted for these factors, treatment with CART cells was associated with higher 2 yr OS (HR = 0.33 (CI 95: 0.22, 0.49), p<0.001). Treatment with polatuzumab (HR = 1.07 (CI 95: 0.71, 1.6), p=0.07) was not significantly associated with OS in univariable analysis. 102 pts underwent CART cell therapy at any point for relapse; 94 (93%) were refractory to prior chemotherapy. 62 (60%) responded and 52 (50%) had CR after CART cells. 2-year PFS and OS after CART cell therapy were 28% (CI 95: 19-40) and 40% (CI 95: 30-53), respectively. Increasing time to CART was associated with inferior OS (HR: 1.02 (CI 95: 1.0-1.03, p=0.03) but not PFS (HR: 1.02 (CI 95: 0.99-1.04), p=0.2). 219 (79%) pts received curative intent salvage chemotherapy for 2 nd line. 2-year PFS and OS were 15% (CI 95: 11-20) and 38% (CI 95: 31-45), respectively. 21 pts received CART cell therapy for 2 nd line. 2 year PFS and OS in this small number of pts were 52% (CI 95: 35-79) and 70% (CI 95: 52-94), respectively. Due in part to the small number of pts who received CART cells in 2 nd line, we utilized full propensity score matched analysis to compare each patient in CART cell group to all possible matched controls in salvage chemotherapy group. Variables matched were age, LDH, extra nodal disease and time to relapse. In propensity score matched analysis, pts who received CART cells had significantly higher 2 year PFS (HR: 10.5 (CI 95: 3.4-17.5), p=002) and 2 year OS (HR: 7.5 (CI 95: 1.4-13), p=0.01). Conclusions: Survival of r/r DH/THL appears to have improved in the era of CART cell therapy. About 2/3 of pts refractory to chemotherapy respond to CART cells, and in multivariable analysis, receipt of CART cells was associated with improved OS. Increasing time to CART cells was associated with inferior survival. In a propensity score matched analysis utilizing full matching, CART cell therapy in 2 nd line was associated with significantly higher 2 year PFS and OS compared to curative intent salvage therapy. Other CD 19 and CD 20 targeting agents approved after CART cell therapy might contribute to favorable survival, effect of these agents could not be assessed because of small numbers.

Abstract Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; data indicate that blastoid and pleomorphic variants have a poor prognosis. We report characteristics and outcomes of patients with blastoid/pleomorphic variants of MCL. We retrospectively studied adults with newly diagnosed MCL treated from 2000 to 2015. Primary objectives were to describe progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included characterization of patient characteristics and treatments. Of the 1029 patients with MCL studied, a total of 207 neoplasms were blastoid or pleomorphic variants. Median follow-up period was 82 months (range, 0.1-174 months); median PFS was 38 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 28-66) and OS was 68 months (95% CI, 45-96). Factors associated with PFS were receipt of consolidative autologous hematopoietic transplantation (auto-HCT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.80; P < .05), MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) intermediate (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.3; P < .02) and high (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.0-7.4; P < .01) scores, and complete response to induction (HR, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.17-0.51). Receipt of auto-HCT was not associated with OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.41-1.16; P = .16) but was associated with MIPI intermediate (HR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.5-13.2; P < .01) and high (HR, 10.8; 95% CI, 4.7-24.9; P < .01) scores. We report outcomes in a large cohort of patients with blastoid/pleomorphic variant MCL. For eligible patients, receipt of auto-HCT after induction was associated with improved PFS but not OS. Higher MIPI score and auto-HCT ineligibility were associated with worse survival.

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are a heterogeneous group of lymphoproliferative disorders arising from mature T cells, accounting for about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas. PTCL-not otherwise specified is the most common subtype, followed by angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase–negative, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma. This discussion section focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of PTCLs as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for T-Cell Lymphomas.

Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) is a rare subtype of T-cell lymphoma associated with an aggressive clinical course and a worse prognosis. HSTCL develops in the setting of chronic immune suppression or immune dysregulation in up to 20% of cases and is most often characterized by spleen, liver, and bone marrow involvement. Diagnosis and management of HSTCL pose significant challenges given the rarity of the disease along with the absence of lymphadenopathy and poor outcome with conventional chemotherapy regimens. These Guidelines Insights focus on the diagnosis and treatment of HSTCL as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for T-Cell Lymphomas.

Background: With the incorporation of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging as part of the standard staging evaluation of follicular lymphoma (FL), it is generally recommended to obtain the diagnostic biopsy from a lesion with the highest standardized uptake value (SUV) to rule out de novo histologic transformation (HT). In some cases such an approach might be impractical, while in other cases a biopsy from a diseased area with a high SUV may still demonstrate an indolent histology. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with FL with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of HT. Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, provide a better outcome than R-Bendamustine (BR). Furthermore, it is unknown whether rituximab (R) maintenance is beneficial in this setting. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of R-CHOP vs BR in newly diagnosed FL pts with high SUVmax at baseline PET and to clarify the role of maintenance. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified 261 consecutive pts with newly diagnosed biopsy-proven FL1-3A and a SUVmax≥13 on baseline PET, who were treated with frontline R-CHOP (n=183) or BR (n=78) at 7 US cancer centers based on the physician's choice. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from starting treatment until progression, relapse or death. Cut-offs of SUVmax ≥13≤18 and SUVmax>18 were used for sub-analysis (Haematologica;2020;105:1907-1913). Results: Median age was 59 years. The baseline characteristics of the two groups differed significantly for a younger age (58 vs 62 years, p=0.009), a higher rate of B-symptoms (26% vs 10%, p=0.005) and baseline SUVmax>18 (49% vs 36%, p=0.04) in the R-CHOP group. A diagnostic biopsy was obtained from the site at the highest SUV in 129 (71%) and 43 (55%) pts, respectively (p=0.01). These suggest a potential selection of R-CHOP in pts with adverse features. At the end of therapy (EoT), R-CHOP treated pts achieved higher PET-CT complete response rates (CR 82% vs 69%, p=0.02). This superiority held in pts with diagnostic biopsy at the highest SUV site (CR 83% vs 67%, p=0.03), but not in the others (CR 80% vs 71%, p=0.37). Progression occurred at EoT in 11 and 14 pts receiving R-CHOP and BR (6% vs 18%, p=0.02), with a higher rate of HT in the BR group (13% vs 4%, p=0.006). After a median follow-up of 76 months (range, 4-208 months), there was no significant difference in PFS between R-CHOP and BR treated pts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, p=0.34). PFS was strongly associated with FLIPI 2 (HR 2.32, p=0.01) and 3-5 (HR 2.69, p=0.003) in the univariate as well as in the multivariate analysis (FLIPI 2 HR 2.19, p=0.02; FLIPI 3-5 HR 2.51, p=0.01). There was a trend toward overall survival (OS) benefit in the R-CHOP group (Fig.1A). In the univariate analysis for OS, BR regimen (HR 2.12, p=0.03), age >60 (HR 2.54, p=0.006), FLIPI 3-5 (HR 5.13, p=0.03) and biopsy at the highest SUV site (HR 0.44, p=0.01) were prognostic, however none of those remained significant in the multivariate analysis (BR regimen HR 1.84, p=0.09; age >60 HR 1.92, p=0.08; FLIPI 3-5 HR 3.11, p=0.14; biopsy at the highest SUV site HR 0.60, p=0.13; SUVmax>18 HR 1.87, p=0.055). Among pts with EoT response after R-CHOP or BR (n=170 and n=64, respectively), one third in each group (36% vs 41%, respectively) received R-maintenance for a median of 8 administrations (range, 2-12). A significant PFS advantage (landmark analysis) was observed with R-maintenance (Fig.1B; HR 0.53, p=0.02); however, this did not translate in survival benefit (HR 0.67, p=0.49). In a multivariable model, R-maintenance (HR 0.53, p=0.02), FLIPI 2 (HR 2.47, p=0.03) and 3-5 (HR 2.79, p=0.01) remained independent prognosticators of PFS, while no parameters significantly affected OS. The 2-year HT rate (10% vs 17%) and cumulative incidence did not statistically differ between R-CHOP and BR groups (Fig.1C, p=0.159). Early progression (POD24) occurred in 43 and 22 pts who received R-CHOP and BR, respectively (24% vs 28%) and resulted in a significantly higher risk of death (HR 4.12, p=0.006). Conclusion: In newly diagnosed FL pts with SUVmax≥13 at baseline PET, R-CHOP was more effective in achieving CR and reducing the risk of early HT compared with BR, and it was associated with a trend toward survival advantage. Rituximab maintenance significantly prolonged PFS. A prospective evaluation with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Joffe: Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ruella:Abclon, BMS, NanoString: Consultancy; Abclon: Consultancy, Research Funding; UPenn/Novartis: Patents & Royalties. Svoboda:Adaptive: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy. Witzig:Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding. Armand:Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria; Gamida Cell: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Younes:BioPath, Xynomic, Epizyme, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Janssen, Curis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Curis (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Novartis (Inst): Research Funding; Janssen, AbbVie, Merck, Curis, Epizyme, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda Millennium: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; MSKCC: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common subtype of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), and Sézary syndrome (SS) is a rare erythrodermic and leukemic subtype of CTCL characterized by significant blood involvement. Although early-stage disease can be effectively treated predominantly with skin-directed therapies, systemic therapy is often necessary for the treatment of advanced-stage disease. Systemic therapy options have evolved in recent years with the approval of novel agents such as romidepsin, brentuximab vedotin, and mogamulizumab. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the diagnosis and management of MF and SS (with a focus on systemic therapy).

PURPOSE Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell lymphoma characterized by cyclin D1 expression. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) consolidation after induction chemotherapy is often used for eligible patients; however, the benefit remains uncertain in the rituximab era. Herein we retrospectively assessed the impact of AHCT consolidation on survival in a large cohort of transplantation-eligible patients age 65 years or younger. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively studied transplantation-eligible adults age 65 years or younger with newly diagnosed MCL treated between 2000 and 2015. The primary objective was to assess for improved progression-free survival (PFS) with AHCT consolidation and secondarily to assess for improved overall survival (OS). Cox multivariable regression analysis and propensity score–weighted (PSW) analysis were performed. RESULTS Data were collected from 25 medical centers for 1,254 patients; 1,029 met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up for the cohort was 76 months. Median PFS and OS were 62 and 139 months, respectively. On unadjusted analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (75 v 44 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .01) and OS (147 v 115 months with v without AHCT, respectively; P < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, AHCT was associated with improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.66; P < .01) and a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; P = .06). After PSW analysis, AHCT remained associated with improved PFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.84; P < .05) but not improved OS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.1; P = .2). CONCLUSION In this large cohort of younger, transplantation-eligible patients with MCL, AHCT consolidation after induction was associated with significantly improved PFS but not OS after PSW analysis. Within the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our findings suggest that in younger, fit patients, AHCT consolidation may improve PFS.