Lunning, Matthew A.

7028 Background: Axi-cel, autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, showed long-term survival and curative potential in R/R LBCL (ZUMA-1; Neelapu et al. Blood . 2023). Few studies have examined long-term outcomes beyond clinical trials. Here we report long-term real-world outcomes of axi-cel in R/R LBCL using large-sample CIBMTR data. Methods: A total of 1500 adults from 79 US centers receiving commercial axi-cel after ≥2 LOT for LBCL from Oct 2017-Aug 2020 were enrolled in a post-marketing requirement study. A protocol was developed prior to the study’s implementation, reviewed by Kite and CIBMTR. This is a secondary analysis of said study. Key outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to next therapy (TTNT), disease-specific mortality (competing risks were non-relapse deaths), subsequent malignancies, and non-relapse mortality (NRM). Outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Cases with missing data were excluded separately for each endpoint. Results: As of Aug 2025, 1446 patients (pts) were included in the analysis. Median age at infusion was 62.2 y (range, 19.6-90.8: 38% of pts ≥65 y); 65% were male. Five percent of pts had ECOG PS ≥2 and 16% had high-grade lymphoma. Pts had a median of 3 (range, 2-4) prior LOT, 28% had prior autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation, and 50% received bridging therapy. At 59.7 mo median follow-up, median PFS (95% CI) was 7.9 mo (6.3-10.9) and 5-y PFS was 30% (27-32). The median OS was 25.7 mo (21.6-30.2); 5-y OS was 38% (35-41). The 5-y cumulative incidence of disease-specific mortality was 51%. Among pts who were progression-free at 2, 3, 4, or 5 y post-infusion, the OS at 6 y (95% CI) was 73% (68-78), 81% (76-86), 90% (84-94), and 94% (89-97), respectively. The median duration of response (DOR) was 25.3 mo (95% CI, 20.7-32.8) and 5-y DOR was 38% (35-41). The median TTNT was 12.2 mo and 30% did not need additional LOT at 5 y. Of pts who received subsequent salvage therapy, 12 (2%) received cell therapy, 39 (7%) received hematopoietic cell transplant, and 475 (90%) received other therapy. The 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-y cumulative incidence of relapse (95% CI) was 49% (46-51), 52% (50-55), 54% (52-57), 55% (53-58), and 56% (53-59), respectively. No new safety signals were observed. The primary causes of death (n=864; 60%) were primary disease (540; 63%), infection (111; 13%), and organ failure (57; 7%). The 5-y cumulative incidence of NRM was 16% (95% CI, 14-18). At 5 y, 11% (95% CI, 10-13) had subsequent malignancies, mostly therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (6%) and non-melanoma skin cancer (3%); none were directly attributed to axi-cel. Conclusions: This real-world study showed sustained survival at 5 y among pts with R/R LBCL treated with axi-cel after ≥2 LOT, consistent with ZUMA-1. Infection and organ failure were common causes of NRM. These results continue to support the use of axi-cel with curative intent in R/R LBCL.

Abstract Introduction: Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) was approved in the United States for the treatment of CLL in 3/2024 for patients who have received two prior lines of therapy including a covalent BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor. Data regarding outcomes of liso-cel is limited to reports from the registrational TRANSCEND-CLL 004 clinical trial which had strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. This work investigates the real-world efficacy and safety of liso-cel for patients with CLL and its efficacy in specific sub-populations. Methods: This is a multi-institutional retrospective study (Collaborative Assessment of Real-World Evidence of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory CLL/SLL [CARE CAR-T CLL]) of patients with CLL who received commercial liso-cel in the United States. Patients with Richter transformation were excluded. Response was defined by iwCLL criteria. Patients who did not undergo a marrow biopsy but met other criteria for a complete response (CR) were categorized as unconfirmed CR (CRu). CRS and ICANS were graded per ASTCT criteria. Results: A total of 30 patients were identified with a median age of 67 years (range 44 – 80). Twenty of thirty patients (67%) had either del17p and/or mutated TP53, and 8/30 (27%) had complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities) at time of liso-cel infusion. Patients received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (range 1 - 12), and 24 (80%) were previously treated with chemotherapy. All patients had previous exposure to a covalent BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor. Twenty-seven (90%) of patients had prior exposure to pirtobrutinib. Twenty-nine patients (96.7%) received bridging treatment that was stopped after leukapheresis with 1 patient in CR and 25 patients in PR at time of liso-cel. Eighteen patients (60%) were treated with pirtobrutinib as the last line of treatment prior to liso-cel. Median length of time on pirtobrutinib prior to liso-cel infusion was 4 months (interquartile range [IQR], 2 – 8 months). Twelve (66.7%) patients stopped pirtobrutinib between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion, and 6 continued after liso-cel. Best CR/CRu rate was 60.0% (CR, n = 17/30; CRu, n = 1/30), and best overall response rate (ORR) was 83.3% (25/30) with median time to best response of 30 days (IQR, 28 – 30 days). Of the 18 patients who received pirtobrutinib as their last line of therapy, 13 (72%) achieved a CR/CRu. Meanwhile, of the 12 patients who did not receive pirtobrutinib as their last line of therapy, only 5 (28%) achieved a CR. Measurable residual disease testing (MRD) by flow cytometry was done in 14/30 patients, and 9 patients (64%) had achieved undetectable MRD (uMRD). MRD by next generation sequencing (NGS) was done in 17 patients, and 7 (41%) patients had uMRD. Twenty-seven of 30 patients (90%) were alive at time of data collection. Median follow-up was 3.3 months (IQR, 1.2 – 8.9 months). Twenty-six patients (87%) experienced any grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 3 patients experienced grade 3 CRS (10%). Twelve patients (40%) experienced any grade immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and 4 patients (13%) experienced grade 3 ICANS. There were no grade 4 or 5 CRS or ICANS. One patient experienced grade 3 immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome (IEC-HS). At day 30, patients had a median absolute neutrophil count of 1.7K/μL (IQR, 0.8 – 3.6K/μL), hemoglobin of 11.7 g/dL (IQR, 8.6 – 13.1 g/dL), and platelet count of 72K/μL (IQR, 29 – 119K/μL). Conclusion: Real-world analysis of liso-cel for patients with relapsed/refractory CLL showed CR and ORR of 60.0% and 83.3%, respectively. Despite having a heavily pre-treated and chemotherapy-exposed population and with over half the patients having high-risk features, these response rates are higher than what was described in the TRANSCEND-CLL 004 clinical trial. These results are limited by the short follow-up period and the variability in response assessment typical of a retrospective study. As we increase our sample size, we will also be interested if the use of the non-covalent BTK inhibitor pirtobrutinib prior to liso-cel is associated with a higher CR rate, mimicking the findings of the sub-cohort analysis of TRANSCEND-CLL 004 where the concurrent use of ibrutinib led to higher CR rates. Further updates and patients from additional collaborators will be presented at the meeting.

Abstract Introduction: Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, 4-1BB CAR T cell product. TRANSFORM (NCT03575351) is a global, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study of liso-cel versus SOC as second-line therapy in adults with R/R LBCL. In the TRANSFORM study, liso-cel showed superior, more durable efficacy versus SOC, with a potential long-term survival benefit and a favorable safety profile, highlighting the curative potential of liso-cel for second-line R/R LBCL. Upon completion of TRANSFORM, patients who received liso-cel could enroll into a separate, long-term follow-up (LTFU) study (NCT03435796). Here, we report results after approximately 4 years of follow-up in patients from TRANSFORM who consented to the LTFU study. Methods The TRANSFORM study compared liso-cel versus SOC (chemotherapy [R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP] followed by high-dose chemotherapy [HDCT] + ASCT) in adults aged ≤ 75 years with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line therapy and eligible for ASCT. Patients in the liso-cel arm underwent lymphodepletion followed by liso-cel (100 × 106 CAR+ T cells). Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed for patients in the SOC arm. The LTFU study enrolled patients who received liso-cel and discontinued early or completed TRANSFORM; liso-cel was not administered during the LTFU study and subsequent therapies were administered at investigator discretion. Selected AEs considered related to liso-cel (malignancies, neurologic, hematologic, or rheumatologic/autoimmune disorders) and OS would be assessed at each visit (month 3 and then every 6 months from years 1 to 5, and then annually) for up to 15 years from liso-cel infusion until study withdrawal or death, whichever occurred first. OS for the combined study was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. PFS for the combined TRANSFORM and LTFU studies incorporated data from TRANSFORM, assessed by an independent review committee, and from LTFU, assessed by investigators, and was defined as the time from randomization to disease progression or death from any cause. For LTFU only, OS and PFS were measured from LTFU consent to event or censoring. In cases where the patient was censored at last assessment date (without receiving new therapy) in TRANSFORM and enrolled in LTFU, LTFU data were used. For patients from the liso-cel arm of TRANSFORM who did not enroll in the LTFU study, the data from TRANSFORM were considered (ie, either an event or censored) at their last adequate assessment date or before starting new therapy. Results are reported descriptively. Results In total, 184 patients were randomized in TRANSFORM (92 per arm); key demographics and baseline characteristics were previously reported (Abramson, et al. Blood 2023). The LTFU study enrolled 67 patients who received liso-cel (liso-cel arm, n = 43; crossover from SOC arm, n = 24). The median follow-up (range) for the liso-cel arm was 16.9 months (1.3–29.7) in the LTFU study and 40.1 months (2.2–61.9) combining the TRANSFORM and LTFU studies. The median follow-ups for OS and PFS for the liso-cel arm in the LTFU study were 17.1 (16.1–21.9) and 16.9 months (16.0–21.8), respectively. In patients from the LTFU study in the liso-cel arm (n = 43), median PFS and OS were both not reached (NR) with 95% CIs of NR–NR. The 24-month rates (95% CI) of PFS and OS were 94.7% (87.4–100.0) and 95.1% (88.4–100.0), respectively. In the 92 patients randomized to the liso-cel arm, using combined data from the TRANSFORM and LTFU studies, median (95% CI) PFS was NR (12.6–NR); 48-month PFS rate was 52.2% (41.5–62.8). Median (95% CI) OS was NR (NR–NR); 48-month OS rate was 61.5% (51.2–71.7). Safety results from the LTFU study in the liso-cel arm showed no new signals compared with previous reports from TRANSFORM. AEs of any grade occurred in 2 patients (hypogammaglobulinemia and dyspnea; n = 1 each), with no second primary malignancies or serious infections. AEs of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 1 patient (dyspnea). No AEs led to death.Conclusions: After a median follow-up of approximately 4 years combining data from the TRANSFORM and LTFU studies, liso-cel continued to demonstrate long-term clinical benefit with high PFS and OS rates in patients with second-line R/R LBCL. The safety profile of liso-cel continued to be manageable with no new safety signals observed during LTFU. These results further support liso-cel as an effective second-line treatment with curative potential for R/R LBCL.

Abstract Introduction: Liso-cel, an autologous, CD19-directed CAR T cell product, has demonstrated consistent efficacy in a broad population of pts with B-cell malignancies, including R/R LBCL. Its well-established safety profile has made OP delivery commonplace. This, combined with recent changes to postinfusion monitoring requirements, offers pts the potential for greater access to care. Here, we describe real-world safety and effectiveness outcomes for pts with R/R LBCL who received liso-cel as standard of care (SOC) therapy in the inpatient (IP) or OP setting. Methods: This was an observational study of pts in the US with R/R LBCL who received commercial liso-cel as second-line (2L) or later treatment (tx) in the IP or OP setting between 02/2021 and 02/2025 and had ≥1 postinfusion assessment reported in the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Safety outcomes included rates of AEs of special interest and nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Postinfusion hospitalizations in the OP group were also assessed. Effectiveness outcomes included ORR, CR rate, duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. All results are reported descriptively. Results: Of 1116 eligible pts, 34% (n=375) were intended for OP tx, as reported to the CIBMTR, including 82 of 195 (42%) pts who received liso-cel as 2L tx. Among pts treated in the IP vs OP setting, median (range) age was 71.5 y (21.5–91.2) and 69.8 y (25.0–86.1), respectively, and most pts were male (59% and 61%). Proportions of pts with high-grade B-cell lymphoma (16% and 12%), ≥2 extranodal involvement sites (26% and 26%), and secondary CNS involvement (5% and 4%) were similar for the IP and OP groups, respectively. In contrast, 48% vs 37% of pts in the IP vs OP groups, respectively, had elevated LDH before infusion and 10% vs 3% had ECOG PS ≥2. One or more comorbidities were reported for 72% and 65% (including cardiac, 36% and 32%; pulmonary, 30% and 26%; active infections requiring ongoing tx, 6% and 3%) of pts in the IP and OP groups, respectively. Median (range) number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (1–13) in the IP group and 3 (1–16) in the OP group. Use of bridging therapy was reported in 65% of the IP group and 62% of the OP group. Median (95% CI) follow-up for this study was 12.7 mo (12.5–13) in the IP group and 12.6 mo (12.4–12.8) in the OP group. Safety was similar in both settings; any-grade CRS was reported in 52% of IP vs 49% of OP setting pts, with low rates of grade 2 CRS (15% vs 11%) and grade ≥3 CRS (3% vs 2%) in both groups. Any-grade immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) rates were also similar in pts in the IP vs OP setting (28% vs 23%), with low rates of grade 2 ICANS (5% vs 4%) and grade ≥3 ICANS (10% vs 8%). Prolonged cytopenia (grade 4 thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia at 30 d after infusion) was reported in 12% and 14% in the IP and OP groups; clinically significant infections at any time after infusion occurred in 48% of IP and 42% of OP setting pts. In the IP and OP groups, 37% and 30% of pts died, most commonly due to PD (25% and 21%) and the NRM rates at 12 mo were 7.1 (95% CI, 5.2–9.4) and 4.1 (95% CI, 2.2–6.8). Among OP setting pts, 46% were not hospitalized after infusion; of those hospitalized after OP infusion, median (IQR) time to hospitalization was 5 d (3-8) and duration of stay was 5 d (3-9). Response rates were high in both the IP (ORR, 80% [95% CI, 77–83]; CR rate, 70% [95% CI, 66–73]) and OP setting (ORR, 83% [95% CI, 79–87]; CR rate, 74% [95% CI, 69–79]). At ~12 mo follow-up, median (95% CI) DOR was not reached (NR; NR–NR) in either group with 12-mo DOR rates of 59% (95% CI, 54–63) and 63% (95% CI, 56–69), respectively. Median (95% CI) PFS was 11.8 mo (8.8–NR) in the IP group vs NR (NR–NR) in the OP group, with 12-mo PFS rates of 49% (95% CI, 45–53) and 56% (95% CI, 50–61), respectively. Median (95% CI) OS was NR (NR–NR) in both groups with 12-mo OS rates of 65% (95% CI, 61–68) in the IP group and 74% (95% CI, 68–78) in the OP group. Conclusions: These results continue to demonstrate that one-time tx with liso-cel results in deep, clinically meaningful efficacy in the SOC setting across a broad population of pts with R/R LBCL. Despite the few differences reported in baseline characteristics, outcomes were consistent among pts treated in the IP and OP care settings. The well-established safety profile of liso-cel is conducive to OP tx, allowing ~50% of pts to remain out of the hospital postinfusion.

Abstract Introduction: cBTKi have made a substantial impact in pts w/ MCL, but pts who develop PD while on treatment w/ cBTKi have historically had poor responses to subsequent lines of therapy (LOT). Brexucel, lisocel, and the non-covalent BTKi pirto have been approved in this population. While two RW studies have substantiated the benefit of brexucel, similar data for pirto are lacking. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of pts treated w/ pirto in the RW setting. Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study of adult pts w/ a diagnosis of MCL who experienced PD after any approved cBTKi and subsequently received pirto. Pts who received pirto w/ bridging intent and those who switched to pirto due to intolerance of cBTKi were excluded. The 95% exact binomial confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CRR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were defined as the time from pirto start to PD or death, whichever occurred first, and the time from pirto start to death, respectively, and calculated w/ the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. A multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazard model was built to calculate adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). Analyses were performed w/ SAS, version 9.4. Results: Data on 111 pts w/ MCL treated across 21 institutions were collected. Median (mdn) age was 72 (range 33 – 93) years. Twenty-seven pts (24%) were female, 3 (3%) were Asian, 5 (5%) Black, 9 (8%) Hispanic, 86 (77%) White. Among the 53 (48%) pts w/ available MIPI-c at diagnosis, 28 (53%) pts were high-risk. Ki67 at diagnosis was available in 84 (76%) pts: of those, 58 (69%) had a Ki67 ≥30%, and 41 (49%) ≥50%. TP53 mutational status was available in 70 (63%) pts: 33 (47%) had documented TP53 mutation and 10/52 (19%) pts had a disease w/ complex karyotype. Pts had a mdn of 3 (range 1 – 9) prior LOT (n=106). Ninety-one pts (86%) received chemo-immunotherapy (CIT), 16 (15%) autologous stem cell transplant, 19 (18%) venetoclax (ven), 29 (27%) chimeric antigen receptor T-cell, 4 (4%) allogeneic stem cell transplant. For cBTKi, 39 (35%) pts received ibrutinib, 56 (50%) pts acalabrutinib, 33 (30%) pts zanubrutinib, and 17 (15%) pts received more than one cBTKi. The mdn time from the last dose of cBTKi to pirto start was 55 (range 0 – 2587) days, w/ 51 (46%) pts who switched from a cBTKi directly to pirto. Thirty (27%) pts had no response (stable disease or PD as best response) to cBTKi, and 40 (36%) pts had no response to the last LOT. Two (2%) pts received pirto in combination w/ CIT, 8 (7%) w/ an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb), 11 (10%) w/ ven ± a mAb, while 86 (77%) pts as single agent. In 104 (94%) pts, pirto was given at full dose, 10 (9%) pts had a subsequent dose reduction. A total of 35 serious (grade ≥3) adverse events (AE) were documented in 27 (24%) pts: 4 (4%) pts had a serious bleeding AE, 5 (5%) pts a serious cardiac AE, 10 (9%) a serious GI AE, and 16 (14%) a serious infectious AE. Ninety-eight (88%) pts were evaluable for response. The ORR was 40% (95% CI 30% – 50%) w/ a CRR of 29% (95% CI 20%– 39%). At the last follow-up, 29 (26%) pts remained on pirto w/ a mdn treatment duration of 15.1 months (range 0.4 – 26). Fifty-eight (52%) pts died, 35 (78%) because of PD. At a mdn follow-up of 15.8 (range 0.4 – 26) months among survivors, the mdn PFS was 4.7 months (95% CI 3.3 – 8.2) and the mdn OS was 13 months (95% CI 9.2 – not available). Using the log-rank test, age (quartile groups), number of LOT (1-2 vs. 3-4 vs. 5+), time from cBTKi to pirto (quartile groups), Ki67≥30%, and high MIPI-C did not result in a statistically significant difference in PFS (p>0.05). Presence of TP53 mutation was associated w/ a non-statistically significant adverse trend in PFS (p=0.0585). No response to cBTKi and Ki67≥50% were associated w/ a statistically significant inferior PFS in log-rank test (p=<0.05), which persisted in a MV Cox regression model (aHR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-4.2, and aHR 2.6, 95% CI 1.6-4.4, respectively). Conclusions: This is the first RW report on pirto in MCL pts. In this high-risk population, ORR to pirto was comparable to the BRUIN trial, while PFS was significantly worse, especially in pts w/ no response to cBTKi and w/ a high Ki67. However, prolonged remissions were seen in a subset of pts, suggesting that a better characterization of this population w/ durable benefit from pirto is needed.

Abstract Introduction: Primary central nervous system T-cell lymphoma (PCNSTL) is a rare form of PCNSL, comprising 2–8% of cases. Prognostic factors remain undefined, and no standard treatment protocol currently exists. Prior studies have been limited by small sample sizes, incomplete molecular profiling, and poor representation of novel treatment modalities. In this study, we aimed to identify clinicopathologic factors associated with patient (pt) outcomes and delineate the spectrum of treatment regimens used to inform future clinical practice. Methods A multicenter retrospective study was conducted across 15 North American academic institutions. Pts aged ≥18 years with biopsy-confirmed PCNSTL between 2009 and 2025 with no evidence of systemic disease were included. Cases with CNS relapse of systemic T-cell lymphoma were excluded. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using independent t-tests, Fisher's exact tests, or Pearson's chi-square tests. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), evaluated by Kaplan–Meier, log-rank tests, and Cox regression. Results: Forty-two pts met inclusion criteria. Median age was 57 (range 19–77), 69% were male, and 79% were white. Most (69%) had ECOG 0–1. No patients had HIV, hepatitis B or C, or a history of solid organ transplant. LDH was elevated at diagnosis in 38%, and 24% had B-symptoms. Mean absolute lymphocyte count at diagnosis was 1.82/µL. The most common histologic subtypes were PTCL-NOS (76%), followed by ALK-negative ALCL (12%) and γδ T-cell lymphoma (5%). All patients had parenchymal brain lesions with 57% having multifocal disease. Additionally, CSF involvement was seen in 21%, vitreoretinal involvement in 3%, and deep brain involvement in 34%. Next-generation sequencing was performed in seven pts (17%), with disease-associated variants identified in three cases. Among these, two pts had mutations in TP53, and one had a mutation in DNMT3A. Cytogenetics were obtained in 7 pts with only one exhibiting a complex karyotype. Only one pt was EBV positive by EBER-ISH. Overall, 79% received HD-MTX-based therapy. First-line treatments were mainly HD-MTX alone (38%), HD-MTX + temozolomide (17%), or vincristine + procarbazine (12%). No patients were treated on clinical trials. Median treatment duration was 78 days and median number of treatment cycles was 4 (range 1–9 cycles). One patient received radiation alone; 5% received radiation with systemic therapy. A steroid pre-phase was used in 60%, with 44% exhibiting a clinical response. Overall response rate to first-line treatment was 63% (13 CR, 12 PR). Imaging alone was used in determining response in all patients. Repeated biopsy was not performed. Twelve patients (29%) underwent consolidative autologous transplant, most commonly with thiotepa/carmustine (TT/BCNU, 69%) or BEAM conditioning (25%). Median duration of follow-up was 10.4 months. Sixty-two percent of pts progressed during the study period, with 7% experiencing extra-CNS relapse. Median PFS was 8.2 months. Improved PFS was associated with >3 cycles of therapy (p=0.03) and transplant with TT/BCNU (p=0.0004). At last follow-up, 43% were in remission and 52% were deceased, mostly due to disease progression (77%). Median OS was 17.6 months. One- and two-year OS rates were 58% and 42%, respectively. OS was associated with Nottingham/Barcelona score <2 (p=0.02), >3 treatment cycles (p=0.0008), response to first-line therapy (p=0.0007), and TT/BCNU-based transplant (p=0.0001). IELSG, Taipei, and MSKCC risk scores were not significantly associated with survival, though IELSG approached significance (p=0.09). Discussion: This study is among the largest cohorts of PCNSTL pts compiled to date. PCNSTL remains rare and heterogenous. Treatment across centers largely mirrors management of B-cell PCNSL with high utilization of HD-MTX regimens and TT/BCNU conditioning autologous transplant. Survival outcomes within our cohort are consistent with those previously reported within the literature. Receipt of >3 cycles of therapy, TT/BCNU conditioning and Nottingham/Barcelona scores were associated with longer survival within our cohort. Limitations of our study include its retrospective design and heterogeneity within pt disease characteristics, treatments utilized and disease assessment intervals. Further exploration into pathophysiology and optimal management of this unique entity is needed.

Abstract Background: Given a potential risk of extravasation with vesicants and irritants, central venous catheters (CVCs), such as port-a-cath or peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC), are commonly used for the administration of anthracycline-based chemotherapy. However, CVC placement can result in treatment delay, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), catheter malfunction, and added burdens (eg, financial, travel, etc), partly due to the need for regular flushing. Peripheral intravenous (PIV) access is often utilized in the academic setting with select frontline chemotherapy regimens. However, there is limited data reporting on the safety of PIV in this setting. This large, multicenter RWA evaluated the use and associated complications of PIV and CVC for administering CHOP- or ABVD-based chemotherapy in patients (pts) with lymphoma. Methods: We conducted a retrospective RWA across 8 U.S. centers among pts aged ≥18 years with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma who were consecutively treated with ABVD or CHOP-based anthracycline chemotherapy via PIV or CVC access between 2010-2024. Choice of catheter placement was at the discretion of the pt's treating physician. Detailed baseline and safety data were collected. The primary outcome was extravasation; secondary outcomes included infiltration, DVT, cellulitis, erythema, and pain. Standard definitions of extravasation and other complications were used (Jackson-Rose J. CJON 2017). Rates of complications were compared via Fischer exact testing. Results: A total of 1,414 pts were included in the analysis: 790 in each arm (ie, PIV vs CVC). Of these, 624 were unique to each group, while 166 pts received chemotherapy via both modalities (PIV and CVC during the treatment course). Overall, 78.9% of pts completed all treatment as planned via PIV. Median age was 63 years (IQR 45–75) in the PIV group and 61 years (IQR 40–73) in the CVC group. Male sex comprised 57% vs 51%, ECOG 0–1 performance status was 83% vs 76%, and advanced-stage disease (stage III/IV) was present in 51% vs 62%, respectively. Lymphoma subtypes were comparable: DLBCL/high-grade/B-cell NOS (54.5% vs 56.1%), Hodgkin lymphoma (27.2% vs 27.5%), T-cell lymphoma (12.4% vs 6.6%), and indolent/mantle cell lymphoma (5.6% vs 6.7%). Among those receiving chemotherapy via CVC, 78.5% were treated through a port-a-cath and 21.5% via PICC. CHOP-based and ABVD-based regimens were administered to 68% and 32% of PIV pts, and 69.6% and 30.4% of CVC pts, respectively. A total of 4,084 (PIV) vs 3,859 (CVC) treatment cycles were delivered, corresponding to 4,347 (PIV) vs 4,884 (CVC) anthracycline infusion days. There was 1 documented case of extravasation in the CVC group and 2 suspected cases in the PIV group (p=0.9); for PIV, this translates to a per pt risk of 0.3% (or 0.05% of infusion days). The two PIV cases involved elderly women with DLBCL receiving CHOP. Both developed localized symptoms post-infusion and were treated conservatively (DMSO/warm compresses or dexrazoxane/ice), with full symptom resolution within 1 week and 1 day, respectively. No tissue or vascular injury occurred. Additionally, there were no significant differences between the PIV and CVC groups in the rates of induration/swelling (1.8% vs 2.0%, p=0.85), phlebitis/cellulitis (2.4% vs 2.4%, p=0.9), venous thromboembolism (VTE; 1.4% vs 2.0%, p=0.32), or erythema (3.8% vs 5.1%, p=0.27). Pain or tenderness at the infusion site (8.5% vs 2.9%, p=0.001) and infiltration (1.4 vs 0.13%, p=0.006) were more frequent in the PIV group. Chronic vascular complications related to prior VTE was slightly lower in the PIV group (0.13% vs 0.9%, p=0.06), but not significant. Additional details from a propensity score-matched analysis will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: This is the largest known analysis to date evaluating the safety of PIV access for anthracycline-based chemotherapy in >1,500 lymphoma pts over a recent 15-year period, representing >9,000 total treatments with CHOP or ABVD. PIV access was found to be safe and associated with a low rate of serious complications. Moreover, extravasation was rare and there was not a significant difference observed between PIV and CVC use. While PIV use was associated with higher rates of local pain/tenderness and infiltration, the events were uncommon and self-limited. Despite the widespread default to CVC placement in many centers, these findings support the selective use of PIV in appropriate pts as elucidated here.

We report 3-year follow-up results from TRANSFORM comparing lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus standard of care (SOC) for second-line primary refractory/early relapsed (≤12 months) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Adults eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (N = 184) were randomly assigned 1:1 to liso-cel (100 × 10 6 chimeric antigen receptor–positive T cells) or SOC. Results are reported descriptively. With a median follow-up of 33.9 months, median (95% CI) event-free survival was 29.5 months (9.5 to not reached [NR]) for liso-cel versus 2.4 months (2.2 to 4.9) for SOC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.375; 95% CI, 0.259 to 0.542). Median progression-free survival was NR (12.6-NR) for liso-cel versus 6.2 months (4.3-8.6) for SOC (HR, 0.422; 95% CI, 0.279 to 0.639) with 36-month rates of 51% versus 26.5%. Median overall survival (OS) was NR for both arms (HR, 0.757; 95% CI, 0.481 to 1.191), with 66% of patients crossing over to receive liso-cel; 36-month OS rate was 63% for liso-cel versus 52% for SOC. OS HR (0.566 [95% CI, 0.359 to 0.895]) favored liso-cel when accounting for the treatment effect of crossover. Safety results were consistent with previous reports. At 3-year follow-up, liso-cel confirmed superior, more durable efficacy versus SOC with a favorable safety profile and no new safety signals. These data support liso-cel as an effective second-line treatment with curative potential for relapsed/refractory LBCL.