Poeschel, Viola

Abstract Disease progression after frontline therapy for Diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a clinically significant event. Patients who experience early progression or have refractory disease have especially poor outcomes. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools are needed for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies and prognostication in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Model building was performed in patients from the Surrogate endpoints in aggressive lymphoma (SEAL) consortium with disease progression after frontline immunochemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) measured from date of progression. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish National Lymphoma Register (LYFO) cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time‐dependent concordance indices (c‐statistic) and calibration with metrics evaluated at 2 years from progression. Note, 1234 of 5112 patients treated with frontline immunochemotherapy in the SEAL consortium developed progressive disease. Time to progression on immunochemotherapy and age at progression were strongly associated with post‐progression OS (both p < 0.001). A prognostic model was developed incorporating spline fit for both variables. The model had good concordance in the discovery (0.67) and validation sets (LYFO c = 0.64, MER c = 0.68) with generally good calibration. Time to progression on frontline therapy is strongly associated with post‐progression OS in DLBCL. We developed and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the R/R setting. The useful prediction of expected outcomes in R/R DLBCL and can inform treatment decisions such as considerations for CAR‐T therapy as well as trial designs. The model is available in smartphone‐based point of care applications.

Abstract Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Three scoring systems incorporating simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the International Prognostic Index (IPI), revised IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We evaluated 2124 DLBCL patients treated from 1998 to 2009 with frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; or variant) across 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials to determine which scoring system best discriminates overall survival (OS). Median age was 63 years, and 56% of patients were male. Five-year OS estimates ranged from 54% to 88%, from 61% to 93%, and from 49% to 92% using the IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI, respectively. The NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest- and lowest-risk groups and best discriminated OS (concordance index = 0.632 vs 0.626 [IPI] vs 0.590 [R-IPI]). For each given IPI risk category, NCCN-IPI risk categories were significantly associated with OS (P ≤ .01); the reverse was not true, and the IPI did not provide additional significant prognostic information within all NCCN-IPI risk categories. Collectively, the NCCN-IPI outperformed the IPI and R-IPI. Patients with low-risk NCCN-IPI had favorable survival outcomes with little room for further improvement. In the rituximab era, none of the clinical risk scores identified a patient subgroup with long-term survival clearly &lt;50%. Integrating molecular features of the tumor and microenvironment into the NCCN-IPI or IPI might better characterize a high-risk group for which novel treatment approaches are most needed.

7544 Background: Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients (pts) newly diagnosed with aggressive BCL. Three scoring systems based on simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the international prognostic index (IPI), revised-IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We studied BCL pts treated with R-CHOP to determine which scoring systems best identifies subgroups with poor outcomes that might benefit from new approaches. Methods: Individual pt data from 7 multicenter trials (1998-2009) of pts with BCL (86% DLBCL) treated front-line with R-CHOP (or variant) were analyzed to determine whether IPI, R-IPI, or NCCN-IPI best discriminated overall survival (OS). The concordance index (c-index) from a proportional hazards model, stratifying on trial and induction therapy, quantified predictive accuracy of each scoring system. Results: 2561 pts (median age 63 yrs, 56% male) were classified into IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI risk groups (Table). With a median follow-up of 5 yrs, NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest and lowest risk groups at 1, 3, and 5 yrs, and best discriminated OS (c-index = 0.631, Table). Conclusions: In an independent and large cohort of pts, NCCN-IPI performs best in risk-stratifying pts with aggressive BCL, readily distinguishing pts at high and low risk for treatment failure using clinical parameters (5-yr OS between 48 and 92%). Improvement over the simpler IPI appears incremental, and IPI may remain a valuable alternative. Work integrating molecular features of the tumor into the (NCCN-) IPI is in progress to define high risk groups where targeted novel approaches are needed most. [Table: see text]

Background: Disease progression (PD) after frontline IC therapy for DLBCL is a clinically significant event and only 20-40% of patients achieve durable remissions with salvage chemotherapy. Patients who experience early PD or have disease refractory to IC have especially poor outcomes. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy has emerged as a novel effective therapy for selected cases of relapsed or refractory (r/r) DLBCL, although its availability is limited by cost and logistic challenges. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools would be useful for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies vs those who are more likely to be successfully managed by conventional therapies, but few have been developed for r/r DLBCL. Methods: Model building was performed in patients with PD after IC from 13 frontline, multicenter, randomized DLBCL clinical trials from the SEAL Consortium. All patients received rituximab and an anthracycline-based combination IC and were followed systematically; however therapy received, clinical, and laboratory data at progression were not available. OS was defined as time from first progression until death from any cause. Associations between variables and OS were evaluated using Cox models; splines were used to model functional forms. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish LYFO cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time-dependent concordance indices (c-stat), Brier scores, and calibration with metrics evaluated at two years from progression. Results: Model Development (SEAL): 1125 of 5112 patients had PD after IC. Median time to PD (TTP) was 11.8 months (IQR 6.6-23.5); median age at PD was 68 years (IQR 60-73). At a median follow-up of 21 months from PD (IQR 7-43), 732 patients (65%) had died and 24 month overall survival after PD (OS24) was 35% (95% CI: 32-38). TTP was strongly associated with post PD OS (spline p-value&lt;0.0001) with OS24 ranging from 18% in patients with TTP &lt;6 months compared to 69% in patients with TTP &gt; 36 months (Figure A). Additionally, age at PD (spline p-value&lt;0.0001) was associated with post PD OS. A model consisting of age at PD including patients 40-80 years and TTP ranging 0-60 months was created (n=1011, Figure B) due to sparse data outside these intervals. C-stat was 0.67, and the model was well calibrated (predicted OS24 = 34% vs. actual OS24 = 34%). External Validation (MER): The model was validated in 290 patients with DLBCL who initiated 2nd line therapy after PD to IC. Median age at PD was younger than the SEAL cohort at 62 years (IQR 57-70). Patients with biopsy proven indolent histology at relapse were excluded. Median TTP was 8.2 months (IQR 5.1-17.0). At a median follow-up of 87 months from PD, 201 patients (69%) had died. OS24 was 47% (95% CI: 41-53). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.65), but underestimated OS24 (predicted =33% vs. 47% actual, Figure C). External Validation (LYFO): The model was validated in 599 patients with DLBCL and PD after frontline IC. Median age at PD was 67 years (IQR 60-73). Median TTP was 10.1 months (IQR 6.0-19.4). At a median follow-up of 82 months from PD, 435 patients (73%) had died. OS24 was 38% (95% CI: 34-42). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.67) when applied to the LYFO cohort, but again underestimated OS24 (predicted =32% vs. 38% actual, Figure D). Case vignettes: A 74 year old patient who progressed 9 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 20%. A 58 year old patient who progressed 32 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 65% Conclusions: TTP to following IC is strongly associated with post-progression survival in DLBCL. We developed a model from the largest frontline clinical trial dataset in DLBCL and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the r/r setting. The model allows better understanding of expected outcomes in r/r DLBCL and can aid design and interpretation of trial results in this setting. The model underestimated the actual survival probability when applied to non-trial validation cohorts. Recalibration of the model for transplant eligible patients and development of smartphone based point-of-care application of the model is ongoing. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schmitz:Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Farooq:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Flowers:Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding. Frederiksen:Alexion: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Cunningham:Eli Lilly: Research Funding; 4SC: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding. Jørgensen:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poeschel:Amgen: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Abbvie: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Merli:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses; Janssen: Honoraria. Haioun:novartis: Honoraria; celgene: Honoraria; roche: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; takeda: Consultancy; janssen cilag: Consultancy; amgen: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria. Tilly:roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; servier: Honoraria; merck: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Salles:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.