Larsen, Thomas Stauffer

ABSTRACTThe development of new first‐line treatments for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) is becoming increasingly challenging due to already excellent survival outcomes. The present study investigated the outcomes of patients with FL who underwent contemporary first‐line therapies but would not have been eligible for inclusion in recent trials and explored how commonly used in/exclusion criteria impacted their survival outcomes. This study included adult patients diagnosed with FL in the period 2000–2018 registered in the Danish Lymphoma Registry. Through searches on ClinicalTrials.gov, four recent 1st line phase 3 randomized controlled trials with R‐Bendamustine, R‐CVP, and/or R‐CHOP as control or experimental arms were included. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for each trial were retrieved and categorized. Patients were then divided into trial‐eligible and ineligible groups according to blood test results correlated to organ function and ECOG performance score (PS). Survival outcomes were significantly worse among trial‐ineligible patients, with adjusted differences between trial‐eligible and ineligible patients of 12%–20% in five‐year overall survival (OS) overall. Inclusion criteria based on PS and renal function were the main drivers of OS differences. More inclusive trials will lead to faster recruitment and secure focus on developing medicines for the group of patients with the worst outcomes.

Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) after frontline immunochemotherapy (IC) is an important endpoint in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 have similar survival compared to age- and sex-matched general population. The role of EFS24 in predicting subsequent survival has not been established in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), possibly due to perceived poor survival historically. In the last decade, the outcomes of MCL are improving in the evolving treatment landscape. In this international multicenter study, we investigated conditional survival and cause of death in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC in the older and more recent eras. Methods: Outcomes after frontline IC were evaluated in 5 independent cohorts that included over 3000 patients in total: Mayo/Iowa MER prospective cohort, BC Cancer retrospective population-based cohort, US 12-center retrospective cohort, Swedish Lymphoma Registry, and Danish National Lymphoma Registry. For each cohort, 2 treatment eras were defined based on cohort-specific shifts in treatment patterns (Table 1). Overall survival (OS) after diagnosis and after achieving EFS24 were compared to the background age- and sex-matched general population using a standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Cumulative incidences of cause-specific deaths were analyzed using a competing risk model. Results: In the MER cohort, patients treated in Era M1 (2002-2009; n=147) and Era M2 (2010-2015; n=153) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population. A lower SMR in Era M2 vs M1 (2.25 vs 3.46) suggests a narrower gap in OS compared to the general US population. Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. In Era M1, patients who achieved EFS24 still had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR=2.40, 95% CI 1.76-3.19), and lymphoma remained the leading cause of death. For patients in Era M2 who achieved EFS24, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was not statistically significant with current follow-up (SMR=1.43, 95% CI 0.93-2.09), and lymphoma was no longer the leading cause of death (Table 2). In the BC cohort, patients treated in Era B2 (6/2013-2019; n=188) vs Era B1 (2003-5/2013; n=250) had a narrower gap in OS compared to the general British Columbia population (SMR 4.53 vs 6.69). Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. For patients achieving EFS24, the gap in OS was narrower in Era B2 vs B1 (SMR 3.56 vs 4.99). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the single leading cause of death for patients in Era B1 but not in Era B2 (Table 2). In the US 12-center cohort, patients treated in Era U1 (2002-2011; n=312) and Era U2 (2012-2016; n=417) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR 2.68 and 2.92, respectively). In patients who achieved EFS24, with current follow up, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was statistically significant in Era U1 (SMR=2.01, 95% CI 1.50-2.64) but not in Era U2 (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 0.82-2.34). Lymphoma was not the leading cause of death after achieving EFS24 (Table 2). In the Swedish cohort, the gap in OS compared to the general Swedish population was narrower in Era S2 (2013-2018; n=439) vs S1 (2006-2012; n=442), both after frontline IC (SMR 4.8 vs 5.4) and after achieving EFS24 (SMR 2.6 vs 3.4). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the leading cause of death for patients in Era S1 but not in Era S2 (Table 2). In the Danish cohort, patients treated in Era D2 (2014-2020; n=370) vs Era D1 (2004-2013; n=461) had a slightly narrower gap in OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR 1.90 vs 2.10). For patients who achieved EFS24, those in Era D1 still had inferior OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.68), but the OS difference compared to the general Danish population in Era D2 was not statistically significant (SMR=1.27, 95% CI 0.92-1.72) with current follow-up (Table 2). Cause of death data were not available in this cohort. Conclusion: Survival in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC improved in the more recent treatment era and moved closer to the background expected survival. After achieving EFS24, lymphoma-related mortality was no longer the leading cause of death in the more recent era. EFS24 following frontline treatment may become a critical endpoint for predicting subsequent outcomes in patients with MCL in the modern era.

Abstract Background: Generalizability of results from clinical trials with narrow in-/exclusion criteria are a concern as significant deviations in efficacy or toxicity may occur when treatments are used in populations of elderly and more comorbid patients. The cost-effectiveness of novel therapies may also be less favorable if real-world treatment effects are inferior to clinical trial results. In diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), a recent US study showed that baseline organ function-based eligibility criteria had substantial impact on survival with ineligible patients being at higher risk of dying from progressive lymphoma (1). Aims: The present study explored the impact of commonly used in-/exclusion criteria in key completed and ongoing first line DLBCL trials on survival in a Danish population-based study of patients with de novo DLBCL. Patients and methods: DLBCL patients enrolled in the Danish Lymphoma Registry (LYFO) and treated with R-CHOP in the period 2008-19 were screened for completeness of data to match trial eligibility criteria. The key organ/hematology eligibility criteria of completed or ongoing all-comers DLBCL studies (REMoDL-B, Goya, Polarix and Hovon84) were collected (bilirubin, ALAT, creatinine, eGFR, leucocytes, neutrophils, thrombocytes and ECOG). First, high-level trial matching on disease risk group (Ann Arbor, bulky disease, international prognostic index (IPI)) and age-groups were performed so that patients assessed for trial eligibility had a relevant risk profile. Subsequently, patients were divided into eligible or ineligible based on selected in/exclusion criteria. For each trial, overall survival (OS) from treatment start were compared for eligible and ineligible patients using inverse probability of treatment weighted Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. Crude OS and OS adjusted for residual imbalances in IPI and age were estimated. When possible, the OS curves from standard arms of the original trials were superimposed on OS plots. For each trial, the Shapley value of each criterion was calculated, using the HRs as well as the 5y restricted loss of lifetimes (RLOLs). The Shapley value measures the average influence of each eligibility criterion on the estimated IPI- and age-adjusted HR/5y RLOL. Results: A total of 3,150 R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients without discordant low-grade lymphoma were identified in the surveyed period. A total of 1,666 patients (52.89% of surveyed population) were available for the REMoDL-B trial, 1,431 (45.43%) for Goya, 1,125 (35.71%) for Polarix, and 1,432 (45.46%) for Hovon84. The variations of numbers for each trial evaluation were explained by trial inclusion criteria and missing data in LYFO. Crude OS estimates for patients with and without all necessary information were similar (data not shown). OS curves for eligible and ineligible patients are shown in Figure 1 and, when possible, with superimposed trial results (Goya, REMoDL-B, Hovon84). Survival differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients were robust to further adjustment of imbalances in age and IPI. Associated crude and adjusted 2 and 5-year OS rates for trial eligible and ineligible are shown in Table 1. The largest numerical difference in 2-year crude OS between eligible and ineligible was observed in the REMoDL-B trial (ineligible had 26% lower 2-year OS rate). The largest numerical difference in 2-year OS adjusted for IPI and age between eligible and ineligible was observed for the Polarix trial (ineligible had 17% lower 2-year OS rate). The strongest drivers of OS differences between trial eligible and ineligible patients in terms of the tested eligibility criteria were thrombocyte count (HR-contribution calculated from Shapley values -0.11; -0.14) and ECOG (HR-contribution -0.09; -0.21). Liver function parameters (bilirubin and ALAT) had low impact on OS (HR-contribution 0.00; -0.05 and 0.00; 0.07). Conclusions: The present population-based study confirms that trial ineligible patients have worse survival even after adjustments in imbalances in age and disease risk category. Thus, trial eligibility criteria have substantial impact on generalizability of results to a wider unselected population. Interestingly, the trial eligible patients identified in the present study had very similar outcomes to R-CHOP treated patients in the original trials supporting the possible use of RWD as synthetic control arms. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jørgensen: Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Larsen: BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Odense University Hospital, Denmark: Current Employment; Gilead: Consultancy. Clausen: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poulsen: Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

7520 Background: We report results of a phase 2, open-label study of durvalumab (durva) in combination with R-CHOP or R2-CHOP (R-CHOP + lenalidomide) in previously untreated, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: Subjects (≥18 y; ECOG 0–2) with previously untreated, high/high-intermediate risk DLBCL (IPI ≥3/NCCN-IPI ≥4) were stratified to durva + R-CHOP (Arm A, GCB DLBCL) or R2-CHOP for 6–8 cycles (Arm B, ABC DLBCL) based on cell of origin identified by gene expression followed by durva consolidation up to month 12 from start of induction. After FDA placed clinical holds on trials including combination therapy with checkpoint inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents, the study was revised to include both ABC and GCB in Arm A (durva + R-CHOP). The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CRR) at end of induction; secondary endpoints were rate of subjects continuing to consolidation, safety, and response in biological. Results: A total of 46 subjects were treated (safety; A/B, n=43/3); median age, 62/66 y; male, 61%/67%; ECOG 2, 19%/33%; Ann Arbor stage IV, 79%/33%; bulky disease: 49%/67%; double/triple-hit lymphoma, 30%/33%. As of Aug 2, 2018, 30/3 (A/B) had completed induction therapy, and 19 subjects (A) were ongoing. CRR (95% confidence interval) at end of induction was (A) 54% (37%-71%) and (B) 67% (9%-99%); 68%/67% (A/B) continued to consolidation therapy and were progression free at month 12. Safety profile was as expected for the components of the combination regimen with no new safety signal identified. Frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; ≥25%; A+B) included fatigue (61%), neutropenia (52%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (50%), nausea (46%), diarrhea (28%); constipation, decreased appetite, insomnia, pyrexia (24% each); and alopecia, dizziness, dyspnea, headache, stomatitis (22% each). Grade 3/4 TEAEs occurred in 84%/100% of subjects (A/B), and 3 subjects (2/1) died with no death related to study treatment. Follow-up for efficacy and safety is ongoing. Conclusions: Durva + R-CHOP combination therapy is safe and demonstrates encouraging response rates in subjects with high-risk DLBCL including double-hit lymphoma. Clinical trial information: NCT03003520.

Abstract Background: Secondary CNS involvement (SCNS) is a detrimental complication seen in ~5% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with modern immunochemotherapy. Data from older series report short survival following SCNS, typically <6 months. However, data in patients that develop SCNS following primary therapy that contains a rituximab-based-regimen as well as the impact of more intensified treatment for SCNS are limited. Aims: The aims of this study were to i) describe the natural history of SCNS in a large cohort of patients treated with immunochemotherapy, and ii) determine prognostic factors after SCNS. Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients diagnosed with SCNS during or after frontline immunochemotherapy (R-CHOP or equivalently effective regimens). SCNS was defined as new involvement of the CNS (parenchymal, leptomeningeal, and/or eye) in patients without known CNS involvement at the time of first pathologic diagnosis of DLBCL. Patients were identified from local databases and/or regional/national registries in Denmark, Canada (British Columbia), Australia, Israel, US (University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE), and England (Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital, London). Clinico-pathologic and treatment characteristics at the time of SCNS were collected from medical records. Results: In total, 281 patients with SCNS diagnosed between 2001 and 2016 were included. Median age at SCNS was 64 (range 20-93) years and male:female ratio was 1.3. SCNS occurred as part of first relapse in 244 (87%) patients and 112 (40%) had documented concurrent systemic disease at the time of SCNS. The median time from initial DLBCL diagnosis to SCNS was 9 months, which was similar for patients treated with (N=76, 27%) or without upfront CNS prophylaxis (N=205, 73%) (10 vs 9 Mo; P=0.3). The median post-SCNS OS was 4 months (interquartile range 2-13) and the 2yr survival rate was 20% (95% CI 15-25) for the entire cohort. Associations between clinicopathologic features, management strategy, and post-SCNS survival are shown in Table 1, which excludes patients who did not receive any treatment against SCNS, patients treated with steroids alone, and a patient with unavailable treatment information (n=43, 15%). In multivariable analysis, performance status >1, concurrent leptomeningeal and parenchymal involvement, SCNS developing before completion of 1st line treatment, and combined systemic and CNS involvement by DLBCL were associated with inferior outcomes. Upfront CNS prophylaxis did not influence post-SCNS OS. High-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) and/or platinum based treatment regimens (i.e. ICE, DHAP, or GDP [+/- IT treatment and/or radiotherapy], N=163) for SCNS were associated with reduced risk of death (HR 0.45 [0.32-0.62, P<0.01]). The 2yr post-SCNS survival for patients treated with HDMTX and/or platinum-based regimens (N=163) was 29% (95% CI 22-37). For patients with isolated parenchymal SCNS, single modality treatment with radiotherapy resulted in 2-yr OS of 19% (95% CI 8-35). For the subgroup of 49 patients treated with HDMTX- and/or platinum-based regimens for isolated SCNS after 1st line DLBCL treatment and with performance status 0 or 1, the 2yr post-SCNS survival was 46% (95% CI 31-59). Overall, 9% of the patients received HDT with ASCT as part of salvage therapy at the time of SCNS. Amongst 36 SCNS patients without systemic involvement and in CR following intensive treatment (HDMTX and/or platinum-based treatments), 11 patients consolidated with HDT had similar outcomes to 25 patients treated without consolidating HDT (P=0.9, Fig 1) Conclusions: Outcomes for patients with SCNS remain poor in this large international cohort of patients from the immunochemotherapy era. Combined parenchymal and leptomeningeal disease, presence of systemic disease concurrent with SCNS, performance status >1, and SCNS developing during first line treatment were independently associated with inferior OS. However, a significant fraction of patients with isolated SCNS after first line DLBCL treatment and with good performance status may achieve long-term remissions after intensive regimens for SCNS. Disclosures El-Galaly: Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel funding. Cheah:Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Speaker's Bureau. Kansara:Celgene: Honoraria. Connors:Bristol Myers Squib: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Sehn:roche/genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; seattle genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Opat:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Provision of subsidised drugs, Research Funding. Seymour:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Villa:Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding.