Muñoz, Javier

Background and Significance Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and other LBCLs account for 35-40% of non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases in North America, Europe, and East Asia. Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), typically administered for 6 cycles, is the standard therapy for DLBCL and is curative in ~60-70% of patients (pts). However, 30-40% of pts have relapsed/refractory (RR) DLBCL following treatment with R-CHOP, with poor clinical outcomes. International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 are used to identify high-risk (HR) pts who are more likely to be RR following treatment. Additionally, pts with IPI scores of 1-2 who also have bulky disease and/or very high lactate dehydrogenase levels (LDH), have been identified as a HR subset with similar outcomes to pts with an IPI score of 3 (Maurer et al. ASH 2023, #4512). First-line therapy represents the greatest opportunity to address the unmet need for these pts. Golcadomide (GOLCA) is a potential first-in-class oral cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD™) agent purposefully designed for the treatment of lymphoma. GOLCA co-opts cereblon to induce targeted degradation of the transcription factors Ikaros/Aiolos, inducing deep, rapid, and extensive tumor killing, independent of cell of origin, and enhanced immunostimulatory activity. In the phase 1b study CC-220-DLBCL-001, GOLCA combined with R-CHOP was well tolerated, showing promising activity and combinability with high rates of durable responses irrespective of cell of origin in pts with previously untreated aggressive BCL, including those with HR disease (Hoffmann et al. EHA 2024, S235). Additionally, GOLCA has shown encouraging efficacy and safety profiles in pts with RR DLBCL, both as a monotherapy (Michot et al. ICML 2023, P90) and in combination with rituximab (Chavez et al. ASH 2023, P4496). The efficacy and safety data observed in early-phase studies suggest promising activity and a manageable safety profile. This supports further investigation of the GOLCA + R-CHOP combination in the phase 3 setting. Here, we present the study design of GOLSEEK-1, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (NCT06356129) comparing the efficacy and safety of GOLCA + R-CHOP vs placebo + R-CHOP in pts with previously untreated HR LBCL. Study Design and Methods Approximately 850 pts with previously untreated LBCL will be randomized 1:1 to either GOLCA + R-CHOP or placebo + R-CHOP. Pts must have a histologically confirmed diagnosis of LBCL according to WHO 2022 classification, including: DLBCL, not otherwise specified (NOS) including ABC and GCB subtypes; high-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 rearrangements, or NOS; T-cell/histiocyte-rich LBCL; Epstein-Barr Virus-Positive DLBCL. Other key inclusion criteria include an IPI score of 1 or 2 considered HR (LDH > 1.3 × upper limit of normal and/or bulky disease, defined as a single lesion of ≥ 7 cm [Maurer et al. ASH 2023, #4512]), or IPI score ≥ 3; and measurable disease as defined by the Lugano classification. Key exclusion criteria include other lymphoma subtypes such as primary mediastinal LBCL; primary cutaneous DLBCL-leg type, grade 3b follicular lymphoma (FL); transformed indolent lymphoma; anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive LBCL; primary effusion lymphoma; and Burkitt lymphoma, as well as documented or suspected central nervous system involvement. Randomization will be stratified by IPI score (1-2 with risk factors and 3 vs 4-5) and bulky disease (> 7 cm vs ≤ 7 cm). After a screening period of ≤ 4 weeks, pts will receive GOLCA (0.4 mg) or placebo orally once daily for 7 consecutive days in each of 6 cycles in combination with R-CHOP in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint of this study is progression-free survival (PFS) in untreated HR LBCL, assessed by investigator based on the Lugano Response Criteria. Key secondary endpoints include PFS in untreated non-high-grade BCL, event-free survival in pts with untreated HR LBCL, independently assessed complete metabolic response rate, undetectable minimal residual disease by PhasED-Seq (defined as undetectable circulating tumor DNA levels at treatment end), and overall survival. Patient follow-up will occur for up to approximately 67 months after beginning treatment. This study is recruiting at 293 sites in 37 countries, across the United States, Europe, Latin America, and East Asia.

Background Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is more common in males, with a male to female ratio of approximately 3:1. However, it is unclear whether disease characteristics and survival outcomes differ by sex. Additionally, the impact of race and ethnicity in MCL is understudied due to underrepresentation of minorities in clinical studies and trials. In this study, we utilized the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to examine patient and disease characteristics and survival outcomes of MCL by sex, race and ethnicity. Methods Patients diagnosed with MCL in 2004-2020 were identified from NCDB. Patient and disease characteristics were compared between groups using Chi-squared tests. Overall survival (OS) analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results A total of 35,135 patients was included. The median follow-up was 83.0 months (95% CI 81.9-84.1). 24,980 (71.1%) patients were male and 10,155 (28.9%) were female. Females had more elderly (age ≥65: 65.9% vs 59.0%; p<0.001), lower Charlson-Deyo Score (CDS ≥2: 7.0% vs 8.6%; p<0.001) and fewer stage III-IV diagnoses (80.5% vs 82.6%; p<0.001). Females were less likely to receive upfront treatment (80.7% vs 85.3%; p<0.001), treatment at academic centers (36.8% vs 40.9%; p<0.001) or transplant (11.0% vs 13.7%; p<0.001). Compared to males, females were more likely to live in metropolitan areas (83.7% vs 81.6%; p<0.001), had similar incomes, had more Medicare (60.4% vs 53.1%) and fewer private insurance (33.2% vs 38.6%; p<0.001). Female patients had better OS, with a median OS of 76.0 (95% CI 72.4-79.6) vs 67.8 months (95% CI 65.9-69.6; p<0.001). In the multivariable Cox model adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, CDS, stage, upfront treatment (vs surveillance or no treatment), facility (academic vs nonacademic), transplant, residence (metropolitan vs urban or rural) and insurance, female sex remained associated with superior OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.793-0.890; p<0.001). For race, 32,399 (92.2%) patients were White, 1,465 (4.2%) were Black, 942 (2.7%) were others and 329 (0.9%) were unknown. Compared to White patients, Black patients had fewer elderly (52.9% vs 61.7%; p<0.001), higher CDS (≥2: 11.4% vs 7.9%; p<0.001), similar stage III-IV (80.7% vs 82.1%; p=0.276) and upfront treatment (84.7% vs 84.0%; p=0.074), were more likely to be treated at academic centers (50.6% vs 38.9%; p<0.001), were less likely to receive transplant (11.1% vs 13.0%; p=0.042), were more likely to live in metropolitan areas (91.0% vs 81.5%; p<0.001), had lower income, had more uninsured (4.4% vs 2.0%) and Medicaid (9.8% vs 3.7%) and fewer Medicare (47.4% vs 56.0%; p<0.001). Black and White patients had similar OS, with a median of 67.9 (95% CI 57.5-78.2) vs 69.6 months (95% CI 67.8 vs 71.3; p=0.697). In the multivariable Cox model, Black vs White race was not associated with OS (HR 1.086, 95% CI 0.952-1.240; p=0.219). For ethnicity, 31,717 (90.3%) patients were non-Hispanic, 1,894 (5.4%) were Hispanic and 1,534 (4.3%) were unknown. Hispanics had fewer elderly (51.3% vs 61.5%; p<0.001), lower CDS (≥2: 6.4% vs 8.2%; p=0.018), similar stage III-IV (81.2% vs 82.1%; p=0.467), were more likely to receive upfront treatment (86.0% vs 83.9%; p<0.001), more likely to be treated at academic centers (49.9% vs 39.5%; p<0.001), equally likely to receive transplant (13.0% vs 13.1%; p=0.943), more likely to live in metropolitan areas (95.4% vs 81.6%; p<0.001), had lower income, had more uninsured (9.6% vs 1.8%) and Medicaid (15.2% vs 9.6%) and fewer Medicare (40.3% vs 55.9%; p<0.001). Hispanics had better OS, with a median OS of 84.4 (95% CI 71.7-97.1) vs 70.5 months (95% CI 68.7-72.2; p<0.001). However, in the multivariable Cox model, Hispanic ethnicity was not associated with OS (HR 0.952, 95% CI 0.839-1.080; p=0.448). Conclusion This study is the first of its scale to demonstrate that female MCL patients have superior survival outcomes compared to males. It also demonstrated that neither Black race nor Hispanic ethnicity appears to be associated with worse survival outcomes. Despite its size, the NCDB is limited in the treatment information and disease characteristics it provides, including MIPI score, Ki-67, blastoid/pleomorphic morphology, and TP53 status. Thus, additional real-world dataset studies are needed to gain a deeper understanding of potential differences in sex, race and ethnicity with regards to disease characteristics and survival outcomes.

Introduction: Epcoritamab (Epcor) is a novel subcutaneous CD3xCD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) that is currently approved as monotherapy for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma after ≥2 systemic therapies. The combination of Epcor with standard treatment regimens has been shown to be safe and efficacious; Epcor in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Epcor+GemOx) has provided deep and durable responses with favorable survival outcomes in a transplant-ineligible R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patient (pt) population, of which 99% were from the US and Europe (EPCORE NHL-2; NCT04663347). Another CD3xCD20 bsAb, intravenous glofitamab, has been studied in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Glofi+GemOx) in the randomized STARGLO trial (NCT04408638) and demonstrated benefit over rituximab plus GemOx (R-GemOx), despite not demonstrating superiority over R-GemOx in patients from the US and Europe. In the absence of head-to-head data, this study used matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) to assess the comparative efficacy of Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx and vs Glofi+GemOx. Methods: Individual pt-level data from EPCORE NHL-2 arm 5 and aggregated data from pts in each of the STARGLO arms were used to conduct an MAIC. Logistic propensity score models were used to weight Epcor+GemOx-treated pts to create matched cohorts with the R-GemOx and Glofi+GemOx arms separately. Weighting was conducted based on the distribution of baseline characteristics and prognostic factors such as age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, previous therapies, and primary refractory status. Overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx, and vs Glofi+GemOx. Results: A total of 103 pts treated with Epcor+GemOx (median follow-up: 13.2 months) were compared to 91 pts treated with R-GemOx and 183 pts treated with Glofi+GemOx (median follow-up: 20.7 months), although differences in median follow-up time limited comparisons of longer-term survival outcomes. Match-adjustment mitigated differences in baseline characteristics across the 3 cohorts. After adjustment, Epcor+GemOx demonstrated a significant 44.8% advantage in ORR over R-GemOx (85.4% vs 40.7%), with a 110% increase in the likelihood of achieving a response (odds ratio [OR] 2.1; 95% CI 1.6-2.8; P<0.0001). Epcor+GemOx also demonstrated a significant 43.2% advantage in CR rate over R-GemOx (68.5% vs 25.3%), with a 170% increase in the likelihood of achieving a CR (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.8-4.1; P<0.0001). With the current follow-up, Epcor+GemOx demonstrated superior PFS vs R-GemOx (hazard ratio [HR] 0.37; 95% CI 0.22-0.63; P<0.001), corresponding to a 63% reduction in the risk of progression. Median OS was not reached [NR] for Epcor+GemOx vs 13.9 months for R-GemOx, corresponding to a 43% reduction in the risk of mortality (HR 0.57 [95% CI 0.33-0.98]; P=0.04). After adjustment, Epcor+GemOx demonstrated a significant 15% advantage in ORR over Glofi+GemOx (83.3% vs 68.3%), with a 20% increase in the likelihood of achieving a response (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.0-1.4; P=0.021). Epcor+GemOx demonstrated a trend toward higher CR rate than Glofi+GemOx (66.8% vs 58.5%; OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.90-1.5; P=0.277). Adjusted median PFS and OS for Epcor+GemOx, with limited follow-up and substantial censoring, was 12.9 months and NR, respectively. For Glofi+GemOx with longer follow-up, PFS and OS were 13.8 months and 25.6 months, respectively. Conclusions: Results show significantly superior efficacy for all outcomes with Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx from STARGLO. Epcor+GemOx also provided superior ORR and a trend toward higher CR rates vs Glofi+GemOx, indicating potential for better long-term efficacy outcomes. The Epcor+GemOx survival data are still maturing given shorter follow-up time, preventing a robust comparison of survival vs Glofi+GemOx. Findings support the efficacy of Epcor+GemOx as an alternative therapeutic regimen in transplant-ineligible patients with R/R DLBCL.

Introduction: Epcoritamab, a novel subcutaneously administered CD3xCD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) being developed as a core therapy across several lymphoma subtypes, is currently approved for the treatment of adults with different types of R/R LBCL after ≥2 systemic therapies. The combination of epcoritamab with standard treatments has been shown to be safe and efficacious; epcoritamab in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Epcor+GemOx) has provided deep and durable responses with favorable survival benefits in a transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL study population, of which 99% was from the United States and Europe (EPCORE NHL-2; NCT04663347). The rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) regimen has been a widely used treatment for patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for transplant, albeit with suboptimal efficacy outcomes. In the absence of direct comparisons of these regimens, this study assessed the comparative efficacy of Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx in patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for transplant. Methods: Individual patient-level data (IPD) from EPCORE NHL-2 arm 5 were compared to 2 sources of clinical practice data for patients with R/R DLBCL treated with R-GemOx: published data from Cazalles et al (2021) and IPD from the US-based COTA electronic health record database. The Cazalles study reports the results of a large retrospective analysis of patients with R/R DLBCL treated in 2 academic centers in France. The COTA database includes de-identified IPD with demographic and clinical information from numerous academic and community clinical sites in the US. For the comparison to Cazalles, logistic propensity score models were used to weight the Epcor+GemOx cohort to create match-adjusted distributions of baseline characteristics with the R-GemOx cohort in Cazalles. For the comparison to COTA, inverse probability of treatment weighting was employed to balance covariates between the Epcor+GemOx and R-GemOx cohorts. Analyses were restricted to chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T)-naive patients from EPCORE NHL-2, as the comparator cohorts did not include patients treated with CAR T. Overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared for Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx. Results: A total of 74 patients treated with Epcor+GemOx (median follow-up: 13.2 months) were compared to 196 R-GemOx-treated patients from Cazalles et al (median follow-up: 22 months). After match-adjustment, Epcor+GemOx (ORR 86.8%) demonstrated significantly higher ORR, corresponding to a 48.5% advantage over R-GemOx (ORR 38.3%) with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.3 (95% CI 1.8-2.9; P<0.0001). Adjusted CR rate was also significantly higher with Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx (71.2% vs 32.7%; 38.6% difference; OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.6-3.0]; P<0.0001). Median PFS was significantly longer with Epcor+GemOx (26.7 months) vs R-GemOx (4.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.38 [95% CI 0.22-0.67]; P<0.001). Median OS was not reached (NR) for Epcor+GemOx vs 10.0 months with R-GemOx (HR 0.54 [95% CI 0.29-1.0]; P=0.05), corresponding overall to a 62% reduction in the risk of a progression event and a 46% reduction in the risk of mortality with Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx. A total of 72 patients were treated with R-GemOx in COTA (median follow-up: 7.5 months) and compared to 74 Epcor+GemOx patients. After adjustment, ORR was significantly higher with Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx (88.5% vs 35.6%; OR 2.5 [95% CI 1.8-3.4]; P<0.0001). Adjusted CR rate was also significantly higher with Epcor+GemOx (63.9% vs 10.2%; OR 6.3 [95% CI 3.1-12.7]; P<0.0001). Adjusted median PFS was significantly longer with Epcor+GemOx (11.2 months) vs R-GemOx (2.4 months; HR 0.23 [95% CI 0.15-0.36]; P<0.0001). Adjusted median OS was also significantly longer with Epcor+GemOx (21.6 vs 8.3 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.30-0.74]; P=0.002), corresponding overall to a 77% reduction in the risk of a progression event and a 53% reduction in the risk of mortality with Epcor+GemOx vs R-GemOx. Conclusions: In this indirect treatment comparison analysis,Epcor+GemOx provided significantly superior efficacy benefits in terms of ORR, CR, PFS, and OS vs standard-of-care R-GemOx. While subject to the limitations of comparisons outside of controlled trials, findings indicate the compelling efficacy of Epcor+GemOx as a novel therapeutic option for transplant-ineligible patients with R/R DLBCL.

Background: Despite effective front-line therapies, DLBCL & MM have high relapse rates. Novel therapies like CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) offer deep & durable remission compared to salvage therapies, but have a unique toxicity profile (TP) that requires monitoring. With no head-to-head trials, the rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing preferences, & access barriers. Methods: Two anonymous surveys (MM and DLBCL) of US-based Hematologists were conducted from 2/2024 to 6/2024, on practice settings, CAR-T & BsAb availability, treatment preferences & barriers. Responses were analyzed to assess preferences across clinical scenarios. Results: Surveys were completed by 37 MM & 45 DLBCL providers. Most were at centers offering both CAR-T & BsAb. Most gave CAR-T inpatient, & BsAb outpatient. CAR-T was given by 73% MM providers & 66% DLBCL (92% used Cilta-cel, 96% used Ide-cel; 100% used Axi-cel, 90% used Liso-cel & 73% Tisa-cel). In MM, 78% used Teclistamab, 60% Talquetamab & 24% Elranatamab. In DLBCL, 62% used Epcoritamab & 40% Glofitamab. Providers preferred CAR-T over BsAb in MM after 4+ prior lines of therapy (LOT) (89%), & in DLBCL after 2+ prior LOT (93%). CAR-T was favored more among academic providers & those at CAR-T centers. Practice volume did not impact selection. Among providers at centers with BsAb-only, CAR-T was preferred by 60% (MM) and 50% (DLBCL). Providers at centers without both favored CAR-T (MM: 75%, DLBCL: 86%). CAR-T was chosen for better outcomes, short treatment, center choice, & prior experience. Other factors that influenced decisions were lower incidence of cytopenia/infection & “BsAb effective post-CAR-T, less so vice versa” (MM), & “curative potential of CAR-T” (DLBCL). Logistical barriers & institutional constraints influenced BsAb selection: CAR-T unavailability, access to specialized centers, referral complexity, insurance delay, manufacturing delay & hospitalization needs. In MM, 78% providers preferred Cilta-cel over Ide-cel, especially academic providers & those with CAR-T experience. CAR-T volume did not impact selection. Cilta-cel was preferred due to perceived better response rate (RR), more experience, “progression-free survival (PFS) benefit”, center choice, & logistical issues with Ide-cel. Ide-cel was selected due to center choice, favorable TP & insurance preference. Teclistamab was preferred by 78% due to more experience, better RR, TP & center choice, Elranatamab by 11% (better TP, RR, & “PFS”), & Talquetamab by 11% due to having a non-BCMA target. Academic providers preferred Teclistamab (89% vs 50%), & nonacademic providers preferred Talquetamab (38% vs 4%) and Elranatamab (13% vs 8%). In DLBCL after 2+ LOT, 69% favored Axi-cel due to prior experience, RR, center choice, & logistical issues with other products. Liso-cel & Tisa-cel were chosen by 27% & 2%, respectively, due to favorable TP. Axi-cel was also preferred 2nd line by 73% for similar reasons, while 24% favored Liso-cel for its favorable TP. Epcoritamab was preferred by 56% (subcutaneous injection, more experience & center choice) & Glofitamab by 42% (shorter treatment duration, easy administration, more experience, & center choice). Practice setting & volume did not impact selection between products in DLBCL. InBCMA-naïve MM pts, majority (97%) chose an anti-BCMA agent over GPRC5D due to better RR, TP, prior experience, & center choice. InBCMA-exposed pts, most (92%) favored an anti-GPRC5D agent. In contrast in DLBCL, 80% chose CD19 CAR-T after prior CD19-directed therapy, & 18% chose CD20 BsAb. Therefore, antigen escape was less of a concern in DLBCL vs MM. For relapse after 2nd line CAR-T in DLBCL, 78% preferred BsAb over other salvage options due to better RR, TP, & more experience. Providers prioritized RR, survival, & TP in decision making. Treatment logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less crucial. MM providers also prioritized quality of life, which was less so in DLBCL. There were no differences in priority based on practice setting & experience with CAR-T. Conclusion: The study highlights factors influencing therapy choices in MM & DLBCL. Despite CAR-T's potential for better outcomes, significant access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expanding availability are crucial to improve outcomes. Understanding these preferences & barriers can guide future management strategies.

Abstract Background Hypomagnesemia has been correlated with inferior outcomes in patients with large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) undergoing stem cell transplants. As T-cell and myeloid cell dysfunction have been associated with low magnesium conditions, we investigated whether serum magnesium (Mg) levels could predict clinical outcomes in LBCL patients who received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Methods Patients with LBCL who received axi-cel under the ZUMA-1 trial or as FDA approved therapy at Mayo Clinic were examined. Serum samples were obtained at specified time points and cytokine analysis was performed. Single cell RNA sequencing was performed on peripheral blood mononuclear cells. The Student T-test, Kruskal Wallis, or Fisher's Exact Tests were used to compare differences in demographics across Mg levels. Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier methodology and compared using the Wilcoxon test. Results We found that hypomagnesemia before lymphodepletion chemotherapy predicted for inferior progression-free and overall survival in the pivotal study ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216). These results were validated in an independent cohort of LBCL patients receiving axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) at Mayo Clinic. Hypomagnesemia correlated with increased inflammatory serum markers and cytokine levels including ferritin, IL-6, IL1Ra, IL-8, and MIP1a. scRNAseq analysis unveiled altered immune interactions between monocytes and T cells with a concordant immune suppressive transcriptome. Conclusions Hypomagnesemia at the time of CAR-T infusion associates with an unfavorable inflammatory profile and decreased response and survival in LBCL patients receiving axi-cel. These findings suggest a potentially actionable prognostic factor for patients with large cell lymphoma undergoing CAR-T.

PURPOSE Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that is approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Little is known about the long-term survivorship after CAR T-cell therapy. METHODS We previously reported the results of 298 patients who were leukapheresed with the intent to receive standard-of-care axi-cel (n = 275 infused) after two or more previous lines of therapy at a median follow-up of 12.9 months. Here, we report extended follow-up of this cohort to a median of 58 months, with a focus on late survivorship events. RESULTS Among axi-cel–infused patients, progression-free survival at 5 years was 29% and overall survival (OS) at 5 years was 40%. The 5-year lymphoma-specific survival was 53% with infrequent late relapses. However, the 5-year nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 16.2%, with over half of NRM events occurring beyond 2 years. Patients who were 60 years and older had a lower risk of relapse ( P = .02), but a higher risk of NRM compared with patients younger than 60 years (NRM odds ratio, 4.5 [95% CI, 2.1 to 10.8]; P < .001). Late NRM was mainly due to infections and subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs). In total, SMNs occurred in 24 patients (9%), including therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (n = 15), solid tumors (n = 7), and unrelated lymphoid malignancies (n = 2). CONCLUSION In the standard-of-care setting, axi-cel exhibits outcomes consistent with those reported in clinical trials, with sustained, durable responses observed at the 5-year time point. However, late infections and the development of SMN are key survivorship issues that reduce long-term survival after CAR T-cell therapy, particularly in the elderly.

Abstract Unirradiated patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who undergo anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) have a predominant localized pattern of relapse, the significance of which is heightened in individuals with limited/localized disease before CART. This study reports on the outcomes of patients with R/R NHL and limited (&lt;5 involved sites) disease bridged with or without radiotherapy. A multicenter retrospective review of 150 patients with R/R NHL who received CART with &lt;5 disease sites before leukapheresis was performed. Bridging treatment, if any, was administered between leukapheresis and CART infusion. Study end points included relapse-free survival (RFS), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival. Before CART infusion, 48 patients (32%) received bridging radiotherapy (BRT), and 102 (68%) did not. The median follow-up was 21 months. After CART infusion, BRT patients had higher objective response (92% vs 78%; P = .046) and sustained complete response rates (54% vs 33%; P = .015). Local relapse in sites present before CART was lower in the BRT group (21% vs 46%; P = .003). BRT patients had improved 2-year RFS (53% vs 44%; P = .023) and 2-year EFS (37% vs 34%; P = .039) compared with patients who did not receive BRT. The impact of BRT was most prominent in patients who had ≤2 pre-CART involved disease sites, with 2-year RFS of 62% in patients who received BRT compared with 42% in those who did not (P = .002). BRT before CART for patients with limited (&lt;5 involved disease sites) R/R NHL improves response rate, local control, RFS, and EFS without causing significant toxicities.

7006 Background: Rituximab maintenance (RM) after first-line (1L) bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in MCL did not improve progression-free survival in the MAINTAIN trial (Rummel et al, ASCO 2016) but was associated with improved survival outcomes in a North American observational study (Martin et al, JCO 2023). We sought to examine the potential benefit of RM after BR using a large observational cohort from 26 US academic centers. Methods: Patients with MCL who received 1L BR (without stem cell transplant) outside of clinical trials were included. At the landmark of 3 months after the end of BR, patients who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to BR and had no evidence of progressive disease (PD) or second-line (2L) therapy were deemed eligible for RM. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from landmark to progression, relapse, retreatment, or death. EFS2 was defined as time from landmark to progression, relapse, or retreatment following 2L therapy or death. RM was not considered a line of therapy for either endpoint. OS was defined as time from landmark to death. Survival analysis was done with Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models adjusting for sex and simplified MIPI. Results: Among 796 patients who received 1L BR in 2007-2020, 693 achieved a CR or PR. At the 3-month post-BR landmark, 613 had no evidence of PD, among whom 318 (52%) received RM and 295 did not. The RM group was younger (median age 70 vs 72, p = 0.010) and more predominantly male (78% vs 69%, p = 0.047). There was no statistical difference in stage, simplified MIPI, histology (blastoid or pleomorphic vs classic), Ki-67, TP53 alteration, complex karyotype, year of BR start, or best response to BR between the two groups. The median follow-up after the 3-month post-BR landmark was 61.3 months (95% CI 62.6-70.4). The median number of doses of RM was 10 (IQR 5-12). RM was associated with improved EFS (median 47.1 vs 29.7 months, adjusted HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.73), EFS2 (median 89.1 vs 48.3 months, adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50-0.81), and OS (median 136.1 vs 74.3 months, adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.75) (all p values < 0.001). In patients with CR to 1L BR (n=527), 271 (51%) received RM, for a median of 11 (IQR 6-12) doses. In this subgroup, RM was associated with improved EFS (median 60.6 vs 31.5 months, adjusted HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.71), EFS2 (median 89.1 vs 48.3 months, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48-0.81), and OS (median 136.1 vs 75.6 months, adjusted HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.79) (all p values < 0.001). Analysis in patients with PR to 1L BR was limited by the sample size (n=86, 47 received RM). The numeric differences in median EFS (20.8 vs 11.5, log-rank p = 0.370), EFS2 (48.9 vs 30.3, log-rank p = 0.210) and OS (87.3 vs 46.9, log-rank p = 0.067) were not statistically significant. Conclusions: In this large multicenter study, RM after 1L BR was associated with improved EFS and OS, supporting its use in routine practice for patients with newly diagnosed MCL.