Pederson, Levy D.

Abstract Introduction. The peripheral blood absolute lymphocyte (ALC)/monocyte (AMC) ratio (ALC/AMC), as a surrogate of host immunity (i.e. ALC) and tumor microenvironment (i.e. AMC), is a predictive biomarker for clinical outcomes in diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) patients. An ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 has been shown to be predictive of better survival both at baseline and during each therapy cycle in patients treated with R-CHOP [Porrata et al, 2014]. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory drug, effective in DLBCL patients, with various mechanisms of actions on the tumor microenvironment and the host immune response. In this study we analyze the prognostic value of ALC/AMC ratio in a cohort of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients treated with Lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, R2-CHOP) in a phase II trial (MC078E trial, [Nowakowski et al, 2015]). Methods. All patients with de-novo DLBCL enrolled in the phase II trial MC078E and treated at diagnosis with R2-CHOP regimen were included in the analysis. We investigated the ALC/AMC ratio at baseline and each R2-CHOP cycle as predictor of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The ALC/AMC ratio was obtained by dividing the ALC by the AMC from the automated white blood cell differential obtained from the complete blood cell count on day 0 of each treatment cycle (range from day -3 to day 0 of each course). Patients were then divided in 4 groups on the basis of pattern of ALC/AMC ratio during treatment: group A: patients with ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 throughout all cycles; group B: patients with ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 at baseline, but then obtained an ALC/AMC < 1.1 during treatment; group C: patients with ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 at baseline, but then gained an ALC/AMC ≥ 1.1 during treatment; group D: patients with ALC/AMC ratio < 1.1 throughout all cycles. PFS and OS were analyzed in the different groups. We separately conducted the same analysis in a matched control cohort of 94 DLBCL patients from the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Database treated with standard R-CHOP. Results. A total of 63 patients with de-novo DLBCL treated with R2CHOP regimen at diagnosis were included in the analysis. Clinical characteristics were: median age 67 years (22-87), male sex 61.9%, III-IV advance stage 87.3%, elevated LDH serum levels 66.7%, intermediate-high/high International Prognostic index (IPI) score in 54% cases. No differences in 3y-PFS and 3y-OS in patients with ALC/AMC ratio ≥ 1.1 vs ALC/AMC < 1.1 at baseline and at each R2-CHOP course have been observed. In a landmark analysis from day 0 of the last cycle, 3y-PFS in group A vs B vs C vs D was: 71.4% vs 67.1% vs 66.7% vs 85.7%, respectively (p 0.80); 3y-OS in group A vs B vs C vs D was: 85.7% vs 86.5% vs 66.7% vs 100%, respectively (p 0.74). No differences in both 3y-PFS and 3y-OS were observed comparing group A vs B, in group C vs D, and in group A vs D. Unlike what was observed in the R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients, in a univariate analysis ALC/AMC < 1.1 during all cycles of R2CHOP was not a predictor for inferior outcomes (Figure 1.a). In the matched cohort of patients treated with standard R-CHOP, ALC/AMC < 1.1 at baseline and at each course demonstrated to be predictive of worse outcome (p <0.01),survival was significantly different in the 4 groups identified according to ALC/AMC ratio during treatment and ALC/AMC < 1.1 maintained during all cycles of R2CHOP was predictive of worse PFS and OS (Figure 1.b). Conclusions. Lenalidomide in combination with standard R-CHOP (R2-CHOP), in previously untreated DLBCL patients, appears to overcome the negative prognostic value of ALC/AMC ratio observed in patients treated with R-CHOP alone. This could reflect the additional effect of lenalidomide to standard therapy on tumor microenvironment and on host immunity response. Figure 1: Landmark Analysis for Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival by ALC/AMC groups within R2CHOP (1.A) and R-CHOP (1.B). Group A: ALC/AMC >=1.1 for all cycles; Group B: ALC/AMC >=1.1 at baseline and obtained <1.1 during treatment; Group C: ALC/AMC <1.1 at baseline and obtained >=1.1 during treatment; Group D: ALC/AMC <1.1 for all cycles. Disclosures Witzig: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Lenalidomide (Len) in association with standard Rituximab-CHOP (R2CHOP21) has been shown to be safe and effective in newly diagnosed Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphomas (DLBCL) [Nowakowski et al. JCO 2014, Vitolo et al. Lancet Oncol 2014]. The addition of lenalidomide appears to benefit primarily patients with non-Germinal Center B-cell (non-GCB) phenotype as determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC). These early results led to currently ongoing randomized trial in ABC subtype of DLBCL, however efficacy of R2CHOP in ABC DLBCL as defined by Gene Expression Prophyling (GEP) has not been reported. In the present combined analysis of two independent phase 2 studies, we report the long-term follow-up (FU) outcome in DLBCL patients treated with R2CHOP, comparing GCB and ABC according to Nanostring Platform. Methods: We included all newly diagnosed histologically-confirmed de-novo DLBCL patients enrolled in two R2CHOP21 phase 2 trials, conducted by Mayo Clinic (MC) and Italian Lymphoma Foundation (FIL). Inclusion criteria in the two trials were similar, main differences included: all age and all International Prognostic Index (IPI) vs age between 60 and 80 years old and IPI >1, in MC vs FIL study, respectively. All pts received R-CHOP21 plus Len at 25 mg/day for 10 days/cycle and 15 mg/day for 14 days/cycle in MC and FIL trial, respectively. Cell of origin (COO) was determined by IHC, according to Hans algorithm, and retrospectively, in patients with available pathological material, by Nanostring, performed according to Scott algorithm and Masque-Soler signature in MC and FIL study, respectively. We analyzed the long-term FU outcome in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), comparing between GCB and ABC phenotypes according to GEP. Results: A total of 112 DLBCL pts (63 MC, 49 FIL) were included. Main characteristics were: median age 69 years (y) (range 22-87), male 65 (58%) pts, advanced stage III-IV in 94 (84%), B symptoms in 38 (34%), International Prognostic Index (IPI) intermediate-high/high in 71 (63%). At a median follow-up of 5.1 years (y), 5y-PFS was 63.5%, 5y-TTP 70.1% and 5y-OS 75.4%. A total of 32 relapses were observed, with only 2 cases of Central Nervous System (CNS) relapse. Late relapse occurring beyond 3 years was observed in 4 cases (3 cases with GCB phenotype and one case with missing COO data). In a subgroup analysis by IPI 0-2 vs 3-5 were: 5y-PFS, 5y-TTP and 5y-OS were: 69.0% vs 59.0% (p=0.100), 73.2% vs 67.4% (p=0.285) and 82.3% vs 70.2% (p=0.059), respectively. Regarding for COO defined by IHC, GCB phenotype vs non-GCB were 45 (40%) vs 41 (37%) patients respectively; 26 (23%) patients were not evaluable. 5y-PFS, 5y-TTP and 5y-OS were: 52.8% vs 64.5% (p=0.198), 61.6% vs 69.6% (p=0.444) and 68.6% vs 74.1% (p=0.238) in GCB vs non-GCB, defined by IHC, respectively. Regarding Nanostring analysis, GCB vs ABC vs Unclassified (Uncl) were 31 (46%) vs 22 (32%) vs 15 (22%) respectively; 44 pts were not evaluable. 5y-PFS, 5y-TTP and 5y-OS were: 62.3% vs 70.8% vs 64.2% (p=0.645), 68.1% vs 79.8% vs 64.2% (p=0.662) and 76.0% vs 74.8% vs 79.0% (p=0.658) in GCB vs ABC vs Uncl, defined by Nanostring, respectively (Table1, Fig1). Conclusions: The association of Len with R-CHOP21 appears to overcome the negative prognostic impact of ABC phenotype determined by GEP, with high PFS, TTP and OS rate, maintained at a long-term FU analysis. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Chiappella: Teva: Other: lecture fees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: lecture fees; Nanostring: Other: lecture fees; Roche: Other: lecture fees; Amgen: Other: lecture fees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: lecture fees. Gaidano:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Vitolo:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau.