Hughes, Mitchell E.

Introduction: DH/THL also classified as high-grade B cell lymphomas (HGBCL) with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements have higher risk of progression after initial treatment and poor response to salvage therapies compared to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), NOS. Recently, CART cell therapy has shown encouraging responses in treatment of relapsed refractory (R/R) DLBCL. In this retrospective study, we evaluated whether survival of (R/R) DH/THL is improved in the CART era. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, adult pts (pts) with R/R DH/THL after anthracycline-based therapy were included. Demographic and clinical variables were obtained from electronic health records. Study objectives was overall survival (OS) at 2 year landmark. We utilized full propensity score matching to compare progression free survival (PFS) and OS of CART with 2 nd line chemoimmunotherapy. Results: 278 DH/THL pts treated between 2010-2020 were included. Median age was 63 years (range 52-74), 163 (58%) were male, 119 (43%) were classified as DLBCL and 116 (42%) as HGBCL; 40 (14%) were transformed from follicular lymphoma. 225 (82%) had advanced stage, 161 (67%) had elevated LDH, 85 (33%) had bulky disease, 74 (59%) had B symptoms. 105 (38%) pts treated for relapsed disease before 2018 were included in the pre-CART era cohort. 168 (60%) pts treated from 2018 onwards were included in the CART era cohort. 102 (60%) pts in CART cell era received CART cells, 40 (14%) received polatuzumab vedotin (pola), 10 (3.5%) received loncastuximab tesirine, tafasitamab and bispecific antibody each. Characteristics at relapse were similar in both groups. Median follow up was 8.9 (0.2-146) months. 2-year OS estimate was 36% (CI 95: 30-42%) in entire population. Patients treated in CART cell era had significantly higher OS (2 yr OS: 43% [CI 95: 35-53]) compared to pts treated in pre-CART cells era (2-year OS: 24% [CI 95: 16-34], p=0.0006) (Figure 1). In multivariable analyses, increasing age (HR = 1.02 (CI 95: 1.01, 1.04), p=0.003), extranodal disease (HR = 1.41 (CI 95: 1.00, 1.99), p<0.001), elevated LDH (HR = 1.57 (CI 95: 1.11, 2.24), p=0.01) were associated with inferior OS. Increasing time to relapse (HR = 0.98 (CI 95: 0.97, 0.99), p<0.001) was associated with superior OS. BCL6 rearrangement did not affect OS. When adjusted for these factors, treatment with CART cells was associated with higher 2 yr OS (HR = 0.33 (CI 95: 0.22, 0.49), p<0.001). Treatment with polatuzumab (HR = 1.07 (CI 95: 0.71, 1.6), p=0.07) was not significantly associated with OS in univariable analysis. 102 pts underwent CART cell therapy at any point for relapse; 94 (93%) were refractory to prior chemotherapy. 62 (60%) responded and 52 (50%) had CR after CART cells. 2-year PFS and OS after CART cell therapy were 28% (CI 95: 19-40) and 40% (CI 95: 30-53), respectively. Increasing time to CART was associated with inferior OS (HR: 1.02 (CI 95: 1.0-1.03, p=0.03) but not PFS (HR: 1.02 (CI 95: 0.99-1.04), p=0.2). 219 (79%) pts received curative intent salvage chemotherapy for 2 nd line. 2-year PFS and OS were 15% (CI 95: 11-20) and 38% (CI 95: 31-45), respectively. 21 pts received CART cell therapy for 2 nd line. 2 year PFS and OS in this small number of pts were 52% (CI 95: 35-79) and 70% (CI 95: 52-94), respectively. Due in part to the small number of pts who received CART cells in 2 nd line, we utilized full propensity score matched analysis to compare each patient in CART cell group to all possible matched controls in salvage chemotherapy group. Variables matched were age, LDH, extra nodal disease and time to relapse. In propensity score matched analysis, pts who received CART cells had significantly higher 2 year PFS (HR: 10.5 (CI 95: 3.4-17.5), p=002) and 2 year OS (HR: 7.5 (CI 95: 1.4-13), p=0.01). Conclusions: Survival of r/r DH/THL appears to have improved in the era of CART cell therapy. About 2/3 of pts refractory to chemotherapy respond to CART cells, and in multivariable analysis, receipt of CART cells was associated with improved OS. Increasing time to CART cells was associated with inferior survival. In a propensity score matched analysis utilizing full matching, CART cell therapy in 2 nd line was associated with significantly higher 2 year PFS and OS compared to curative intent salvage therapy. Other CD 19 and CD 20 targeting agents approved after CART cell therapy might contribute to favorable survival, effect of these agents could not be assessed because of small numbers.

Abstract In this multi-institutional retrospective study, we examined the characteristics and outcomes of 160 patients with high-grade B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBL-NOS)—a rare category defined by high-grade morphologic features and lack of MYC rearrangements with BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements ("double hit"). Our results show that HGBL-NOS tumors are heterogeneous: 83% of patients had a germinal center B-cell immunophenotype, 37% a dual-expressor immunophenotype (MYC and BCL2 expression), 28% MYC rearrangement, 13% BCL2 rearrangement, and 11% BCL6 rearrangement. Most patients presented with stage IV disease, a high serum lactate dehydrogenase, and other high-risk clinical factors. Most frequent first-line regimens included dose-adjusted cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and etoposide, with rituximab and prednisone (DA-EPOCH-R; 43%); rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; 33%); or other intensive chemotherapy programs. We found no significant differences in the rates of complete response (CR), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) between these chemotherapy regimens. CR was attained by 69% of patients. PFS at 2 years was 55.2% and OS was 68.1%. In a multivariable model, the main prognostic factors for PFS and OS were poor performance status, lactate dehydrogenase >3 × upper limit of normal, and a dual-expressor immunophenotype. Age >60 years or presence of MYC rearrangement were not prognostic, but patients with TP53 alterations had a dismal PFS. Presence of MYC rearrangement was not predictive of better PFS in patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R vs R-CHOP. Improvements in the diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approaches beyond dose-intense chemotherapy are needed to overcome the unfavorable prognosis of patients with HGBL-NOS.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common form of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will experience disease relapse or will be refractory to first line chemoimmunotherapy, necessitating second-line salvage therapy. This has historically consisted of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with curative intent for transplant-eligible patients or palliative chemotherapy for transplant-ineligible patients. In recent years there have been several new therapeutic agents approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory DLBCL, thereby expanding the therapeutic landscape. These agents include polatuzumab vedotin, tafasitamab, loncastuximab tesirine, selinexor, and anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies such as axicabtagene ciloleucel, tisagenlecleucel, and lisocabtagene maraleucel. This review summarizes the pharmacology, efficacy, safety, dosing, and administration of new agents recently approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

Abstract Background: Synthetic lethality (SL) is characterized by the chemical inhibition of multiple aberrant genes to differentially kill malignant cells. We investigated small-molecule combinations for SL through in vitro and in vivo screening and optimization studies (as in the granted patents in USA and China) and demonstrated the synergistic potential of best-in-class combinations of targeted agents, drug repositioning, immune modulation and low-dose combinations. We hypothesize that BTK and mTOR inhibition coupled with an IMID will target multiple key signaling pathways, improve differential apoptosis and target acquired drug resistance. DTRM-555, an optimized mechanism-based combination, consists of the clinically differentiated BTK inhibitor DTRMWXHS-12 (or DTRM-12), everolimus (EV) and pomalidomide (POM). In xenograft tumor models, DTRM-555 administered orally has demonstrated superior efficacy over monotherapy at very low dose combinations of the three agents (1/18 of DTRM-12, 1/6 of EV, and 1/6 of POM). DTRM-12 monotherapy has been safe and well tolerated in simultaneous phase Ia trials (US and China) with preliminary efficacy across 50 mg through 400 mg once daily (QD). Here we report the US clinical results of the oral combination therapies DTRM-505 (DTRM-12 plus EV) and DTRM-555 (DTRM-12 plus EV plus POM) for the first time (NCT02900716). Methods: The safety and anti-tumor activity of the oral doublet therapy DTRM-505 and the oral triplet therapy DTRM-555 are evaluated using a "3+3" study design. Enrollment was conducted concurrently with a phase Ia study of DTRM-12 monotherapy; with DTRM-505 opened for accrual when monotherapy DTRM-12 cleared the 200-mg dose level. Eligible patients are at least 18 years old, having ECOG performance status less than 2 with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), follicular lymphoma (FL) or classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Study treatment is administered daily for 21 consecutive days over a 28-day cycle. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period was defined during the first cycle of therapy, and treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients underwent tumor evaluations every 2 months and response was recorded using revised response criteria (IWCLL and Cheson 2014). Results: Between 9/2016 and 7/2018, 19 patients have been treated with DTRM-12 monotherapy in the USA (6 pts, 50-300 mg) and China (13 pts, 50-400 mg). Patients have tolerated up to 23+ cycles of DTRM-12 monotherapy. Seven patients, including DLBCL, CLL, MCL, FL and cHL, have been treated with oral doublet therapy DTRM-505 for 2 to 12 cycles. Three patients (2 DLBCL, 1 FL) have been treated with oral triplet therapy DTRM-555, including one patient transitioned from the doublet DTRM-505 under an exploratory arm. No patient has discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) and no DLT has occurred. Recurring AEs are mostly grade 1 or 2 and responses have been seen with DTRM-505 and DTRM-555 across diverse lymphoma histologies (See Tables). All patients evaluable for response demonstrated partial response to DTRM-505 and DTRM-555, with 2/7 (doublet) and 3/3 (triplet) patients remaining on therapy. Conclusion: The maximum tolerated dose has not been reached for DTRM-12 monotherapy and for the current fixed dose doublet and triplet combinations. Toxicities have been mild and repeated cycles of study treatment have been well tolerated without delays of subsequent treatment cycles. Enrollment continues for refractory lymphoma patients to demonstrate the safety and efficacy for the first-in-class oral triplet therapy DTRM-555. Disclosures Huntington: Janssen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Schuster:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Physician's Education Source, LLC: Honoraria; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. He:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma Co. Ltd.: Other: Founder and CEO; Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Founder and CEO. Shen:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Clinical Operations Director. Kennard:AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Dwivedy Nasta:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Debiopharm: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Rafael/WF: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Other: DSMC; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Landsburg:Takeda: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Other: Advisory board, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Spouse employment; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Svoboda:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Song:Peking University Cancer Hospital (Beijing Cancer Hospital): Employment. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital: Employment. Brander:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding. Mato:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria.