Maliske, Seth

Background: The new standard of care for fit patients with refractory or early relapse of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy. However, for patients with a relapse ≥12 months after completing frontline therapy, salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains the standard of care. There is a need to characterize such patients and their survival in view of the recent shift in treatment paradigm. Methods: Patients with DLBCL that relapsed ≥12 months after R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like frontline therapy who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT at Mayo Clinic or University of Iowa between 07/2000 and 4/2020 were identified from institutional lymphoma and transplant databases. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of ASCT were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Statistical analyses were performed in JMP v15. Results: A total of 158 patients with late relapsed DLBCL who underwent salvage chemotherapy and ASCT were identified. Baseline characteristics at relapse/ASCT are shown in Table 1. Median time from frontline therapy completion to 1st relapse was 26.4 months (range 12.0-152.4). Median age at relapse was 63 years (range 19-77), and 96 (61%) patients were male. A minority (3; 3%) had ECOG PS ≥2. 43 (52%) patients had an elevated serum LDH level, 70 (65%) had advanced stage disease, and 12 (11%) had >1 extranodal involvement. Median line of salvage therapy was 1 (range 1-3), and 17 (11%) patients required >1 line of salvage therapy. Best response before ASCT was complete response (CR) in 97 (61%) and partial response (PR) in 61 (39%). Median age at ASCT was 64 years (range 19-78). Median follow-up after ASCT was 91.5 months (95% CI 74.0-103.3). Median PFS and OS were 54.5 (95% CI 31.9-77.8) and 99.8 (95% CI 60.3-144.5) months, respectively. The 2-year PFS and OS rates were 64% (95% CI 56-71) and 81% (95% CI 74-87), respectively. No statistically significant difference in PFS was seen based on age at ASCT, sex, serum LDH, stage, or extranodal site involvement of >1 at relapse (Table 2). However, patients who required > 1 line of salvage therapy, compared to those requiring 1 line of salvage therapy, had significantly inferior PFS (median 6.1 vs 61.8 months, P <0.0001) and OS (17.8 vs 111.7 months, P <0.0004). There was no statistically significant difference in survival in patients who achieved CR vs PR prior to ASCT, with a median PFS of 61.8 vs 37.8 months( P=0.21) and a median OS of 111.7 vs 78.3 months ( P=0.62). Patients who achieved CR after 1 line of salvage therapy had the most favorable PFS and OS, with a median PFS of 65.6 vs 45.4 vs 6.1 vs 7.6 months ( P=0.0004) and a median OS of 133.0 vs 88.9 vs 24.2 vs 17.6 months ( P=0.004) in patients achieving CR after 1 line of salvage therapy vs PR after 1 line of salvage therapy vs CR after >1 line of salvage therapy vs PR after >1 line of salvage therapy, respectively (Table 2). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age at ASCT and sex, patients requiring > 1 line of salvage therapy, compared to those who required 1 line of salvage therapy, had significantly inferior PFS with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.25 (95% CI 1.82-5.78, P <0.0001) and OS with a HR of 3.50 (95% CI 1.86-6.60, P=0.0001). However, there remained no significant difference in survival based on response status (CR vs PR) with a HR for PFS 0.78 (95% CI 0.52-1.17, P=0.23) and OS 0.93 (95% CI 0.58-1.47, P=0.74). Conclusions: Survival after ASCT was excellent in patients with late relapsed DLBCL achieving CR after 1 line of salvage chemotherapy. Favorable survival outcomes were seen in patients who achieved PR after 1 line of salvage therapy. These data support the current clinical practice of ASCT consolidation in these patients. However, post-ASCT survival was poor in patients who required more than 1 line of salvage chemotherapy, despite achieving a satisfactory response to subsequent lines of salvage therapy. Alternative treatment strategies such as CAR-T therapy should be considered in such patients.

PURPOSE CNS progression or relapse is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. There is no consensus regarding the optimal approach to CNS prophylaxis. This study was designed to determine whether high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is effective at preventing CNS progression in patients at high risk of this complication. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age 18-80 years with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and high risk of CNS progression, treated with curative-intent anti–CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy, were included in this international, retrospective, observational study. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and cumulative risks of CNS progression were calculated according to use of HD-MTX, with time to CNS progression calculated from diagnosis for all patients (all-pts) and from completion of frontline systemic lymphoma induction therapy, for patients in complete response at completion of chemoimmunotherapy (CR-pts). RESULTS Two thousand four hundred eighteen all-pts (HD-MTX; n = 425) and 1,616 CR-pts (HD-MTX; n = 356) were included. CNS International Prognostic Index was 4-6 in 83.4% all-pts. Patients treated with HD-MTX had a lower risk of CNS progression (adjusted HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.90]; P = .014), but significance was not retained when confined to CR-pts (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.30]; P = .29), with 5-year adjusted risk difference of 1.6% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.4; all-pts) and 1.4% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.1; CR-pts). Subgroups were underpowered to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of HD-MTX in individual high-risk clinical scenarios; however, there was no clear reduction in CNS progression risk with HD-MTX in any high-risk subgroup. CONCLUSION In this large study, high-risk patients receiving HD-MTX had a 7.2% 2-year risk of CNS progression, consistent with the progression risk in previously reported high-risk cohorts. Use of HD-MTX was not associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in risk of CNS progression.

AbstractPlasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare entity, commonly associated with immunosuppressed states such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or solid organ transplant. The clinical course is characterized by high relapse rates and a poor prognosis, leading some clinicians to recommend aggressive frontline therapy. However, a specific review of limited stage (LS) PBL patients is not available to evaluate outcomes and justify treatment recommendations. We performed a retrospective review of LS PBL cases to provide insight into this rare disease. Our cohort consisted of 80 stage I or II PBL patients from 13 US academic centers. With a median follow up of 34 months (1–196), the 3‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort were 72% (95% CI 62, 83) and 79% (95% CI 70, 89), respectively. The 3‐year PFS and OS of patients treated with frontline chemotherapy alone was 65% (95% CI 50, 84) and 71% (95% CI 56, 89), respectively, compared to 85% (95% CI 72, 100) and 96% (95% CI 89, 100), respectively, in patients treated with combined frontline chemotherapy with radiation consolidation. Our data demonstrate favorable outcomes in LS PBL with no improvements in outcome from aggressive frontline treatment including Hyper‐CVAD or auto‐SCT consolidation. Multivariate regression analysis (MRA) demonstrated improved PFS for patients receiving EPOCH based frontline therapy versus CHOP (HR: 0.23; p = 0.029). Frontline chemotherapy followed by radiation consolidation versus chemotherapy alone appeared to be associated with improved relapse and survival outcomes but did not show statistical significance in MRA.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; 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. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.

e19501 Background: The current standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) following frontline immunochemotherapy (IC) is salvage therapy, followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) rescue in patients responding to salvage therapy. Time to first relapse (or refractory status) and response to salvage therapy in patients with RR DLBCL may reflect the chemosensitivity of the underlying disease. The aim of this study is to determine whether these factors impact post-ASCT outcomes. Methods: Patients with DLBCL that relapsed after R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like frontline therapy who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT at Mayo Clinic or University of Iowa between 07/2000 and 4/2020 were identified from institutional lymphoma and transplant databases. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of ASCT were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: A total of 437 patients with RR DLBCL who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT were identified. 280 (64%) were male. Median time from initial diagnosis to 1st relapse/salvage was 1.0 years (range 0.1-16.4). A median of 1 line (range 1-3) of salvage therapy was required. Response prior to ASCT was complete response (CR) in 211 (48%), partial response in 199 (46%), stable disease in 24 (5%), and unknown in 3 (1%) patients. Median age at ASCT was 61 years (range 19-78), and median follow up after ASCT was 8.0 years (95% CI 7.2-8.7). Median PFS and OS was 2.7 (95% CI 1.5-4.3) and 5.4 (4.2-7.4) years, respectively. Time to 1st relapse/salvage (≤1 vs 1-2 vs > 2 years) was not associated with PFS (median 0.8 vs 2.4 vs 4.9 years, p = 0.170) but was associated with OS (2.4 vs 7.4 vs 6.8 years, p = 0.013). Patients who required > 1 line of salvage therapy had significantly inferior PFS (median 0.3 vs 4.5 years, p < 0.001) and OS (0.9 vs 7.4 years, p < 0.001). In addition, patients who failed to achieve a CR prior to ASCT had significantly worse PFS (median 0.8 vs 5.3 years, p < 0.001) and OS (2.7 vs 9.2 years, p < 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age and sex, time to 1st relapse/salvage was not associated with PFS (p = 0.313) or OS (p = 0.081); however, lines of salvage and response prior to ASCT remain significantly prognostic for PFS ( > 1 line of salvage: HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.59-2.87, p < 0.001; non-CR: HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.26-2.05, p < 0.001) and OS ( > 1 line of salvage: HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.66-3.05, p < 0.001; non-CR: HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.26-2.12, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In patients with RR DLBCL following frontline IC, requiring more than 1 line of salvage therapy and failure to achieve CR are strong independent risk factors for poor PFS and OS after ASCT. Novel therapies such as CAR-T cell therapy should be studied in this population.

7522 Background: Patients with newly diagnoseddiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who achieve event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) following immunochemotherapy (IC) have excellent overall survival (OS) similar to that of age- and sex-matched general population. The standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) DLBCL following frontline IC is salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The goal of this study is to evaluate the role of progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 months (PFS24) as a landmark after ASCT in patients with RR DLBCL. Methods: Patients with RR DLBCL after frontline R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like IC who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT at Mayo Clinic or University of Iowa between 07/2000 and 4/2020 were identified from institutional lymphoma transplant databases. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. Post-ASCT PFS, OS, and post-relapse survival (PRS) were plotted by Kaplan-Meier method, and cumulative incidences of relapse vs non-relapse mortality (NRM) and different causes of death were compared accounting for competing events. Statistical analyses were performed in EZR v1.54. Results: A total of 437 patients were identified. Median age at ASCT was 61 years (range 19-78), and 280 (64%) were male. After a median post-ASCT follow up of 8.0 years (95% CI 7.2-8.7), 215 patients had a relapse (or disease progression), 180 within 2 years and 35 after 2 years. For the entire cohort, post-ASCT relapse rate was much higher than NRM rate (48.1 vs 9.1% at 5-year). Median PFS and OS after ASCT was 2.7 and 5.4 years, respectively. Lymphoma was the primary cause of death after ASCT. In contrast, for patients who had achieved PFS24 (n = 220), rates of post-PFS24 relapse and NRM were similar (14.8% and 12.3% at 5-year). Median PFS and OS after achieving PFS24 was 10.0 and 11.5 years, respectively. Lymphoma related and unrelated death rates were similar after achieving PFS24 (Table). For all patients who had a post-ASCT relapse, median PRS was 0.7 years (95% CI 0.5-0.9), and late relapse ( > 2 vs ≤2 years after ASCT) was associated with better PRS (median 2.3 [1.7-4.8] vs 0.5 [0.3-0.7] years, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Post-ASCT PFS24 is an important prognostic predictor of post-ASCT outcomes in patients with RR DLBCL following frontline IC.[Table: see text]