Maliske, Seth

Background: Plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare subtype of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with a well-known association with HIV infection. The outcomes of PBL patients are typically described with high relapse rates and poor prognosis. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; Morscio J, Am J of Pathol. 2014; Castillo JJ, Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011; Castillo JJ, Am J Hematol. 2008) There has been a paucity of data suggesting that limited stage disease (Ann Arbor stage I-II) may have a more favorable prognosis. However, due to the rarity of this disease there have been no large-scale reviews to confirm this. Thus, many patients with limited stage disease are subject to the aggressive therapy recommendations based on the poor outcomes of PBL patients as a whole. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; NCCN Guidelines, version 2.2020; Al-Malki MM, BBMT. 2014) We attempted to determine the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with limited stage PBL. Methods: We conducted a multi-center (13 US academic centers) retrospective study of patients with limited stage (Ann Arbor stage I-II) Plasmablastic lymphoma. Determination of limited stage and diagnosis of PBL was determined by the investigators at each individual center. Patients diagnosed between 1/1/1990 and 6/1/2018 were included. Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, pathology, and outcomes data were extracted by retrospective chart review. Kaplan Meier was utilized for time to event analysis. Results: Baseline characteristics are included in table 1. A total of 80 patients were identified with limited stage disease. With a median follow up of 34 months the 3-yr Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 71.9% and 78.7% respectively (Figure 1A and 1B). Patients that received frontline chemotherapy with (n=29) and without RT (n=36) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 84.6% and 96.2% as compared to 64.5% and 70.8%, respectively (Figure 2A and 2B; Figure 3A and 3B). The Hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and OS for chemo (reference) vs chemo-RT was 0.47 (95% CI 0.18-1.3; P=0.131) and 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029) respectively. The HR for PFS and OS for CHOP (n=14, reference) vs EPOCH (n=33) based regimens was 0.37 (95% CI 0.11-1.2; p=0.106) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.079-1.6; p=0.182) respectively. Patients with stage I/IE disease (n=56) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 73.1% and 81.2% respectively. Patients with stage II/IIE disease (n=24) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 69.3% and 73.4% respectively. Patients that received aggressive treatment (n=17) with Hyper-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT as consolidation had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 63.6% and 72.7% respectively. Patients with concomitant HIV (n=16) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 80.8% and 77.4% respectively. Seven patients received RT alone and 6 patients had surgical resection alone as frontline therapy; 1 patient received no therapy; 1 patient received HAART therapy only and remains in CR without any other treatment for PBL 29 months after diagnosis. There were 8 deaths (10%) related to PBL, 3 deaths (4%) related to treatment of PBL (2 during frontline chemo and 1 upon relapse with salvage chemo), and 9 deaths (11%) related to other causes. The 3-yr lymphoma free survival (LFS) of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (without including treatment related mortality (TRM) as an event) was 89.1%, 85.2%, and 100% respectively. The 3-yr LFS survival of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (including TRM as an event) was 85.1%, 80.0%, and 96.2% respectively. Discussion: Here we report the largest review to our knowledge of limited stage PBL. Outcomes appear to be excellent with 3-yr PFS and OS of 71.9% and 78.7% respectively and a 3-yr LFS of 89.1% (85.1% when attributing TRM as an event). There was no obvious benefit to receiving aggressive therapy with H-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT. Although this is a small, uncontrolled sample size the HR for OS was improved in patients receiving frontline chemo-RT vs chemo alone 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029). However, this did not take into account TRM with or progression while receiving frontline chemotherapy. Patients who were HIV+ had similar PFS and OS outcomes compared to the entire cohort. This retrospective study clearly demonstrates the favorable outcomes in this patient population, especially in those able to receive definitive therapy for their disease. Disclosures Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Patel:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Nektar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chavez:Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hill:Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Maddocks:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, CALIB-R, Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kahl:AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy. Alderuccio:ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Other: Family member; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Oncinfo: Honoraria; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Family member; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Family member; OncLive: Honoraria. Lossos:Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; NCI: Research Funding. Portell:Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Landsburg:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Castillo:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Although checkpoint inhibitors have been approved in multiple cancers, they are still under investigation in soft tissue sarcoma (STS). We conducted a retrospective review to report the safety, efficacy, and prognostic factors related to checkpoint inhibitors in STS. A sequential cohort of metastatic STS patients from four institutions treated with checkpoint inhibitors was assembled. Logistic and Cox regression models were applied to determine the effect of patient characteristics, prior treatment, and baseline factors on achieving the best overall response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) as determined by the treating physician. Eighty-eight patients with two median prior therapies received checkpoint inhibitors. Treatments included pembrolizumab in 47, nivolumab in 6, ipilimumab in 1, combination ipilimumab/nivolumab in 27, and other combination immunotherapies in 7 patients. Immunotherapy was discontinued in 54 patients—72.2% for progression, 16.7% for toxicity, and 11.1% for other reasons. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.1 months and median overall survival was 19.1 months. One patient with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) achieved a CR, while 20 patients had a PR, including 7 UPS, 9 leiomyosarcoma (LMS), and 1 each with alveolar soft part sarcoma, fibroblastic sarcoma, sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma, and myxofibrosarcoma. Forty-five percent (9 of 20) of LMS patients achieved a PR. Twenty-eight patients had SD. Our results confirm the activity and safety of anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic STS. A notable response rate was observed in UPS and LMS subtypes. This study expands the knowledge base beyond what is currently available from clinical trials involving checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic STS.

Introduction: Front-line immunochemotherapy (IC) with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is expected to cure 60-70% of newly diagnosed DLBCL. Up to one third of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients will have relapsed or refractory (r/r) disease.1 Current standard of care for these patients is salvage chemotherapy and, if chemosensitive, to be followed by high dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic cell rescue (autoHCT).2,3 Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) after frontline IC is associated with excellent long-term outcomes with overall survival (OS) similar to that of age- and sex-matched controls.4 In comparison, those achieving EFS24 following autoHCT for relapsed or refractory disease may have increased risk for late-mortality compared to the general population with advanced age and intensive salvage therapy contributing to the risk of late complications.5 We sought to better characterize EFS24 after autoHCT to determine the utility of this end-point for informed clinical decisions, patient management, and future clinical trials. Methods: Patients were prospectively enrolled onto the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/ Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). Patients were followed for relapse, retreatment, and death; all events were validated by medical record review. For this analysis patients were included if they were consented within 9 months of initial diagnosis of DLBCL between 2002-2012, had received anthracycline-based IC (R-CHOP, or similar), and eventually had undergone autoHCT for r/r DLBCL. Patients with primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma or post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) were excluded. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from autoHCT until death due to any cause. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from autoHCT until progression, relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. OS from achieving EFS24 after autoHCT was compared to age- and sex-matched general US population. Results: 108 patients underwent autoHCT for relapsed DLBCL between 2002 and 2017. Median age at autoHCT of the patients was 60 years (range 20-78) and 72 (67%) were male. The most common transplant conditioning regimen was BEAM (82%). At a median follow-up after autoHCT of 85 months (range 1-171), 72 patients (67%) had an event and 64 patients (59%) had died. Kaplan-Meier estimates for EFS and OS at 24 months from the time of autoHCT were 49% (95% CI: 40-59) and 61% (95% CI: 52-71), respectively. 52 patients had a progression within 24 months of autoHCT; OS from progression was poor (median OS=2.8 months, 95% CI: 1.8-6.0; 5 year OS = 9%, 95% CI: 2-22). 48 patients achieved EFS24 after autoHCT; median OS from achieving EFS24 was 136 months (95% CI: 92-NE) and 5 year OS was 79% (95% CI: 68-93). This was inferior to the background population (Figure 1, SMR=3.64, 95% CI: 2.11-6.27, p<0.0001). Eight patients had a progression after achieving EFS24 from autoHCT. OS from progression in these 8 patients (median OS=27.3 months, 95% CI: 14.4-NE; 5 year OS = 16%, 95% CI: 3-93) was improved compared to progression within 24 months of autoHCT (p=0.072, figure B). Cause of death (COD) in EFS24 achievers was progression of lymphoma (n=6), infection (n=1), secondary malignancy related to therapy (n=3), heart disease (n=1), and unknown (n=1). Conclusions: Patients achieving EFS24 after salvage chemotherapy and autoHCT have a favorable long-term prognosis; however, overall survival remained inferior to the general population. Most common COD after achieving EFS24 was progression of lymphoma. In spite of this, EFS24 remains a valuable end-point for informed clinical decisions, patient management, and future clinical trials. Figure 1 Disclosures Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Ansell:Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding.