El-Galaly, Tarec Christoffer Christoffer

Purpose: Improved predictive tools are desired in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) to improve prognostication and to better risk stratify patients (pts) for clinical trials. In younger pts who tolerate intensive therapies, focus has been on limiting late treatment toxicity through risk-adapted, PET-guided treatment strategy. In older pts, acute treatment toxicities are limiting factors for optimal disease control. Due to these fundamental differences, predictive tools may perform differently in younger and older pts. In particular, tools developed in younger pts may be suboptimal in older populations and vice versa. The primary objective of this study was to assess the performance of the A-HIPI (development was limited to 18-65 years of age) against the international prognostic score (IPS) for modelling overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in younger and older pts with cHL. Methods: This study utilized data from the population-based, nationwide Danish National Lymphoma registry. Pts with advanced-stage cHL (Ann Arbor stage III-IV or IIB with extra nodal disease) were included and categorized by age in two groups: ages ≤65 years vs. >65 years. In the primary analysis, all pts regardless of therapy were included. A sensitivity analysis restricting to pts starting on BEACOPP or ABVD was performed (Only ABVD in the >65 cohort). Concordance index (C-index) and calibration were used to assess model performance and generalizability. Calibration was visualized using calibration plots and quantified by calibration in the large (CITL) and calibration slope (CS) at 5-years post diagnosis. Results: A total of 893 advanced-stage HL pts fulfilled the inclusion criteria (634 in the ≤65 cohort and 259 in the >65 cohort). The 5-year OS and PFS in the >65-year cohort were 44% (Confidence intervals (CI); 37-51%) and 35% (CI; 30-42%), respectively. Fifty-six pts in the >65 cohort were classified as low-intermediate-risk (IPS; 1-2), 128 intermediate-risk (IPS; 3-4), and 75 high-risk (IPS; 5-7). For the ≤65 cohort, the 5-year OS and PFS was 88% (CI; 85-90%) and 76% (CI; 73-80%), respectively. Twenty-three pts were classified as low-risk (IPS; 0), 244 low-intermediate-risk, 286 intermediate-risk, and 81 high-risk. The A-HIPI had a C-index of 0.74 and 0.63 for OS and PFS, respectively in the ≤65 years cohort vs. 0.65 and 0.64 for OS and PFS, respectively, in the >65 cohort. The IPS had a C-index in the ≤65 cohort of 0.66 and 0.60 for OS and PFS, respectively, vs. 0.58 and 0.59 for OS and PFS, respectively, in the >65 cohort (i.e., the IPS performed better in the ≤65 cohort in terms of OS and PFS but was inferior to the A-HIPI). When restricting to pts treated with ABVD or BEACOPP, the A-HIPI C-index in the >65 cohort (116 pts) were reduced to 0.55 for OS and 0.54 for PFS. For the ≤65 cohort (595 pts), the A-HIPI C-index was stable at 0.75 and 0.62 for OS and PFS, respectively. In terms of A-HIPI calibration in the >65 cohort, CITL and CS were -0.78 and 0.39 for OS vs. -0.98 and 0.80 for PFS. In the ≤65 cohort, CITL and CS were -0.06 and 0.99 for OS vs. 0.21 and 1.18 for PFS. Visual inspection of the calibration plot (Figure 1) for the >65 cohort showed that the A-HIPI underestimated the observed proportion for both OS and PFS (i.e., the observed events were higher than the predicted). Calibration plot for the ≤65 cohort (Figure 2) indicated that the A-HIPI accurately modelled the observed proportion for both OS and PFS (i.e., the predicted probability was consistent with the observed proportion). Conclusion: The newly developed A-HIPI was validated in a large population-based cohort of Danish pts with advanced-stage cHL. Performance of the A-HIPI was high in the ≤65 cohort and superior to the IPS for OS prediction. Calibration of A-HIPI was excellent in pts ages ≤65 years. However, A-HIPI performed significantly worse among pts >65 years and attained poor performance in pts receiving ABVD or BEACOPP, which is not surprising since patients older than 65 were not included in the development. This study emphasizes the importance of further efforts to develop or update models that apply specifically in older individuals. The inclusion of additional variables reflecting comorbidities and pts fitness into a prognostic model may be necessary to effectively deliver accurate prognoses and risk assessments for the older pt.

Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) after frontline immunochemotherapy (IC) is an important endpoint in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 have similar survival compared to age- and sex-matched general population. The role of EFS24 in predicting subsequent survival has not been established in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), possibly due to perceived poor survival historically. In the last decade, the outcomes of MCL are improving in the evolving treatment landscape. In this international multicenter study, we investigated conditional survival and cause of death in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC in the older and more recent eras. Methods: Outcomes after frontline IC were evaluated in 5 independent cohorts that included over 3000 patients in total: Mayo/Iowa MER prospective cohort, BC Cancer retrospective population-based cohort, US 12-center retrospective cohort, Swedish Lymphoma Registry, and Danish National Lymphoma Registry. For each cohort, 2 treatment eras were defined based on cohort-specific shifts in treatment patterns (Table 1). Overall survival (OS) after diagnosis and after achieving EFS24 were compared to the background age- and sex-matched general population using a standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Cumulative incidences of cause-specific deaths were analyzed using a competing risk model. Results: In the MER cohort, patients treated in Era M1 (2002-2009; n=147) and Era M2 (2010-2015; n=153) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population. A lower SMR in Era M2 vs M1 (2.25 vs 3.46) suggests a narrower gap in OS compared to the general US population. Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. In Era M1, patients who achieved EFS24 still had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR=2.40, 95% CI 1.76-3.19), and lymphoma remained the leading cause of death. For patients in Era M2 who achieved EFS24, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was not statistically significant with current follow-up (SMR=1.43, 95% CI 0.93-2.09), and lymphoma was no longer the leading cause of death (Table 2). In the BC cohort, patients treated in Era B2 (6/2013-2019; n=188) vs Era B1 (2003-5/2013; n=250) had a narrower gap in OS compared to the general British Columbia population (SMR 4.53 vs 6.69). Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. For patients achieving EFS24, the gap in OS was narrower in Era B2 vs B1 (SMR 3.56 vs 4.99). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the single leading cause of death for patients in Era B1 but not in Era B2 (Table 2). In the US 12-center cohort, patients treated in Era U1 (2002-2011; n=312) and Era U2 (2012-2016; n=417) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR 2.68 and 2.92, respectively). In patients who achieved EFS24, with current follow up, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was statistically significant in Era U1 (SMR=2.01, 95% CI 1.50-2.64) but not in Era U2 (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 0.82-2.34). Lymphoma was not the leading cause of death after achieving EFS24 (Table 2). In the Swedish cohort, the gap in OS compared to the general Swedish population was narrower in Era S2 (2013-2018; n=439) vs S1 (2006-2012; n=442), both after frontline IC (SMR 4.8 vs 5.4) and after achieving EFS24 (SMR 2.6 vs 3.4). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the leading cause of death for patients in Era S1 but not in Era S2 (Table 2). In the Danish cohort, patients treated in Era D2 (2014-2020; n=370) vs Era D1 (2004-2013; n=461) had a slightly narrower gap in OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR 1.90 vs 2.10). For patients who achieved EFS24, those in Era D1 still had inferior OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.68), but the OS difference compared to the general Danish population in Era D2 was not statistically significant (SMR=1.27, 95% CI 0.92-1.72) with current follow-up (Table 2). Cause of death data were not available in this cohort. Conclusion: Survival in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC improved in the more recent treatment era and moved closer to the background expected survival. After achieving EFS24, lymphoma-related mortality was no longer the leading cause of death in the more recent era. EFS24 following frontline treatment may become a critical endpoint for predicting subsequent outcomes in patients with MCL in the modern era.

Background: Disease progression (PD) after frontline IC therapy for DLBCL is a clinically significant event and only 20-40% of patients achieve durable remissions with salvage chemotherapy. Patients who experience early PD or have disease refractory to IC have especially poor outcomes. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy has emerged as a novel effective therapy for selected cases of relapsed or refractory (r/r) DLBCL, although its availability is limited by cost and logistic challenges. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools would be useful for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies vs those who are more likely to be successfully managed by conventional therapies, but few have been developed for r/r DLBCL. Methods: Model building was performed in patients with PD after IC from 13 frontline, multicenter, randomized DLBCL clinical trials from the SEAL Consortium. All patients received rituximab and an anthracycline-based combination IC and were followed systematically; however therapy received, clinical, and laboratory data at progression were not available. OS was defined as time from first progression until death from any cause. Associations between variables and OS were evaluated using Cox models; splines were used to model functional forms. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish LYFO cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time-dependent concordance indices (c-stat), Brier scores, and calibration with metrics evaluated at two years from progression. Results: Model Development (SEAL): 1125 of 5112 patients had PD after IC. Median time to PD (TTP) was 11.8 months (IQR 6.6-23.5); median age at PD was 68 years (IQR 60-73). At a median follow-up of 21 months from PD (IQR 7-43), 732 patients (65%) had died and 24 month overall survival after PD (OS24) was 35% (95% CI: 32-38). TTP was strongly associated with post PD OS (spline p-value<0.0001) with OS24 ranging from 18% in patients with TTP <6 months compared to 69% in patients with TTP > 36 months (Figure A). Additionally, age at PD (spline p-value<0.0001) was associated with post PD OS. A model consisting of age at PD including patients 40-80 years and TTP ranging 0-60 months was created (n=1011, Figure B) due to sparse data outside these intervals. C-stat was 0.67, and the model was well calibrated (predicted OS24 = 34% vs. actual OS24 = 34%). External Validation (MER): The model was validated in 290 patients with DLBCL who initiated 2nd line therapy after PD to IC. Median age at PD was younger than the SEAL cohort at 62 years (IQR 57-70). Patients with biopsy proven indolent histology at relapse were excluded. Median TTP was 8.2 months (IQR 5.1-17.0). At a median follow-up of 87 months from PD, 201 patients (69%) had died. OS24 was 47% (95% CI: 41-53). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.65), but underestimated OS24 (predicted =33% vs. 47% actual, Figure C). External Validation (LYFO): The model was validated in 599 patients with DLBCL and PD after frontline IC. Median age at PD was 67 years (IQR 60-73). Median TTP was 10.1 months (IQR 6.0-19.4). At a median follow-up of 82 months from PD, 435 patients (73%) had died. OS24 was 38% (95% CI: 34-42). The model showed similar concordance (c-stat=0.67) when applied to the LYFO cohort, but again underestimated OS24 (predicted =32% vs. 38% actual, Figure D). Case vignettes: A 74 year old patient who progressed 9 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 20%. A 58 year old patient who progressed 32 months after diagnosis would have a predicted OS24 of 65% Conclusions: TTP to following IC is strongly associated with post-progression survival in DLBCL. We developed a model from the largest frontline clinical trial dataset in DLBCL and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the r/r setting. The model allows better understanding of expected outcomes in r/r DLBCL and can aid design and interpretation of trial results in this setting. The model underestimated the actual survival probability when applied to non-trial validation cohorts. Recalibration of the model for transplant eligible patients and development of smartphone based point-of-care application of the model is ongoing. Figure Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schmitz:Riemser: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Farooq:Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Flowers:Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding. Frederiksen:Alexion: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Cunningham:Eli Lilly: Research Funding; 4SC: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding. Jørgensen:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Poeschel:Amgen: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Abbvie: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses; Hexal: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Merli:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Gilead: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Expenses; Janssen: Honoraria. Haioun:novartis: Honoraria; celgene: Honoraria; roche: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; takeda: Consultancy; janssen cilag: Consultancy; amgen: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria. Tilly:roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; servier: Honoraria; merck: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy. Salles:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.

Introduction: Non-endemic Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is a rare and highly aggressive B-cell malignancy, of whom a substantial number are adolescents and young adults (AYAs). In this particular group of patients, the balance between efficacy and long-term toxicities is of major concern, due to the long expected remaining lifetime. In this study, we investigated the outcomes for AYA patients treated with intensive immunochemotherapy. Patients and methods: Patients were identified through queries to clinic based and population-based lymphoma registries from six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and USA). All diagnoses were confirmed by local investigators; patients with classical BL histology plus detectable MYC translocation, were included. Patients between 18 and 39 years of age at diagnosis treated with intensive immunochemotherapy (DA-EPOCH-R or more intensively) were evaluated in pre-specified age groups. All treatment protocols included rituximab. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until death from any cause or censoring, while event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until unplanned re-treatment, progression/relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Response evaluation was assessed using established response criteria based on CT and/or PET/CT imaging. Survival curves were computed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The cumulative incidence of relapse in patients reaching complete remission (CR) or CR unconfirmed (CRu) was computed by Aalen-Johansen estimator. The 5-year restricted loss of lifetime (RLOL) was defined as the area between the patient and general population survival curves until 5-years. The general population survival was retrieved from publicly available lifetables stratified on age, sex, calendar year, and country. Results: In total, 108 AYA BL patients were included. The median age was 30 years, ranging between 18 and 39 and 82% were male. The majority had advanced stage disease (Ann Arbor stage III-IV, 76%), extranodal involvement (87%), and elevated LDH (67%). Seven patients (6%) had CNS involvement at the time of diagnosis. The chemotherapy regimens used were CODOX-M/IVAC (51%), BFM/GMALL (34%), hyper-CVAD (7%), DA-EPOCH (5%), and others (3%). Among 74 patients for whom data on tumor lysis were available, 10 (14%) developed clinical tumor lysis upon start of chemotherapy, all presenting with advanced stage and extranodal disease. The response rate was 91% (89 in CR/CRu and 2% in partial remission). At a median follow-up of 53 months, 15 had an event and 10 died. The 2-year OS and EFS for the total population was 92% (87-97%, Figure 1) and 88% (82-94%), respectively. For 13 patients aged 18-21 2-year OS and EFS were both 100%, while 2-year OS and EFS for 43 patients aged 22-30 were 98% (93-100%) and 93% (85-100%), respectively. The 2-year OS and EFS for patients aged 31-39 were 86% (76-96%) and 80% (69-91%), respectively. For patients in CR/CRu and available date of response evaluation, the 2-year post-remission OS was 99% (97-100%) and the 2-year relapse risk was 2% (0-5%), with no relapses after 6 months. Compared to the general population, the RLOL was 0.8 months (-0.5-2.2 months). Nine patients did not respond to primary treatment (SD or PD), all which belonged to the age group 31-40 years (P<0.001 versus age group 18-30 years). The oldest age group had an inferior OS compared to younger patients (P=0.008), largely due to non-responders having poor subsequent survival with a 1-year OS of 33%. Conclusion: The outcomes of AYA BL patients following intensive immunochemotherapy are excellent with high remission rates and low risk of relapse in general. However, even among young patients age remained prognostic, with patients 31 years or older having inferior OS and lower response rate to first-line treatment. In patients achieving CR, survival was similar to that of the general population over the median follow-up of 4.5 years, illustrating the need to focus on survivorship issues in these individuals. Figure 1: Overall survival for BL patients following intensive immunochemotherapy for all patients and for age groups (18-21, 22-30, and 31-39 years). Figure 1 Disclosures Jørgensen: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Holte:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory board. Molin:Roche Holding AG: Honoraria; Merck & Co., Inc.: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Ekstroem Smedby:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Grant funding, Research Funding. Song:Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Gerrie:Lundbeck, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cheah:Roche, Janssen, MSD, Gilead, Loxo Oncology, Acerta, BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Celgene, Roche, Abbvie: Research Funding. El-Galaly:Roche: Employment, Other: Travel support; Takeda: Other: Travel support.