Jakobsen, Lasse Hjort

Marketing authorizations for oncology drugs are often based on single‐arm trials (SATs), and real‐world data‐based external comparator cohorts (ECCs) are increasingly explored to contextualize results. In retrospective studies, comparators may be identified by time of diagnosis but included based on time of relapse; such sampling strategies can introduce bias, potentially leading to erroneous efficacy conclusions. Simulated diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) cohorts were generated using published time‐to‐relapse and post‐relapse survival distributions. Three ECC sampling strategies were evaluated: naïve (screening and inclusion periods coincide), delayed (inclusion period extends beyond screening), and displacement (screening and inclusion periods shifted relative to each other). Different sampling strategies caused significant changes in the time‐to‐relapse distribution in the ECC and, by proxy, the estimated 2‐year post‐relapse overall survival (22.5–52.2%). Naïve sampling consistently resulted in oversampling of early relapses, though bias was reduced with extended inclusion periods; in hypothetical trials, it produced inflated Type I errors (10.5–84.9%) despite α = 0.025. Delayed sampling reduced bias when the inclusion period was sufficiently extended to capture late relapses, yielding unbiased estimates under long delays (Type I error of 2.5% at a 6‐year delay). Displacement sampling depended strongly on the degree of shift: moderate shifts minimized bias, whereas long displacements introduced substantial distortion (Type I error of 2.7% and 0.0% at displacements of 2 and 5, respectively). Real‐world data‐based ECCs in relapsed/refractory oncology are susceptible to selection bias from sampling strategies, particularly through distortions in time‐to‐relapse, leading to erroneous efficacy conclusions; similar bias may occur in non‐oncology settings where time‐to‐treatment initiation is prognostic.

Abstract A short diagnosis-to-treatment interval independently predicts inferior outcomes in follicular lymphoma. Using international discovery and validation cohorts, we demonstrate its prognostic value beyond established prognostic indices, with implications for risk stratification, clinical trial design, and interpretation.

ABSTRACTThe development of new first‐line treatments for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) is becoming increasingly challenging due to already excellent survival outcomes. The present study investigated the outcomes of patients with FL who underwent contemporary first‐line therapies but would not have been eligible for inclusion in recent trials and explored how commonly used in/exclusion criteria impacted their survival outcomes. This study included adult patients diagnosed with FL in the period 2000–2018 registered in the Danish Lymphoma Registry. Through searches on ClinicalTrials.gov, four recent 1st line phase 3 randomized controlled trials with R‐Bendamustine, R‐CVP, and/or R‐CHOP as control or experimental arms were included. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for each trial were retrieved and categorized. Patients were then divided into trial‐eligible and ineligible groups according to blood test results correlated to organ function and ECOG performance score (PS). Survival outcomes were significantly worse among trial‐ineligible patients, with adjusted differences between trial‐eligible and ineligible patients of 12%–20% in five‐year overall survival (OS) overall. Inclusion criteria based on PS and renal function were the main drivers of OS differences. More inclusive trials will lead to faster recruitment and secure focus on developing medicines for the group of patients with the worst outcomes.

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.

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.

Abstract Background: CD20 antibody plus alkylator and/or anthracycline based immunochemotherapy (IC) is a standard frontline therapy for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) with 10-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of approximately 50% and 80% respectively in long-term follow-up of clinical trials. Currently available clinical prognostic indices for FL have been designed using PFS and OS endpoints. Early events, commonly defined as progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) or early transformation to a more aggressive histology, are associated with inferior outcomes and increased risk of death due to refractory FL. Timely identification of the minority of patients with elevated mortality risk might enhance clinical management and research strategies. The FLIPI24 Consortium was created to develop a clinical prognostic index using early events as the primary endpoint. We report the outcomes for the pooled cohort and investigate the implications of therapy patterns on potential model development. Methods: Individual patient data were pooled and harmonized from 11 prospective observational cohorts from Europe, North America, and Australia. Patients who were diagnosed with grades 1-3A FL and initiated frontline IC were eligible. EFS was defined as time from start of IC to progression, relapse, retreatment (2nd line), histologic transformation, or death due to any cause. Early events were defined using status at 24 months from start of IC. OS was defined as time from start of IC to death due to any cause. Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate outcomes by clinical features and therapy types. Results: 9006 patients were abstracted and harmonized, 6111 patients initiated frontline IC between 2002 and 2018 and were included in this analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 61 years (IQR 52-69) and 50% were male. Complete FLIPI data were available in 5637 patients (92%) and 46%, 32%, and 22% were low, intermediate, and high risk, respectively. IC type was 3079 R-CHOP or like (50%) , 1529 R-CVP or like (25%), 918 R-bendamustine (B-R) or like (15%), and 585 fludarabine or other alkylator based IC (10%); 3187 received CD20 antibody maintenance (52%). Patients receiving R-CHOP were younger, more frequently grade 3A, and more frequently had elevated LDH; differences in other characteristics by IC type were not clinically meaningful. At median follow-up of 42 months (IQR 17-72), 2647 patients (43%) had an event (any) and 1494 patients (25%) died. Median survival after an early (non-death) event was 49 months (95% CI: 41-58); 5-year OS was 46% (95% CI: 43-49) compared to 89% (95% CI: 88-90) in patients without POD24. Across all IC types, EFS estimates at 2 and 10 years from start of IC were 80% (95% CI:79-81) and 49% (95% CI:48-51) and OS estimates were 92% (95% CI: 91-92) and 70% (95% CI: 69-72), respectively. FLIPI was highly associated with both EFS (c-statistic=0.61) and OS (c-statistic=0.65) from the initiation of IC (both p<0.0001). There were significant differences in EFS and OS by IC type (both p<0.0001) and use of maintenance was associated with prolonged EFS in landmark analyses at both 6 and 12 months from initiation of IC (both p<0.0001). Treatment patterns changed significantly over the study timeframe. Use of B-R and/or maintenance increased to 30% and 70% respectively in N=2937 patients treated in 2010-2018 (Era2) compared to <1% and 40% respectively in N=3174 patients treated 2002-2009 (Era1). EFS was significantly higher for Era2 compared to Era1 (HR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.71-0.83), which remained significant after adjustment for FLIPI (EFS HR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.76-0.89). However, the association between treatment eras and overall survival was weaker (HR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99) and not significant after adjusting for baseline FLIPI (OS HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.88-1.10). Conclusion: EFS and OS from this large pooled analysis of observational cohorts is similar to long-term follow-up of randomized clinical trials in the IC era and support the use of these data for model development. Modeling efforts for early events should adjust for initial IC selection and use of maintenance therapy. Utilization of bendamustine and/or maintenance therapy increased over the study timeframe from 2002-2018, and Era2 was associated with improved EFS but not OS. This cohort provides comprehensive and robust observational data to define clinical predictors in IC treated patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nanostring: Research Funding. Flowers: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Iovance: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Ziopharm: Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Weibull: Jansen-Cilag: Other: part of a research collaboration between Karolinska Institutet and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV for which Karolinska Institutet has received grant support. Ghesquieres: Janssen: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Science: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kridel: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding. Gandhi: Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Cheah: Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding. Hawkes: 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; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; 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. Seymour: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Mei Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Freeman: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Teva: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Clausen: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expences ASH 2019; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Travel expences 15th ICML ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wahlin: Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Link: Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy. Ekstroem Smedby: Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Trněný: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding.

Abstract Disease progression after frontline therapy for Diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a clinically significant event. Patients who experience early progression or have refractory disease have especially poor outcomes. Simple, clinically applicable prognostic tools are needed for selecting patients for consideration for novel therapies and prognostication in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. Model building was performed in patients from the Surrogate endpoints in aggressive lymphoma (SEAL) consortium with disease progression after frontline immunochemotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) measured from date of progression. Validation was performed in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Danish National Lymphoma Register (LYFO) cohorts. Model performance was assessed using time‐dependent concordance indices (c‐statistic) and calibration with metrics evaluated at 2 years from progression. Note, 1234 of 5112 patients treated with frontline immunochemotherapy in the SEAL consortium developed progressive disease. Time to progression on immunochemotherapy and age at progression were strongly associated with post‐progression OS (both p < 0.001). A prognostic model was developed incorporating spline fit for both variables. The model had good concordance in the discovery (0.67) and validation sets (LYFO c = 0.64, MER c = 0.68) with generally good calibration. Time to progression on frontline therapy is strongly associated with post‐progression OS in DLBCL. We developed and validated a simple to apply clinical prognostic tool in the R/R setting. The useful prediction of expected outcomes in R/R DLBCL and can inform treatment decisions such as considerations for CAR‐T therapy as well as trial designs. The model is available in smartphone‐based point of care applications.

SummaryNon‐endemic Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is a rare germinal centre B‐cell‐derived malignancy with the genetic hallmark of MYC gene translocation and with rapid tumour growth as a distinct clinical feature. To investigate treatment outcomes, loss of lifetime and relapse risk in adult BL patients treated with intensive immunochemotherapy, retrospective clinic‐based and population‐based lymphoma registries from six countries were used to identify 264 real‐world patients. The median age was 47 years and the majority had advanced‐stage disease and elevated LDH. Treatment protocols were R‐CODOX‐M/IVAC (47%), R‐hyper‐CVAD (16%), DA‐EPOCH‐R (11%), R‐BFM/GMALL (25%) and other (2%) leading to an overall response rate of 89%. The two‐year overall survival and event‐free survival were 84% and 80% respectively. For patients in complete remission/unconfirmed, the two‐year relapse risk was 6% but diminished to 0·6% for patients reaching 12 months of post‐remission event‐free survival (pEFS12). The loss of lifetime for pEFS12 patients was 0·4 (95% CI: −0·7 to 2) months. In conclusion, real‐world outcomes of adult BL are excellent following intensive immunochemotherapy. For pEFS12 patients, the relapse risk was low and life expectancy similar to that of a general population, which is important information for developing meaningful follow‐up strategies with increased focus on survivorship and less focus on routine disease surveillance.