Rodgers, Thomas D.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have an increased risk of infection secondary to hypogammaglobulinemia, due to myeloma itself and anti-myeloma therapies. Prophylactic immunoglobulin (Ig) supplementation has been considered a potential strategy to reduce the risk of infections. A randomized controlled trial (Chapel, Lancet, 1994) demonstrated a reduction in both overall and major infections with the use of Ig. However, its real-world benefit remains unclear and prophylactic Ig is not routinely given as part of standard therapies. Furthermore, little is known regarding the routine use of Ig in the context of modern therapeutic agents such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy or bispecific antibody therapies. To address this gap, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) to elucidate the efficacy of prophylactic immunoglobulin in patients with MM. Methods: We performed a SRMA of observational and randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes in patients with MM who received prophylactic immunoglobulin versus those who did not. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted up to July 2025, along with a manual review of the reference lists from relevant articles. This review adheres to the recommendations from the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines. R software version 4.5.1 was used for statistical analyses. Results: A total of 18 studies were included in the systematic review. Among them, 11 studies compared patients who received immunoglobulin prophylaxis with those who did not (“Ig” versus “no Ig” groups). The remaining seven studies analyzed the same group of patients, comparing periods when they were receiving Ig (“on-Ig”) with periods when they were not (“off-Ig”). Among 18 studies, 13 studies were included in meta-analysis due to data availability (eight from the former group and five from the latter group). First, we conducted a meta-analysis of 1,234 patients from the eight studies that preceded this analysis, comparing Ig and no-Ig. Three studies included MM patients treated with bispecific antibodies, two focused on those treated with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and one on those treated with anti-CD38 antibodies. The dose of Ig was 0.4 g/kg every four weeks in most studies, and the timing of initiation of Ig varied across studies. The majority of Ig was delivered through an intravenous route. Most studies defined severe infections as those greater than grade 3 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, while one study defined them as infections requiring intravenous or oral antibiotic treatment. The incidence of severe infection was significantly lower in patients who received prophylactic Ig compared with those who did not (odds ratio [OR] 0.22; 95% CI 0.08-0.63; p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the overall infection rate between the two groups (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.68-1.37; p = 0.85). A subgroup analysis by treatment type (chemotherapy, bispecific antibody, and ASCT) showed no significant differences in the overall infection rate among the subgroups (ASCT: OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.64-1.45; Bispecific antibody: OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.49-1.11). However, a significant reduction in the rate of severe infections was observed in patients treated with bispecific antibodies (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.13-0.85; p = 0.021). Next, we analyzed 460 patients from the latter five studies comparing on-Ig and off-Ig. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) of overall infection was significantly lower during on-Ig periods compared with off-Ig periods (IRR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43-0.88; p = 0.0082). Conclusions: In patients with MM, prophylactic Ig use was associated with a low incidence of severe infections. Furthermore, the incidence rate ratio of overall infection was lower during periods of Ig prophylaxis compared to periods without Ig. These findings underscore the potential efficacy of a routine Ig prophylaxis in patients with MM to mitigate the risk of infections. Since this meta-analysis does not include studies involving patients treated with CAR-T therapy, further studies are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of Ig in patients receiving novel therapies such as CAR-T therapy, while also considering the cost and time associated with Ig administration in real-world clinical practice.

Abstract Background Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is relatively rare, accounting for 3-15% of extranodal NHL and less than 1% of all NHL. Patients often present with pain and swelling or pathologic fracture of the affected area of the skeleton, and B symptoms are often less prevalent. Many cases are limited stage at presentation. Patients are usually treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or similar induction therapy. Based on older studies showing improved outcomes associated with the addition of radiation (many completed prior to the rituximab era), patients often still receive combined-modality therapy today. However, it remains unknown whether consolidative radiation therapy (RT) confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction. We sought to address this question in a multicenter retrospective study. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes in a modern cohort of patients who underwent treatment for primary bone DLBCL using chemotherapy regimens in the rituximab era either with or without consolidative RT. Data was collected from 13 academic medical centers in the U.S., with patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Patients were identified using each institution's hematologic malignancy registries. Analysis was limited to patients with primary bone DLBCL, with stage I-II disease (primary site +/- locoregional lymph nodes) that could be encompassed in a radiation field. Patients who received CIT alone or CIT followed by RT were included. Treatment selection was at the treating physician's discretion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for: demographics, chemotherapy regimens, radiation treatments, and PET scan data. Local IRB approval was obtained at sites. All data was distributed in a de-identified fashion. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included: response after induction CIT induction and the need for additional therapies. Chi-square test analysis was used to compare categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous and ordinal measures. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups via the log-rank test. Multi-variable analysis (MVA) for OS and RFS was performed using RT vs no RT, PET status post CIT (negative vs positive) and rituximab in induction (Y/N) as variables. Results A total of 127 patients were included: 91 who received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 36 who received CIT alone (no RT group). The median age of patients at diagnosis in the RT group and no RT group was 58.5 and 57.0, respectively. For CIT, the majority of patients received R-CHOP (84%). Despite focusing on 2005-2019, a small percentage of patients (5 - 14%) in each group (RT and no RT) did not receive rituximab with their induction therapy. The OS at 10 years was 74.5% in the RT group and 86.5% in the no RT group (p = 0.29). The RFS at 10 years was 70.9% in the RT group and 78.2% in the no RT group (p = 0.85). Among the 91 patients who received RT, 67 (77.0%) received a dose of 36 Gy or higher. There was no difference in OS (p = 0.63) or RFS (p = 0.90) in patients who received > 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy of radiation. On MVA for OS, RT was not associated with improved OS, although rituximab as part of induction was (p = 0.048). On MVA for RFS, neither RT nor rituximab were associated with improved RFS. For rituximab the trend was in the direction of rituximab benefit (p = 0.11). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that, in the rituximab era, patients with limited stage primary bone DLBCL have excellent outcomes overall. In this study, neither RFS or OS appeared to be improved with the addition of consolidative RT. Rituximab, however, was associated with improved OS on MVA. Outcomes do not appear to differ based on the dose of RT (> 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy). Our data suggests that RT may have less benefit for primary bone DLBCL in the rituximab era, although it is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from consolidative radiation therapy. A larger data set would likely be needed to evaluate this. We plan to present data regarding PET responses at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Caimi: XaTek: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from patents (wife); Amgen Therapeutics.: Consultancy; ADC Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Epperla: Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Genzyme: Honoraria. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; SeaGen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Fenske: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Purpose: Tafasitamab, an Fc-modified, humanized, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody, in combination with lenalidomide, demonstrated efficacy in transplant-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), in the single-arm, phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085). RE-MIND, a retrospective observational study, generated a historic control for L-MIND to delineate the contribution of tafasitamab to the efficacy of the combination. Patients and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from patients with R/R DLBCL treated with lenalidomide monotherapy for comparison with tafasitamab + lenalidomide–treated patients (L-MIND). Key eligibility criteria were aligned with L-MIND. Estimated propensity score–based Nearest Neighbor 1:1 Matching methodology balanced the cohorts for nine prespecified prognostic baseline covariates. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Data from 490 patients going through lenalidomide monotherapy were collected; 140 qualified for matching with the L-MIND cohort. The primary analysis included 76 patients from each cohort who received a lenalidomide starting dose of 25 mg/day. Cohort baseline covariates were comparable. A significantly better ORR of 67.1% (95% confidence interval, 55.4–77.5) was observed for the combination therapy versus 34.2% (23.7–46.0) for lenalidomide monotherapy [odds ratio, 3.89 (1.90–8.14); P < 0.0001]. Higher CR rates were achieved with combination therapy compared with lenalidomide monotherapy [39.5% (28.4–51.4) vs. 13.2% (6.5–22.9)]. Survival endpoints favored combination therapy. Lenalidomide monotherapy outcomes were similar to previously published data. Conclusions: RE-MIND enabled the estimation of the additional treatment effect achieved by combining tafasitamab with lenalidomide in patients with R/R DLBCL.

8020 Background: Patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) have a poor prognosis. In these patients, tafasitamab (anti-CD19 antibody) plus lenalidomide (LEN) has shown encouraging results in the open-label, single-arm, phase II L-MIND study (n = 81; NCT02399085). To evaluate the contribution of tafasitamab to the activity of this doublet, we conducted a global, real-world study of patients treated with LEN monotherapy (RE-MIND; NCT04150328). Here we present the primary analysis of a 1:1 patient-level matched comparison between the L-MIND and RE-MIND cohorts. Methods: Patients treated with LEN monotherapy for R/R DLBCL were enrolled in the observational, retrospective RE-MIND cohort. As in L-MIND, patients had 1–3 prior systemic therapies, including ≥1 CD20-targeting regimen; were aged ≥18 years; and were not eligible for ASCT. A 1:1 estimated propensity score (ePS) matching methodology ensured balancing of nine pre-specified baseline covariates. The primary analysis set, Matched Analysis Set 25 (MAS25), included patients who received a LEN starting dose of 25 mg/day. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and complete response (CR) rate. Results: 490 patients were enrolled in RE-MIND across 58 centers in the US and Europe, of which 140 fulfilled the ePS matching criteria. The MAS25 included 76 patients each from the two cohorts. Baseline characteristics between cohorts were comparable. The primary endpoint was met with a significantly better ORR of 67.1% (95% CI: 55.4–77.5) for the L-MIND cohort versus 34.2% (95% CI: 23.7–46.0) for the RE-MIND cohort (odds ratio 3.89; 95% CI: 1.90–8.14; p < 0.0001). The CR rate was 39.5% (95% CI: 28.4–51.4) in the L-MIND cohort and 13.2% (95% CI: 6.5–22.9) in the RE-MIND cohort. A significant difference in OS favored the L-MIND cohort (HR = 0.499; 95% CI: 0.317–0.785). ORR and CR outcomes in the RE-MIND cohort were similar to the published literature for LEN monotherapy in R/R DLBCL. Conclusions: Significantly better ORR, CR and OS indicate potential synergistic effects of the tafasitamab + LEN combination in ASCT-ineligible R/R DLBCL. ePS-based 1:1 matching allows robust estimation of the treatment effect of tafasitamab when added to LEN. RE-MIND demonstrates the utility of real-world data in interpreting non-randomized trials. Clinical trial information: NCT04150328 .