Desai, Sanjal H.

AbstractClinical trials of novel salvage therapies have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory transplant‐eligible classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) but comparison with conventional chemotherapy is lacking. Herein, we report the final analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort of R/R cHL assessing outcomes by type of salvage therapy before autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). R/R cHL patients who underwent ASCT at 14 institutions across the United States were included. Outcomes were compared among patients receiving conventional chemotherapy, brentuximab vedotin (BV) + chemotherapy, BV alone, and a checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)‐based regimens before ASCT. Study endpoints included event‐free survival (EFS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). All endpoints are defined from relapse. Of 936 patients, 728 received conventional chemotherapy, 73 received BV + chemotherapy, 70 received BV alone, and 65 received CPI‐based regimens prior to ASCT. When adjusted for time to relapse, pre‐ASCT response and use of BV maintenance, patients receiving CPI‐based regimens had superior 2‐year EFS compared to conventional chemotherapy, BV + chemotherapy, and BV alone (79.7, 49.6, 62.3, and 36.9%, respectively, p < .0001). Among 649 patients transplanted after 1 line of salvage therapy, CPI‐based regimens were associated with superior 2‐year PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy (98% vs. 68.8%, hazard ratio: 0.1, 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.5, p < .0001). OS did not differ by pre‐ASCT salvage regimen. In this large multicenter retrospective study, CPI‐based regimens improved EFS and PFS compared to other salvage regimens independent of pre‐ASCT response. These data support earlier sequencing of CPI‐based regimens in R/R cHL in the pre‐ASCT setting.

Abstract Activated B cell (ABC) type diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), double hit lymphoma (DHL) and double expressor lymphoma (DEL) have poor outcomes to frontline R‐CHOP but impact of these molecular features on outcomes of relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease is not well‐characterized. We evaluated the association of diagnostic cell of origin (COO), double hit and double expressor status with overall survival after first relapse in DLBCL patients who were enrolled into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort. COO was available from immunohistochemistry (IHC) using Hans criteria or gene expression profiling (GEP) (Nanostring) on the diagnostic FFPE biopsy. Of 373 pts with R/R DLBCL, 278 had COO by IHC: 152 were GCB, 107 were non‐GCB. One hundred and fourty had COO by GEP: 44 were ABC, 65 were GCB and 13 were unclassifiable. Nineteen out of 163 (12%) were DHL; 30 out of 135 (22%) had DEL. COO, either by IHC (2 years OS GCB: 45% [CI 95 : 38–54] vs. non‐GCB: 44% [CI 95 :36–55], p > 0.05) or GEP (2 years OS ABC: 42% [CI 95 : 29–59] vs. GCB: 40% [CI 95 : 30–54], p > 0.05), was not associated with difference in OS. DHL (2 years OS 16 [CI 95 :6–45] vs. 45% [CI 95 : 34–59], p < 0.01) and DEL (2 years OS 33% [CI 95 : 20–56], vs. 50% [CI 95 : 41–60], p < 0.05) had lower OS than non‐DHL and non‐DEL/non‐DHL counterparts, respectively. COO by IHC or GEP was not associated with OS in R/R DLBCL while DHL and DEL were adverse prognostic markers in DLBCL at first relapse.

Abstract An enhanced understanding of the molecular heterogeneity of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has opened the door to clinical trials evaluating novel agents with subtype-specific activity. It is an emerging question whether core needle biopsies (CNB) can adequately meet the increasing tissue requirements of these clinical trials. This can potentially lead to selective enrollment of patients who can undergo excisional biopsy (EB). It is also important to know whether patients who can undergo extensive diagnostic work up differ in their disease characteristics and outcomes from those who cannot. In this observational study, we describe the characteristics, outcomes, and adequacy of diagnostic tissue in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma who underwent EB vs CNB. Of the 1061 patients, 532 (49.8%) underwent EB and 529 (50.1%) underwent CNB. A significantly higher proportion of patients with CNB had advanced stage disease, an international prognostic index of ≥3, and inadequate tissue for molecular analyses. Patients with CNB had significantly worse 5-year event-free survival (67.6% vs 56.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; confidence interval [CI]95, 0.6-0.9, P &lt; .001) and 5-year overall survival (76.4% vs 69.2%; HR, 0.8; CI95, 0.6-0.9, P &lt; .001). Thus, patients who underwent CNB have poor-risk features and inferior outcomes on frontline chemoimmunotherapy, are more likely to have inadequate tissue for molecular analyses, and might not meet the tissue requirements of biomarker-driven clinical trials. Thus, the increasing tissue requirements of biomarker-driven clinical trials may result in the exclusion of patients with high-risk DLBCL who need novel agents.

7515 Background: Primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER) are predictors of poor prognosis in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In this multicenter retrospective study, we describe outcomes of PRD and ER in pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL treated with salvage therapy (ST) and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Methods: Of 14 sites, adult patients with R/R cHL who received ST and underwent ASCT were enrolled. PRD was defined as progression on frontline chemoimmunotherapy or within 6 months of diagnosis. ER was defined as relapse from 6 months-1 yr of diagnosis. Pts who relapsed >1 yr of diagnosis were called late relapses (LR). Study objectives were Overall response rates (ORR), CR rates, PFS, and OS. Results: Of 986 total pts, 160 had PRD, 365 had ER and 461 had LR. Significantly higher number of pts with PRD, but not ER, had bulky disease (41% vs 27%, p<0.01) and B symptoms (53% vs 38%, p<0.001) than LR. Higher proportions of pts with PRD and ER required >1 line of ST (44% vs 30% vs 23%, p<0.001) before ASCT and received BV maintenance (25% vs 24% vs 16%, p<0.05). When adjusted for B symptoms and Bulky disease, PRD and ER had significantly lower ORR (65% vs 76% vs 84%, p<0.001) and CR (37% vs 46% vs 57%, p<0.001) to first ST than LR. Pts with PRD and ER had significantly lower PFS (56.3%, 61.4%, vs 77.6%, p<.0001) and OS (93% vs 89% vs 94%, p=0.01) than LR. In pts with ER, Brentuximab/bendamustine (BBV) and brentuximab vedotin/nivolumab (BV/nivo) had a trend towards higher ORR (92% vs 92% vs 75%) but significantly higher CR (79.2% vs 76% vs 42%, p<0.01) than platinum based chemotherapy (PBC). In pts with PRD, BBV and BV/Nivo had a statistically insignificant trend towards higher ORR and CR than PBC. The table shows 2 yr PFS by type of ST in PRD, ER, LR. There was no difference in PFS by time to relapse in BV/nivo, CPI and miscellaneous agents. BV/Nivo had a significantly higher PFS than PBC in PRD (88% vs 48%, p<0.05) and ER (95% vs 57%, p<0.05). There was no difference in PFS of PBC and other ST in PRD, ER or LR. OS was not significantly associated with type of ST in either group. Conclusions: PRD and ER are associated with lower response to ST and survival after ASCT compared to late relapse. In pts with PRD and ER, BV/Nivo has high ORR and CR and leads to significantly higher PFS comparable to pts with late relapse and may be preferable ST regardless of time to relapse. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Up to 40% of newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) will relapse after frontline rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP), with subsequent poor prognosis. Identification of patients (pts) at high risk of relapse early in the treatment can allow for development of risk adapted therapies to improve outcomes. Positron Emission Tomography scan after 2 cycles of therapy (PET2) has been evaluated as a predictor of relapse but study treatments were heterogenous and results were conflicting. A substudy of CALGB 50303 trial did not find association of PET2 response by Deauville Score (DS) with survival in RCHOP and DA-EPOCH-R treated pts. In the UK National Cancer Research Institute Prospective Study, DS of 5 on PET2 predicted worse progression free survival but not overall survival (OS) in RCHOP-21 and RCHOP-14 treated pts. Here we report impact of PET2 response on outcomes in two large independent, prospective cohorts of newly diagnosed DLBCL treated homogenously with two RCHOP-based regimens of similar efficacy. Methods: Discovery was done in adult pts with DLBCL enrolled into a single arm phase 2 trial of lenalidomide plus standard RCHOP (R2CHOP) (MC078E, NCT00670358). The validation cohort comprised of adult pts with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with standard RCHOP prospectively enrolled into the Mayo component of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER). Both MC078E and MER cohorts included patients who received at least 3-6 cycles of therapy and had a PET2. Pts who progressed on PET2 were excluded. End of treatment (EOT) PET was done 3-12 weeks after last cycle of therapy. The revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson, et al 2007) was used to assess PET in MC078E. In MER, revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma (Cheson et al 2007) or Lugano classification was used, depending on era of diagnosis. Positive PET was defined as FDG uptake above background (Cheson 2007) or DS 4 or 5 (Lugano 2014). Study endpoints were event-free survival (EFS) and OS by PET2 status. Results: Out of 118 pts treated on MC078E, 102 had PET2 (MC078E). The median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range 19-87), 61 (60%) were male, 89 (87%) had advanced stage disease, 46 (45%) had international prognostic index (IPI) of 3-5. 58 (57%) were PET2 Negative (PET2-ve) and 44 (43%) were PET2 Positive (PET2+ve). At EOT PET, 83 (81%) had -ve PET and 15 (15%) had +ve PET. Out of 44 PET2+ve pts, 15 remained +ve at EOT PET. Out of 58 PET2-ve pts, 56 had EOT PET available and all were -ve. Out of 866 DLBCL pts enrolled into MER between August 2005 and June 2015, 621 were treated with RCHOP for 3-6 cycles and 272 had available PET2 (MER). The median age was 65 years (range 55-73), 152 (56%) were male, 174 (64%) had advanced stage, 103 (38%) had IPI 3-5. 186 (68%) were PET2-ve and 86 (32%) were PET2+ve. Out of 235 with EOT PET available, 182 (77%) had -ve EOT PET and 25 (11%) had +ve EOT PET. PET2+ve pts had higher odds of +ve EOT PET (OR: 17.4 (CI 95 8.3-40.0), p&lt;0.001) and progression on EOT PET (OR: 4.3 (CI 95 1.9-10.2), p&lt;0.001) in MER cohort. This analysis was not possible on MC078E as all PET2-ve had -ve EOT PET. In MC078E, 2-year EFS and OS were 69.5% (CI 95 61.1-79.1) and 88.1% (CI 95 82-94.7). In MER, 2-year EFS and OS were 71.6% (CI 95 67.7-76.8) and 82.3% (CI 95 79.3-85.3). Compared to PET2-ve, PET2+ve pts had significantly inferior EFS in both MC078E (HR 4.0, CI 95 2.1-7.88, p&lt;0.0001, figure 1a) and MER (HR 2.9, CI 95 1.9-4.1, p&lt;0.0001, figure 1c). Compared to PET2-ve , PET2+ve pts had a trend towards lower OS in MC078E (HR 2.0, CI 95 0.9-4.9, p=0.1, figure 1b) and a significantly lower OS in MER (HR 2.3, CI 95: 1.5-3.4, p&lt;0.0001, figure 1d). In subgroup analysis of MC078E, PET2+ve pts had lower EFS and a trend towards lower OS in all subgroups except IPI 0-2 (Table 1). In MER, PET2+ve pts had lower EFS and OS in all the subgroups except stage I-II and IPI 0-2 (Table 1). Conclusions: Positive PET2 was associated with increased risk of disease progression and death in newly diagnosed DLBCL. Results of our study provide robust evidence of importance of PET2 as an early predictor DLBCL pts at high risk of progression in two independent prospective cohorts. PET2-guided risk-adapted strategies using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies may potentially improve outcomes, should be explored in clinical trials and results of our study serve as a benchmark for such studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cerhan: Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials of novel salvage therapies (ST) have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); yet studies comparing novel ST with conventional salvage chemotherapy are lacking. In a single center cohort, we demonstrated that bendamustine/brentuximab (BBV) had higher overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates in ASCT-eligible R/R cHL (Desai et al JCO, 2021). Herein we report comparative outcomes of novel and conventional ST in R/R cHL who undergo ASCT, in a large multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Consecutive R/R cHL pts who underwent ASCT at 12 institutions across United States were included. Demographics and clinical variables at relapse including age, sex, B symptoms, stage, bulky disease (BD, single mass &gt; 6 cm) extra nodal disease (END), primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER, within 1 year) were recorded by electronic health records review. Study objectives were ORR, CR to first ST, post-ASCT PFS and OS by final ST. Time to event endpoints were defined from date of ASCT. Results: From 12 participating institutions, 853 pts of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT were eligible for this study. Median age was 33 (14-72) years, 457 (54%) were male, 446 (52%) had BD, 257 (30%) had advanced stage, 271 (32%) had END, 369 (43%) had B symptoms, 142 (17%) had PRD and 307 (36%) had ER. All 853 received at least 1 ST, 245 received 2 ST, 71 received 3 ST and 26 received 4 ST. Seven groups of ST were identified: 1. Conventional platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) group including ICE, DHAP and ESHAP 2. BBV 3. Brentuximab Vedotin and nivolumab (BV/Nivo) 4. BV alone (BV) 5. gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (Gem) 6. checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and 7. other miscellaneous agents (Misc). 1st ST was as follows: 553 had PBC; 69 had BBV; 48 had BV/Nivo; 65 had BV; 49 had Gem; 4 had CPI and 63 had Misc. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics by type of 1 st ST (data not shown). BBV had significantly higher ORR (92% vs 79%, p&lt;0.001) and CR rate (80% vs 49%, p &lt;0.001) compared to PBC. BV/Nivo had significantly higher CR rate (67% vs 49%, p &lt;0.001) and a trend towards higher ORR (86% vs 79%, p = 0.1) compared to PBC. BV had significantly lower ORR (62% vs 79%, p &lt;0.001) and CR rate (34% vs 49%, p &lt;0.001) compared to PBC. There was no difference in ORR and CR rate of PBC, Gem, CPI and Misc agents. Final ST prior to ASCT was PBC in 451, BBV in 76, BV/Nivo in 48, BV in 87, CPI in 24, Gem in 90 and Misc in 64. Table 1 lists K-M estimates of 2-year survival probabilities for different Final ST groups. Median follow up was 3 (range 0.1-13) years. BV/Nivo group had significantly higher proportion of patients with PRD and BD than PBC, no other differences in baseline characteristics were identified amongst ST groups (data not shown). BV/Nivo (HR: 0.1 (CI 95:0.02-0.4), p&lt;0.01) and CPI (HR: 0.12 (CI 95:0.03-0.5), p&lt;0.01) had significantly higher PFS than PBC. There was no significant difference in PFS between other ST groups (Figure 1a). Type of ST was not significantly associated with difference in OS (Figure 1b). 536 pts underwent ASCT in CR, 273 underwent ASCT in partial response (PR) and 31 underwent ASCT with progressive disease (PD). Pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.6 (CI 95:1.3-2.6), p&lt;0.001) and PD (HR: 4.1 (CI 95: 2.5-6.8), p&lt;0.001) predicted significantly lower PFS compared to CR (Figure 2a). OS was also significantly lower in pts with pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.7 (CI 95: 1.2-1.6), p&lt;0.001) and PD (HR 5.3 (CI 95: 2.8-10), p&lt;0.001) (Figure 2b). Higher number of pre-ASCT ST predicted lower PFS (HR 1.3 (CI 95: 1.1-1.6), p&lt;0.001) and OS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-1.8), p&lt;0.001). In pts with pre-ASCT CR, all 36 who had pre-ASCT CR after BV/Nivo were alive and relapse free for follow up of 0.1-5 yrs. BV/Nivo was associated with significantly higher PFS (HR 0.1 (CI 95: 0.01-0.7), p &lt;0.05) but not OS compared to PBC in this subgroup. Increasing number of pre-ASCT ST predicted worse PFS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-2.0), p&lt;0.01) and OS (HR 2.2 (CI 95: 1.4-3.4), p&lt;0.001) in this subgroup as well. Conclusions: BV/Nivo has a higher CR rate and better post-ASCT PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy and can lead to durable remissions in pts with pre-ASCT CR. BBV had a higher response rate and similar post-ASCT survival to conventional chemotherapy. BV had lower response rates compared to chemotherapy. Novel ST such as BV/Nivo and BBV may be preferable to conventional chemotherapy in R/R cHL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Spinner: Notable Labs: Honoraria. Bachanova: FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dorritie: SITC presentation: Honoraria; Genmab: Research Funding; University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Hillman Cancer Center: Current Employment; Janssen: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Juno/BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; OncLive/Institutional Perspectives on Cancer presentation: Honoraria. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Nanostring: 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; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diefenbach: Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; IMab: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; AbbVie: Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Advani: Astellas/Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty Seven: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genetech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.