Copley, Devin B

Background: Physical function (PF) is an important outcome that can inform cancer treatment tolerability from a clinical and regulatory perspective. PF can be assessed through different modalities: patient-reported (PRO), clinician-reported (ClinRo), performance tests (PerfO), and digital sensors (wearables). No standard approach for PF measurement has been defined, and each modality bears unique implementation challenges. The Integrating 4 Measures to Assess Physical Function study (In4M, NCT05214144) characterized the performance of these PF modalities in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, with a goal of guiding an assessment strategy in future cancer trials. Here we present feasibility results of the In4M study in patients with lymphoma. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study with longitudinal PF assessment of PROs, ClinRo, PerfO, and wearable sensor data for over 9 months in patients initiating chemotherapy for lymphoma or breast cancer at Mayo Clinic and Yale University. Patient-reported PF was assessed using several validated ePRO instruments, ClinRo utilized clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, PerfO was measured via 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and digital sensor data was obtained from a wearable (Fitbit) provided to all participants. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing these PF modalities through compliance outcomes and a study-specific exit survey. Descriptive statistics included medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. We used a mixed model to estimate mean number of Fitbit compliant days per week. Results: Among 66 patients with lymphoma in the study (median age was 57 years; 52% were male), 90% self-reported as White, 4.9% as Black, 1.6% as Asian, 1.6% as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.6% as multiple races. Ethnicity was reported as non-Hispanic/Latino by 93% of patients. Education status was reported as more than high school by 92% of patients, and 49% reported full-time employment at time of enrollment. The overall ePROs completion rate was 80.7% for the entire study period. Baseline ePRO completion rate was 93.9%. Completion rate while undergoing chemotherapy was 91.3% and 75.4% in the post-treatment follow-up. The median time to complete ePROs was 4.1 minutes (IQR 2.8-5.9), ranging from 3.1 minutes for surveys with 37 questions to 5.6 minutes for surveys with 55 questions (survey length varied by timepoint). The baseline 6MWT was completed by 91% of patients. The most common reasons for not completing the baseline 6MWT were: patient refusal (50%, 3/6), patient not physically present (33%, 2/6), and unable to complete due to fatigue (17%, 1/6). The 3-month 6MWT was completed by 66% (40/61) of patients, with the most common reasons for missingness being: patient not physically present (38%, 8/21) and unable to complete due to fatigue (14%, 3/21). When considering the days when Fitbit was used, the median wear time was 21.3 hours (IQR 18.9-22.5) per day. The proportion of compliant days (>10 hours of wear time during waking hours) was 53% (IQR 20-84). The median of participants' average compliant days per week was 5.4 (IQR 4.3-6.1) days/week after enrollment, with a slight downward trend over time (-0.017 compliant days per week [95% CI: -0.021, -0.012, p <0.001] over each consecutive week in the study). The exit survey was completed by 39 (59%) patients. Most participants (85%) indicated they did not find the ePRO surveys burdensome to complete. Using the Fitbit (charging and syncing) was found to be manageable by most patients (87% and 84%, respectively). 60.8% of patients did not find the wearable bothersome to use, while the main themes reported by the remaining patients were related to the operation of the wearable itself (functions, small text size, forgetting login information) or discomfort (band material, wearing at night). Conclusion: Multi-modal assessment of PF with PRO, ClinRo, PerfO and wearable sensor data in patients with lymphoma undergoing treatment is feasible. Designing lymphoma therapeutic trials that incorporate at least one PF assessment modality, or assessment with a parsimonious combination of modalities, is achievable and may yield valuable insights into treatment tolerability for clinical and regulatory purposes.

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is frequently curable after frontline therapy, however, relapses can occur after achievement of a PET-negative complete remission (CR). Early detection of relapse may be associated with improved outcomes, particularly given the development of more active therapies for relapsed, refractory DLBCL. Controversy exists regarding the utility of post-therapy surveillance imaging which is associated with patient (pt) anxiety, radiation exposure, false-positive results, and cost, without clear overall survival benefit in retrospective studies (Thompson JCO 2014). A retrospective study found that serial minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring during DLBCL surveillance could identify pts at risk of relapse before clinical evidence of disease (Roschewski Lancet Oncol 2015). In this multicenter prospective study, we assessed whether a next-generation immunosequencing (IS) MRD assay could be used for early detection of molecular relapse in DLBCL. Methods: Eligible pts with DLBCL or high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) who received anthracycline-containing chemotherapy were enrolled across five cancer centers. In pts who achieved a PET-negative CR, serial peripheral blood samples were obtained every 3 months (mos) and CT scans every 6 mos for 2 years (yrs) post-treatment. The IS MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) that leverages multiplex PCR followed by NGS to identify and track rearrangements of IgH, V-J, D-J and IgK/L loci and translocations in Bcl1/2-IgH was used. MRD positive was defined as any detectable rearrangement and MRD undetectable as no evidence of rearrangement. Results: 500 pts were enrolled and 400 were evaluable (pre-treatment tumor pathology available, completed frontline treatment, and achieved PET-negative CR at end-of-treatment). Baseline characteristics were median age of 62 yrs (range 19-95), male sex 58%, advanced stage 61%, and poor-risk by R-IPI 42%. Histologies included DLBCL, NOS (88%), primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (6%), HGBCL (5%), T-cell rich B-cell lymphoma (3%), and other (1%). Pts received regimens including RCHOP x 6 cycles (37%), REPOCH x 6 cycles (20%), clinical trial (15%), combined modality therapy (RCHOP+RT) (9%), and other RCHOP variations (19%). Among the 400 evaluable pts, 44 relapses have occurred as of July 1, 2021. In 45% of pts (20/44), clinical relapse was detected using surveillance imaging alone (typically CT CAP with IV contrast) in an otherwise asymptomatic pt with a normal physical exam and laboratory evaluation . In 10% of pts (4/44), relapse was detected by patient-reported clinical symptoms alone. In 45% of pts (20/44), relapse was detected by imaging, clinical symptoms, and/or evaluation by an oncologist. With a median follow-up of 34 months, the 2-year PFS was 88.9% (85.8, 92.1). Advanced age, advanced stage, and poor-risk R-IPI were associated with inferior PFS. Of the 44 relapses, tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 39 pts (4 failed quality control (QC), 1 failed calibration) and 38 pts had ≥1 sample available within 90 days of relapse. Of 356 patients in ongoing CR, tumor-specific clonotypes were identified in 279 patients (29 failed QC, 33 failed calibration, and 15 are pending sequencing). The patient-level prospective MRD results are shown in Figure 1. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the IS MRD assay was 63% (24/38), 78% (218/279), 28% (24/85), and 94% (218/232), respectively. Plasma MRD detection had improved sensitivity and specificity compared with circulating cells. Among the 24 relapsed patients with a positive MRD result at or before relapse, the median anticipation of the test was 3 months (range 0 to 24 months). Conclusion: Overall outcomes are excellent for DLBCL and HGBCL pts who achieve PET-negative CR. In this multicenter prospective analysis with standardized follow up, a substantial proportion (45%) of clinical relapses are detected radiographically in asymptomatic pts, supporting the value of CT surveillance imaging in DLBCL, particularly for pts with advanced stage or high-risk disease. MRD assessment using the IS MRD assay had suboptimal sensitivity and specificity in the post-treatment surveillance setting in DLBCL. Further study of the clinical context and its correlation with test performance is ongoing. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Kite Pharmaceuticals: Other: advisory board , Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Celgene, Abbvie Pharmaceticals, Pharmacyclics, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Westin: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding. Schuster: TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. 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. Lossos: Lymphoma Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; NCI: Research Funding; University of Miami: Current Employment; NIH grants: Research Funding; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jacob: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment. Mullins: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current Employment. Zelenetz: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/JUNO: Honoraria, Other; Janssen: Honoraria; LFR: Other; MEI Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; MethylGene: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria.