Manos, Kate

Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) scan is the imaging modality of choice for initial staging and response assessment of follicular lymphoma (FL). Quantitative parameters such as standardized uptake value (SUV) have been investigated as putative prognosticators in FL, with high baseline SUVmax predicting aggressive disease. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of histologic transformation (HT). Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, are more beneficial than R-Bendamustine (BR) in these pts. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of frontline R-CHOP and BR in newly diagnosed FL pts based on the SUVmax at baseline PET (bPET). Patients and Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed, biopsy-proven FL1-2 and FL3A who had a bPET scan and who received either first-line R-CHOP or BR within 6 months of diagnosis between 2002 and 2022 were evaluated. Analysis was restricted to pts with age < 70 years to reduce confounding of age with treatment selection. Cohorts included were the FOLL12 (n=562, Luminari et al JCO 2022) and the R-chemotherapy arm of the RELEVANCE (n=216, Morschhauser et al NEJM 2018) clinical trials, the prospectively enrolled Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohorts (n=288) and a retrospective cohort from 13 Australian centers (n=219). Choice of chemotherapy regimen was per treating physician. Maintenance was per protocol (FOLL12/RELEVANCE) or per treating physician (MER/LEO/Australia). Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were defined as time from treatment initiation to progression, relapse, retreatment or death; both were censored at 72 months due to varying follow-up across cohorts. SUVmax was grouped by tertile within each cohort to account for potential differences in SUVmax distributions and patient populations across cohorts. Kaplan Meier curves and multivariable Cox models cohort-stratified and adjusted for clinical factors (FLIPI, ECOG PS, age, grade 3A) were used to evaluate outcomes. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 57 years (IQR 49-64). 651 (51%) pts were treated with R-CHOP and 634 (49%) with BR. Within the study cohorts, there was a prevalence of cases receiving BR compared to R-CHOP in the Australian (90% vs 10%) and MER/LEO (68% vs 32%) cohorts, while the opposite was observed in the RELEVANCE (16% vs 84%) and FOLL12 (37% vs 63; p<0.001) trials. Pts receiving R-CHOP were slightly younger (median 56 vs 58 years, p=0.005), more frequently had grade 3A (17% vs 7%, p<0.001), elevated LDH (27% vs 22%, p=0.029), bulky disease > 7 cm (44% vs 37%, p=0.019), lower ECOG PS (PS >1 7% vs 13%, p<0.001), and higher rate of high risk FLIPI (37% vs 30%, p=0.005). Baseline SUVmax was slightly lower in R-CHOP (median 10.7, IQR 7.9-14.9) vs BR (median 11.0, IQR 8.2-14.2) treated pts (p=0.0045). At a median follow-up of 56 months (range, 1-72 months), 415 pts (32%) had an event and 103 (8%) died. Higher SUVmax was not associated with EFS (middle tertile HR=0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.22; upper tertile HR=0.86, 95% CI 0.68-1.09; p=0.45) or OS (middle tertile HR=1.28, 95% CI 0.80-2.05; upper tertile HR=0.97, 95% CI 0.59-1.59; p=0.44) in multivariable models stratified on cohort and adjusted for treatment and clinical factors. We then compared outcomes by treatment within tertiles of SUVmax. In multivariable models, R-CHOP had modestly inferior EFS to BR in low (HR=1.27, 95% CI 0.84-1.93) and middle tertiles (HR=1.49, 95% CI 0.99-2.25), and modestly superior OS to BR in low (HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.23-1.47) and middle (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.37-1.71) tertiles. Both EFS (HR=1.06, 95% CI 0.71-1.58) and OS (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.45-2.30) for R-CHOP were similar to BR in the highest tertile. No comparisons identified a statistically significant benefit for either therapy in multivariable models when evaluating SUVmax tertile subsets. Conclusions: In this large multicenter study of newly diagnosed FL pts with bPET who received frontline immunochemotherapy, higher baseline SUVmax was not associated with inferior outcomes after adjusting for treatment and clinical factors. Within the caveats of retrospective studies and confounding of treatment selection, these data provide no clear insights for SUVmax-based therapy selection in first-line follicular lymphoma pts treated with immunochemotherapy.

Background: A subset of follicular lymphoma (FL) patients will experience a ‘high-risk defining event’ (HRDE) that portends poor survival due to early progression of disease or transformation to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (TFL). Progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) from front-line immunochemotherapy (ICT) identifies patients with a subsequent five-year OS of 50% compared to a reference group of 90% (Casulo et al. JCO 2015). Although a robust surrogate endpoint for OS in clinical trials (Casulo et al. Blood 2022), it remains to be established if the OS of patents is influenced by the nature of the HRDE. In this study, we examined whether characteristics and clinical trajectory of those with relapsed/progressive FL is the same as that of patients experiencing TFL. Methods: We conducted an international retrospective analysis of newly diagnosed FL patients requiring treatment across 14 academic centres between 2002 and 2021 in the era of rituximab and PET-CT staging. Patients were included with grade 1-3A FL requiring first-line (1L) treatment (ICT, rituximab monotherapy or radiotherapy). We excluded patients with untreated FL, de novo TFL and those with <24 months follow up provided they did not experience a HRDE. Baseline clinical, imaging and laboratory values, treatment details and outcomes were collected. We defined HRDE groups as persistent (relapse or progression) FL within 24 months of 1L treatment (FL24), early TFL (<24 months of 1L treatment) or late TFL (>24 months of 1L treatment). Patients not experiencing a HRDE formed the FL reference group. Landmark overall survival (OS) analysis was performed by Cox regression using risk status as a time-varying covariate for time of HRDE. For the FL reference group, landmark was defined at 24 months after 1L treatment. Results: 501 patients met the inclusion criteria and were categorised as: reference FL (n=378), FL24 (n=50), early TFL (n=28), late TFL (n=15). 24 patients who died within 24 months of 1L treatment without documentation of preceding HRDE and were omitted. Median follow up for patients alive beyond 24 months was 5.1 years. Median age at diagnosis was 60 years, 91% had ECOG performance status 0-1 and 38% were high-risk (>3) FLIPI. 1L chemotherapy regimens included: bendamustine (59%), CHOP (24%), CVP (8%), other (9%); a majority received rituximab (80%) vs obinutuzumab (20%). Maintenance therapy was used in 54% of pts. Expectedly, those experiencing HRDE had an inferior OS compared to the reference group (HR 5.23, p<0.001)(Figure 1). However, among HRDE group, median OS significantly differed: early TFL patients (3.0 yrs) and FL24 (12.6yrs)(HR 2.27, p=0.02) (Table 1). There was no difference in OS after HRDE between early TFL and late TFL ( p=0.81). Biopsy was performed in 84% of TFL cases with no difference in OS between biopsy-proven vs clinically suspected cases ( p=0.23). Multivariate OS analysis assessing HRDE and treatment demonstrated no significant interaction between HRDE group and 1L chemotherapy ( p=0.52), monoclonal antibody ( p=0.29) or maintenance therapy ( p=0.27). Several established prognostic features at baseline were enriched in patients who went on to experience HRDE including: ECOG >1 ( p<0.001), raised LDH ( p<0.001), advanced-stage disease (( p<0.011) and high risk FLIPI ( p=0.005). Baseline FDG-PET was available in 259 patients. Adverse PET metrics were enriched in only early TFL, and not FL24 or late TFL patients, including high SUV max( p=0.009), total metabolic tumor volume ( p=0.015) and total lesional glycolysis ( p=0.01). Conclusions: HRDEs after 1L treatment are associated with inferior OS in FL compared with standard-risk patients. Unlike POD24, this study demonstrates disparate clinical outcomes between patients experiencing early progression with persistent FL and those experiencing TFL. Adverse metabolic characteristics on baseline FDG-PET also suggest biological distinction between HRDE subsets. These findings have important implications for epidemiological studies, biomarker development and clinical trials aiming to improve outcomes in this underserved high-risk FL cohort.

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 Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; 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; Novartis: 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; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; 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. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.