Salles, Gilles

Abstract With the introduction of large-scale molecular profiling methods and high-throughput sequencing technologies, the genomic features of most lymphoid neoplasms have been characterized at an unprecedented scale. Although the principles for the classification and diagnosis of these disorders, founded on a multidimensional definition of disease entities, have been consolidated over the past 25 years, novel genomic data have markedly enhanced our understanding of lymphomagenesis and enriched the description of disease entities at the molecular level. Yet, the current diagnosis of lymphoid tumors is largely based on morphological assessment and immunophenotyping, with only few entities being defined by genomic criteria. This paper, which accompanies the International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid neoplasms, will address how established assays and newly developed technologies for molecular testing already complement clinical diagnoses and provide a novel lens on disease classification. More specifically, their contributions to diagnosis refinement, risk stratification, and therapy prediction will be considered for the main categories of lymphoid neoplasms. The potential of whole-genome sequencing, circulating tumor DNA analyses, single-cell analyses, and epigenetic profiling will be discussed because these will likely become important future tools for implementing precision medicine approaches in clinical decision making for patients with lymphoid malignancies.

Abstract The ELARA trial indicates tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is an effective anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL). As ELARA is a single-arm trial, this study compares tisa-cel outcomes from the ELARA trial with usual care from a real-world cohort. ELARA enrolled 98 patients as of 29 March 2021 (median follow-up: 15 months from enrollment). Usual care data were obtained from ReCORD-FL, a global retrospective study of patients with r/r FL, who met similar eligibility criteria to ELARA. With a data cutoff date of 31 December 2020, 187 patients with ≥2 preceding treatment lines were included in the ReCORD-FL (median follow-up: 57 months from third-line) study. An indirect treatment comparison was performed for 97 patients from the ELARA trial and 143 patients from the ReCORD-FL study with no missing data on baseline factors. The line of therapy for which outcomes were assessed was selected or matched between cohorts using propensity score modeling. After baseline factor adjustment via weighting by odds, complete response rate (CRR; 95% confidence interval) was 69.1% (59.8%-78.3%) for tisa-cel vs. 37.3% (26.4%-48.3%) for usual care; overall response rate was 85.6% (78.7%-92.5%) vs. 63.6% (52.5%-74.7%). Kaplan-Meier probability of being progression/event-free at 12 months was 70.5% (61.4%-79.7%) for tisa-cel vs. 51.9% (40.6%-63.3%) for usual care, with hazard ratio (HR)=0.60 (0.34-0.86); 12-month overall survival was 96.6% (92.9%-100%) vs. 71.7% (61.2%-82.2%), with HR=0.2 (0.02-0.38). In conclusion, tisa-cel was associated with a 1.9-fold higher complete response rate and a 1.4-fold higher rate of being progression or event free at 12 months vs usual care, as well as a death risk reduction of 80%. The findings provide additional evidence on the benefit of tisa-cel in patients with r/r FL after ≥2 treatment lines. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03568461

This study (ReCORD-FL) sought to construct a historical control cohort to augment single-arm trials in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL). A retrospective study in 10 centers across North America and Europe was conducted. Adults with grade 1–3A FL were required to be r/r after ≥2 therapy lines including an anti-CD20 and an alkylator. After first becoming r/r, patients were required to initiate ≥1 additional therapy line, which defined the study index date. Endpoints were observed from start of each therapy line (including index line) until death, last follow-up, or December 31, 2020. Endpoints were complete response (CR) rate, overall response rate (ORR), time to next treatment or death (TNT-D), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). One hundred eighty-seven patients were identified. Most patients’ (80.2%) index therapy occurred in third line (3L) (range, 3L–6L). Median follow-up from FL diagnosis was 9 years (range, 1–21 years). CR and ORR to the index therapy were 39.0% and 70.6%, respectively. Median (95% confidence interval) EFS from index was 14.6 (11.0-18.0) months; median OS from index was 10.6 years. Outcomes worsened across successive treatment lines and for patients who were double refractory (r/r to both an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and an alkylator) or POD24 (progressed ≤24 months after front-line anti-CD20) at index. Findings demonstrate the unmet need of FL patients with multiply relapsed, double refractory, or POD24 disease. Based on robustness of the historical data collected and comparability with a previous study (SCHOLAR-5), ReCORD-FL presents a valuable source of control data for comparative studies in r/r FL.

Purpose: In RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), patient-level outcomes from the L-MIND study (NCT02399085) of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide were retrospectively compared with patient-level matched observational cohorts treated with National Cancer Care Network (NCCN)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-listed systemic therapies for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients and Methods: Data were collected from health records of eligible patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL who had received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy). Patients from L-MIND were matched with patients from the RE-MIND2 observational cohort using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching, balanced for nine covariates. The primary analysis compared tafasitamab plus lenalidomide with patients who received any systemic therapy for R/R DLBCL (pooled in one cohort) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) or rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx; as two distinct cohorts). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included treatment response and time-to-event outcomes. Results: In RE-MIND2, 3,454 patients were enrolled from 200 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Strictly matched pairs of patients consisted of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus systemic therapies pooled (n = 76 pairs), versus BR (n = 75 pairs), and versus R­GemOx (n = 74 pairs). Significantly prolonged OS was reported with tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus systemic pooled therapies [hazard ratios (HR): 0.55; P = 0.0068], BR (HR: 0.42; P < 0.0001), and R-GemOx (HR: 0.47; P = 0.0003). Conclusions: RE-MIND2, a retrospective observational study, met its primary endpoint, demonstrating prolonged OS with tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus BR and R-GemOx. See related commentary by Cherng and Westin, p. 3908

7560 Background: Tafasitamab (tafa) + lenalidomide (LEN) demonstrated efficacy in adult patients (pts) with R/R DLBCL ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplant in the pivotal Phase II study L-MIND (NCT02399085) and received accelerated approval in the United States in 2020 and conditional marketing authorization in Europe and Canada in 2021 in this setting. RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), an observational, retrospective cohort study, compared pt outcomes from L-MIND with matched pt cohorts treated with other NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies. Methods: Methodology for RE-MIND2 has been presented previously. Hypothesis-generating analyses were conducted for pt subgroups of number of extranodal sites (ENS) (0–1 vs ≥2) and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (yes vs no) in matched cohorts of pts receiving tafa + LEN vs systemic therapies pooled (STP), polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (pola-BR), rituximab + LEN (R2), and CD19 CAR-T therapies (CAR-T). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: Of 3,454 pts enrolled, 961, 106, 106, and 149 were treated with STP, pola-BR, R2, and CAR-T, resulting in 76, 24, 33, and 37 matched pairs for pts receiving tafa + LEN, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) for OS show a trend toward favoring tafa + LEN in most pt subgroups (Table). Conclusion: These analyses suggest that tafa + LEN may be associated with improved OS vs selected systemic therapies for certain pts with high-risk disease and may further inform physicians’ treatment choices for pts with R/R DLBCL. These analyses are not powered for statistical comparison; small sample sizes in some subgroups result in wide confidence intervals (CI) and so results must be interpreted with caution. Data for other treatment cohorts, pt subgroups, and endpoints will be presented. Funding: MorphoSys AG. Clinical trial information: NCT04697160. [Table: see text]

Abstract Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.

Abstract Observational studies and stand-alone trials indicate that patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) who experience disease progression within 24 months of front-line chemoimmunotherapy (POD24), have poor outcomes. We performed a pooled analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials of patients with FL in the pre- and postrituximab eras to identify clinical factors that predict POD24. Logistic regression models evaluated the association between clinical factors and POD24. Cox regression evaluated the association between POD24 as a time-dependent factor and subsequent overall survival (OS). A landmark analysis evaluated the association of POD24 with OS for the subset of patients who were alive at 24 months after trial registration. Patients without progression at 24 months at baseline had favorable performance status (PS), limited-stage (I/II) disease, low-risk FL International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score, normal baseline hemoglobin, and normal baseline β2 microglobulin (B2M) level. In a multivariable logistic regression model, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.30), PS ≥2 (OR, 1.63), B2M (≥3 mg/L; OR, 1.43), and high-risk FLIPI score (3-5; OR, 3.14) were associated with increased risk of progression before 24 months. In the time-dependent Cox model and the 24-month landmark analysis, POD24 was associated with poor subsequent OS (hazard ratio, 4.85 and 3.06, respectively). This is the largest pooled analysis of clinical trials data validating POD24 as a robust indicator of poor FL survival and identified clinical predictors of early death and progression that can aid in building comprehensive prognostic models incorporating clinical and molecular predictors of POD24.

Abstract Background: In the ELARA (E2202) trial (NCT03568461), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) demonstrated high response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL), including those with high-risk disease, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 86% and complete response rate (CRR) of 66%. As ELARA did not include a comparator arm, an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) using patient-level data from a global retrospective cohort study was conducted. This study aimed to provide comparative, contextual evidence to the efficacy outcomes of tisa-cel from ELARA relative to standard of care (SOC) in routine practice. Methods: ELARA is an ongoing, single-arm, global, multicenter, phase II trial which evaluates the efficacy and safety of tisa-cel in adult patients with r/r FL. As of March 29, 2021, 98 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 15 months. SOC data were obtained from ReCORD-FL, a global retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients with r/r FL meeting the ELARA eligibility criteria who were treated per routine practice at 10 academic centers across North America and Europe; 7 ReCORD-FL sites are also participating in ELARA, but no patients are enrolled in both studies. In ReCORD-FL, with a data cutoff date of December 31, 2020, a total of 187 patients with ≥2 lines of previous treatment were identified for inclusion, with a median follow-up from third-line of 57 months. A complete-case comparison analysis was performed for 97 ELARA apheresed patients and 143 ReCORD-FL patients with complete data on all baseline variables and prognostic factors used for adjustment. For the comparative analysis, one line of therapy (LoT) per patient was selected using a propensity score model to identify the LoT which had the highest chance of being enrolled in ELARA conditional on baseline characteristics and prognostic factors available at the start of the LoT (i.e., the selected LoT was the one with the highest propensity score to be in ELARA). After selection of LoT, an adjusted ITC was performed to assess the effect of tisa-cel versus SOC by measuring CRR, ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and time to next treatment (TTNT). A subgroup analysis of SOC patients with ≥1 eligible LoT initiated from 2014 on (coinciding with the introduction of the Lugano response criteria as well as regulatory approval of idelalisib) was performed for all endpoints. Results: Baseline characteristics for the tisa-cel and SOC cohorts are described in Table 1; after weighting, baseline variables, including number of previous lines of systemic therapy (median: 4 lines) were well balanced between the tisa-cel and SOC cohorts. Treatment regimens observed for ReCORD-FL patients at LoT selection were: anti-CD20 antibody plus alkylator (31.5% of patients), anti-CD20 antibody without alkylator (25.9%), alkylator without anti-CD20 antibody (17.5%), and regimens other than anti-CD20 antibody and alkylator (25.2%). After LoT selection and adjusting for differences in baseline variables, tisa-cel was associated with improvement over SOC in CRR (69.1% vs. 37.3%), ORR (85.6% vs. 63.6%), as well as PFS, TTNT and OS (Table 2, Figures 1-2), with a numerically higher 6-month PFS rate vs. SOC (85.3% vs. 66.5%), as well as higher 24-month OS rate (87.8% vs. 64.8%). Further, there was an estimated 80% reduction in death risk in favor of tisa-cel over SOC, a 40% reduction in risk of progression in favor of tisa-cel over SOC and a 69% reduction in risk of death or requiring a new anticancer therapy (Table 1). In the sub-analysis of SOC patients with lines of therapy initiated in or after 2014, the superiority of tisa-cel over SOC was confirmed in all the efficacy outcomes (CRR: 69.1% vs. 30.5%; ORR: 85.6% vs. 58.8%; hazard ratios substantially < 1 for OS, PFS, TTNT). Conclusion: The ITC results suggest that tisa-cel has superior efficacy over SOC in r/r FL for all evaluated endpoints. A key limitation of this study is that response assessment criteria and schedule was more heterogeneous in ReCORD-FL than in ELARA. However, the sub-analysis on SOC patients assessed with a LoT selected in 2014 or later (when more patients could have been assessed using the Lugano response criteria) showed similar favorability for tisa-cel over SOC in all the efficacy outcomes. Moreover, outcome parameters independent of response criteria, namely OS and TTNT, were also significantly better for tisa-cel vs. SOC. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Salles: Abbvie, Epizyme, Morphosys, Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Beigene, BMS/Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Ipsen, anssen, Novartis. Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Miltneiy, Rapt, TAKEDA, Velosbio, Allogene: Consultancy. Schuster: Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dreyling: BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kuruvilla: AbbVie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Antengene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Novartis: Honoraria; Medison Ventures: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria. Patten: ROCHE: Research Funding; GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria; ASTRA ZENECA: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Von Tresckow: AbbVie: Other: Congress and travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support, Research Funding; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Smith: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Other: Study investigator; Celgene, Genetech, AbbVie: Consultancy. Davis: Novartis, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Eisai, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Anjos: Novartis: Current Employment. Chu: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zhang: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lobetti Bodoni: Spouse: Harlcok Healthcare: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Spouse: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Spouse: Celgene: Honoraria; Spouse: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Spouse: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Spouse: Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spouse: NHS: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Spouse: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Gilead: Other: Travel sponsorship in June 2019; Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Thieblemont: Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Takeda: 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, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses . Fowler: BostonGene, Corp: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Bristol Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, TG Therapeutics and Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dickinson: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Martinez-Lopez: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Link: Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Novel therapies for multiply relapsed follicular lymphoma (FL) are often evaluated in single arm trials with no comparative data on patients receiving usual care. This study (ReCORD-FL) therefore sought to construct a historical control cohort to augment current and future single arm trials in relapsed/refractory (r/r) FL. The analytic aims were to document patient characteristics, treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in a r/r FL population treated with standard therapies in routine practice. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study via medical record review in 10 oncology centers across North America and Europe. Adult patients were required to meet several criteria defining multiply r/r FL (i.e., r/r after ≥2 lines of therapy, or relapsed during or within 6 months after completion of anti-CD20 antibody maintenance, or relapsed after autologous HSCT). Patients were also required to have ≥1 line of systemic therapy (i.e., first qualifying salvage therapy) after first meeting the r/r FL criteria; the date of first qualifying salvage therapy defined the study index date. At index, patients were required to have grade 1-3A FL, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and no evidence of prior histological transformation. Outcomes were observed from the index date and from the start of each therapy line until the earliest of death, last follow-up, or December 31, 2020 (data cutoff). Endpoints were complete response (CR) rate, overall response rate (ORR), time to next treatment (TTNT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). In a subgroup analysis, endpoints were examined by double refractoriness (r/r to both an anti-CD20 mAb and an alkylator) and POD24 status at index (best response of stable/progressive disease or relapsed within 24 months of front-line anti-CD20 mAb-containing therapy). Time to event outcomes were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 187 patients were identified for inclusion (Table 1). Most patients' (80.2%) first qualifying salvage (index) therapy occurred in third line (3L) (range: 3L - 6L). Anti-CD20 mAb plus chemotherapy (including alkylating and/or non-alkylating agents) was the most common index regimen (64.2% of patients); 8% received anti-CD20 mAb monotherapy, 11.2% received alkylator-based chemotherapy alone (i.e., an alkylator-containing regimen without anti-CD20 mAb), and 16.6% received other therapies (i.e., other regimens containing neither anti-CD20 mAb nor alkylator). Median follow-up from FL diagnosis was 9 years (range: 1 - 21 years), over which a median of 5 (range: 3 - 11) lines of therapy were observed per patient. CR rate and ORR to the index treatment were 39.0% and 70.6%, respectively (Table 2). Median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TTNT and PFS from index were 14.4 (11.8 - 18.6) and 14.6 (11.0 - 18.0) months, respectively; median OS from index was 128 months (10.6 years). Compared with non-double refractory, those with double refractory disease at index had numerically lower CR (34.3% vs. 45.1%) and ORR (67.6% vs. 74.4%) and substantially shorter median (95% CI) TTNT (11.8 [9.0 - 15.2] vs. 20.9 [14.4 - 26.2] months), PFS (10.7 [7.7 - 14.5] vs. 20.1 [14.4 - 25.4] months), and OS (78.1 [45.8 - 146.7] vs. [Not Reached] months). Outcomes were similarly less favorable for patients who were POD24 at index. All outcomes steadily worsened across successive treatment lines (Table 2, Figures 1a-c). ORR, for example, decreased from 69.5% in 3L (n = 187) to 45.8% in 5L (n = 96) and 41.2% in ≥8L (n = 51), while median (95% CI) PFS decreased from 11.8 (10.1 - 16.6) months in 3L to 9.4 (6.8 - 13.1) months in 5L and 4.4 (1.7 - 5.9) months in ≥8L; median (95% CI) OS had a similar trend: 133.7 (78.1 - 232.4), 46.3 (31.7 - 76.5), and 11.4 (5.9 - 21.2) months in 3L, 5L, and ≥8L, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings further demonstrate the poor outcomes and limited survival in FL patients with multiply r/r, double refractory, or POD24 disease. In assessing response rates and PFS, it is important to consider that response assessment criteria and schedules were more heterogenous in the routine practice settings of ReCORD-FL than in clinical trials. Based on comparability of results with another similar study (SCHOLAR-5), the robustness of data collected, and continued low likelihood of randomized trials in this area, ReCORD-FL provides valuable historical control data for new r/r FL therapies in development. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Salles: Beigene, BMS/Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Ipsen, anssen, Novartis. Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Miltneiy, Rapt, TAKEDA, Velosbio, Allogene: Consultancy; Abbvie, Epizyme, Morphosys, Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria. Schuster: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kuruvilla: Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Antengene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Medison Ventures: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria. Patten: GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Research Funding; ROCHE: Research Funding; ASTRA ZENECA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria; ABBVIE: Honoraria. von Tresckow: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Other: congress and travel support; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: congress and travel support, Research Funding. Smith: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Other: Study investigator; Celgene, Genetech, AbbVie: Consultancy. Davis: Novartis, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Eisai, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Nagar: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai: Research Funding. Zhang: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bollu: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jousseaume: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ramos: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Link: Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding.

Abstract Background Several therapies are recommended by NCCN/ESMO guidelines for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In the single-arm, Phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085), the chemotherapy-free regimen tafasitamab + lenalidomide (LEN) demonstrated efficacy for this patient population. In the absence of randomized clinical trial data, RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), an observational, retrospective cohort study, compared patient outcomes from L-MIND with matched patient populations treated with NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies for ASCT-ineligible patients with R/R DLBCL. Methods Data were retrospectively collected between 1 April and 13 November 2020 from academic and public hospitals, as well as private practices in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. To ensure consistency with L-MIND I/E criteria, patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL and who had received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy) were enrolled. For the main analysis, patients from the L-MIND tafasitamab + LEN cohort were matched with patients from the RE-MIND2 observational cohort using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest neighbor matching, balanced for six baseline characteristics: age (<70 vs ≥70 years), refractoriness to last line of therapy (yes vs no), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs 2/3), history of primary refractoriness (yes vs no), prior ASCT (yes vs no), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 vs ≥2). A sensitivity analysis was performed using an inverse probability of treatment weighting method calculating the average effect of the treatment on the treated, to generate balanced cohorts based on nine baseline characteristics: age, refractoriness to last line of therapy, number of previous lines of therapy, history of primary refractoriness, prior ASCT, Ann Arbor Stage (I/II vs III/IV), elevated LDH (yes vs no), neutropenia (yes vs no), and anemia (yes vs no). Additional sensitivity analyses accounting for missing baseline characteristics using multiple imputation technique were performed. Data are presented for tafasitamab + LEN versus polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (pola-BR), rituximab + LEN (R2), and CD19 CAR-T therapies (CAR-T). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), complete response rate, progression-free survival and duration of response. Results Of 3,454 patients enrolled from 200 sites, 106, 106, and 149 patients were treated with pola-BR, R2, and CAR-T, respectively. For the comparative analysis, matched patient pairs were created using 1:1 nearest neighbor matching with a caliper. Matched pairs consisted of: tafasitamab + LEN vs pola-BR, n=24 pairs; vs R2, n=33 pairs; and vs CAR-T, n=37 pairs. A significant OS benefit was associated with tafasitamab + LEN compared to pola-BR (HR: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.96; p=0.038) and R2 (HR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.84; p=0.014) (Figure 1A-B). There was no significant difference in OS benefit between tafasitamab + LEN and CAR-T (HR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.47-1.91; p=0.891) (Figure 1C). ORR was 62.5% (15/24) for tafasitamab + LEN vs 58.3% (14/24) for pola-BR (p=1.000), 63.6% (21/33) vs 30.3% (10/33) for R2 (p=0.013), and 59.5% (22/37) vs 75.7% (28/37) for CAR-T (p=0.214). Improved outcomes were also observed with tafasitamab + LEN for other secondary endpoints (Table 1). Results are consistent with those obtained in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions The results of this retrospective cohort analysis suggest that the novel tafasitamab + LEN combination may significantly improve health outcomes, with a prolonged survival benefit for ASCT-ineligible R/R DLBCL patients, relative to NCCN/ESMO recommended therapies. Tafasitamab + LEN improved survival outcomes compared with pola-BR and R2 in closely matched patient populations. Comparable outcomes were observed for tafasitamab + LEN vs CAR-T. Although based on limited patient numbers, these data may be clinically relevant in the context of emerging therapies for R/R DLBCL. While this study design does not replace randomized data, it remains more rigorous than inter-trial comparison. The limitations of comparing clinical trial and matched retrospective real-world data will be discussed. Funding: MorphoSys AG. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding. Joffe: AstraZeneca. Epizyme: Consultancy. Fleury: Abbvie, Astrazeneca, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Kite-Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Other: conference and advisory role. Peters: AbbVie, Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Greil: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Sandoz: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Marks: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Meeting attendance; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy. Kim: AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Zinzani: BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ImmuneDesign: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Trotman: Beigene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; PCYC Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Sabatelli: Incyte: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Huang: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Waltl: MorphoSys: Current Employment. Winderlich: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ambarkhane: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Kurukulasuriya: MorphoSys: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Support for attending meetings/travel. Cordoba: Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADCTherapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hess: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: 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; EUSA: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Salles: Miltneiy: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Velosbio: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy; Loxo: Consultancy; Rapt: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Debiopharm: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria.