Mehta-Shah, Neha

Abstract Few prospective benchmark studies exist to characterize the evolving contemporary real-world practice for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). We report the patterns of first-line care and outcomes for 720 patients with systemic PTCL enrolled in 2 related prospective cohort studies, Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) from 2015 to 2020 and Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) from 2002 to 2015, both followed to 2024. The primary end points were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression model. Secondary end points included correlations of clinical and treatment factors with survival. The most common induction regimens were CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) based (70%), given as CHOP (36%), CHOP plus etoposide (23%), or CHOP-like plus novel agents (11.5%, including 5% BV-CHP [brentuximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone]). Consolidative autologous stem cell transplant was performed in 102 patients (14%). Within nodal PTCL, EFS and OS were adversely associated with International Prognostic Index 2 to 5, prognostic index for T-cell lymphoma score 1 to 4, and non–anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) subtypes. Within LEO, which captured increasing first-line etoposide and brentuximab vedotin, adding etoposide to CHOP was associated with better OS in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative ALCL. BV-CHP showed a trend toward OS improvement in ALCL. Patients failing EFS6 and EFS24 had 5-year subsequent OS of 12% and 17%, respectively. The inferior outcomes in non-ALCL subtypes and patients failing EFS6 and EFS24 highlight unmet needs with CHOP-based induction, where clinical trials with targeted therapy should be prioritized. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02736357.

Abstract The phase 1/2 Intergroup study E4412 investigated checkpoint blockade with nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) combined with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) in relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. A total of 147 patients aged ≥12 years were randomized between BV/Nivo and BV/Ipi/Nivo; 132 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. The complete response (CR) rate, was 64.7% (52.2, 75.9) for BV/Nivo and 70.3% (57.6, 81.1) for BV/Ipi/Nivo (1-sided P = .29). The median survival follow-up was 38.0 months (interquartile range, 32.6-48.1). Progression-free survival (PFS) did not significantly differ between the 2 arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78, confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.57; 1-sided P = .24). Treatment-related grade 3+ toxicities in the adult cohort, excluding rash, were similar between both arms (38.5% BV/Nivo and 39.3% BV/Ipi/Nivo); there was a higher frequency of grade 3 rash with BV/Ipi/Nivo (24.6%) compared with BV/Nivo (9.2%). We compared PFS by stem cell transplantation (SCT) status in a planned before hoc comparison; 58 patients received SCT, and 36-month PFS (from SCT) was >90% for both arms. Sixty-six patients were progression free after the first scan and did not undergo SCT. The 36-month PFS was 73.0% (54.5, 85.0) for BV/Ipi/Nivo compared with 45.8% (26.3, 63.4) for BV/Nivo (HR, 0.45; CI, 0.19-1.08; 1-sided P = .03). The study did not meet its primary end point of superior CR rate for the triplet, but it supports the use of checkpoint antibody-drug conjugate induction prior to auto SCT, and there is an intriguing signal of disease control for patients wishing to defer or avoid SCT with the triplet of BV/Ipi/Nivo. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01896999.

Abstract Introduction: CTCLs are rare, heterogeneous non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) with significant regional variability in treatment patterns. Prospective studies characterizing CTCL management, particularly in racially and ethnically diverse populations, remains limited. The LEO-MER multi-center prospective cohort study (NCT02736357) is designed to address the persistent disparities in outcomes research by enrolling historically underrepresented groups of patients diagnosed with lymphoma across the United States (US). Here, we present a real-world analysis of CTCL patients that reflects US academic practice, evaluating treatment patterns, as well as prognostic factors influencing survival outcomes. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed CTCL were prospectively enrolled in either the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER cohort (2002-2015) or the expanded LEO cohort (2015-2020), which included 8 US academic centers. Standardized protocols were used to abstract clinical, pathologic, treatment, and outcome data from medical records. ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's/chi-square tests were used to compare patient distribution across demographic and clinical characteristics based on data distribution and sample size. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Survival analyses employed Kaplan-Meier estimation supplemented by Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: The LEO-MER cohort enrolled 223 CTCL patients (91 MER and 132 LEO). Subtypes included mycosis fungoides (MF, n=155, 69.5%), Sézary syndrome (SS, n=22, 9.9%), primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (n=17, 7.6%), subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma (n=11, 4.9%), cutaneous CD4+ small/medium T-cell lymphoproliferative-disorder (n=9, 4%), and other rarer CTCL subtypes (n=9, 4%). Among the MF/SS cohort, median age was 64 years (Range: 18-89 years), 58.2% (n=103) were male and race/ethnicity distribution included White (n=123, 69.5%), Black (n=29; 16.4%) and others/unknown (n=25; 14.1%). Stage distribution included 62.7% with early-stage (ES) MF (IA-IIA, n=111), 37.2% with advanced-stage (AS) MF (IIB-IVB, n=66). To complete diagnostic workup, T-cell receptor (TCR) testing was performed in 52.6% of skin biopsies (n=92) and 62.5% of blood samples (n=110), with clonal detection rates of 75% (69/92) in skin and 51.8% (57/110) in blood. Paired TCR matching between skin and blood samples was performed in 31.6% (n=56) of cases, demonstrating 53.6% (30/56) concordance. Blood flow cytometry data were reported in 80.1% (89/111) and 84.4% (56/66) of ES and AS MF cases, with T-cell population being detected in 7.2% (8/111) and 62.1% (41/66) of ES and AS cases. Nodal biopsies were obtained in 23.4% (n=41) of patients and clonality assessment was reported in 18.6% (33/177) of these cases. The MF/SS cohort's lifetime treatment exposure data (n=160) revealed topical skin-directed therapies alone (n=49, 31.8%) as the most common approach followed by lifetime exposure to topical skin-directed and systemic therapies (n=45, 29.2%) followed by multimodal exposure of topical skin-directed, radiation and systemic treatments (n=30, 19.5%). Only 5.6% of patients were enrolled in a clinical trial. First-line (1L) systemic regimens were predominantly a) immunomodulatory agents (n=47, 29.3%); including oral retinoid (n=20), extracorporeal photopheresis (n=18), interferon (n=9) followed by b) chemotherapy (n=30, 18.7%) and c) targeted therapies (n=17, 10.6%) including Brentuximab Vedotin (n=6), Romidepsin (n=5), Mogamulizumab (n=3), Vorinostat (n=2) and Pralatrexate (n=1). Multivariable analysis predicting 1L systemic treatment initiation demonstrated a significant association with presence of N2/N3 stage (N2/N3 vs N0/N1: Odds Ratio (OR): 5.45) and elevated LDH (OR: 5.30). At median follow-up of 91.1 months (mon), median OS was 122.3 mon (95% confidence interval 67.2-159.2 mon). In subset analyses, Black race (p=0.001) and SS (p=0.0001) were associated with worse OS outcomes. Conclusion: We present initial data from our prospective LEO-MER cohort, a large US-based multicenter consortia. Our findings demonstrate variability in both diagnostic staging and treatment approaches for MF/SS patients. The cohort demonstrated worse outcomes with high-risk disease and Black race/ethnicity. These findings warrant further study on the impact of underlying social determinant factors, given the variability noted in this population.

Abstract Background Nodal peripheral T-cell lymphomas (nPTCLs) are a challenging group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that frequently recur after or are refractory to first line (1L) treatment. Chemotherapy options in the relapsed or refractory (R/R) setting are limited. The incorporation of non-cytotoxic agents including antibody drug conjugates, immune checkpoint inhibitors, epigenetic modifiers, and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors offers new therapeutic potential and possibly better outcomes. We report on outcomes for patients (pts) with R/R nPTCL enrolled in the multi-center LEO-MER prospective cohort study (NCT02736357) who received second line (2L) therapy. Methods Six hundred and three adult pts with newly diagnosed nPTCL were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER observational cohort (2002-2015) or the expanded LEO cohort (2015-2020). Secondary overall survival (sOS) was calculated from date of 2L treatment initiation to date of death or last follow-up. Secondary event-free survival (sEFS) was calculated from date of 2Ltreatment initiation to disease progression, initiation of 3rd line therapy, or death from any cause. sEFS and sOS were evaluated using Cox model and Kaplan-Meier estimator. Log-rank test was used to test the significance of difference between groups. Pts with concomitant B-cell lymphomas were excluded from this analysis. Results Thus far, 169 pts with nPTCL initiating 2L therapy were evaluated. Of these, 75 (44.4%) had PTCL-NOS, 63 (37.3%) had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL, inclusive of nodal T-follicular helper cell lymphoma), 20 (11.8%) had ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), and 11 (6.5%) had ALK-positive ALCL. At 2L treatment initiation, the median age was 64 with 86.1% of pts having advanced stage disease. Of the 108 pts with available international prognostic index (IPI) scoring, 46.3% had an IPI of ≥3. Thirty-four (20.1%) pts had received a consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in the 1L. A total of 86 pts (50.1%) had primary refractory disease (partial response, stable or progressive disease as best response to 1L therapy), 45 (26.6%) experienced early relapsing disease within 6 months of 1L therapy, and 38 (22.5%) had relapsed disease >6 months from 1L therapy. After a median follow-up of 7.1 years (yrs), median sOS was 1.52 yrs, and sEFS was 3.2 months (mos). There was no difference in sOS or sEFS regardless of timing of relapse. In keeping with other studies, ALK-positive ALCL pts had the best 5-year OS (70.1%) compared to other subgroups (ALK-negative ALCL 45.0%, AITL 30.4%; PTCL-NOS 21.3%). Lymphoma was the leading cause of death following 2L therapy, with a 2-year cumulative incidence of 49.2%. Eighty pts (47.3%) received only cytotoxic chemotherapy as second line (2L) therapy; ICE (41 (51.3%)) and gemcitabine-containing regimens were most common (14 (17.5%)). Seventy-five pts (44.4%) were treated with non-cytotoxic agents given as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. The most common non-cytotoxic therapies were brentuximab vedotin (33 (44.0%)), romidepsin (17 (22.7%)) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (9 (12.0%)). Fourteen pts (8.3%) underwent palliative interventions involving radiation, steroids, or cyclosporine alone. Intent to proceed to transplant in the 2L was known in 158 pts (101 (63.9%) not intended, 57 (36.1% intended)). Following 2L treatment, 18 (10.7%) pts proceeded to consolidative ASCT and 10 (5.9%) to allogeneic transplant. Only 21 (12.9%) were treated on a clinical trial. Pts who received a non-cytotoxic agent had superior outcomes compared to pts receiving only chemotherapy; the median sOS was 30.4 mos (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.3, 53.52 mos) vs 11.7 mos ((95% CI 7.95,19.58); p=0.04; HR 0.67) and the median sEFS was 4.83 mos (95% CI 3.38, 10.09) vs 2.33 mos ((95% CI 1.71,3.02); p=0.02; HR=0.65). Conclusions We report here one of the largest prospective cohorts in R/R nPTCL. The LEO-MER cohort, despite its association with academic centers, shows poor outcomes regardless of refractory or relapsed disease, frequent inability to proceed to intended consolidative transplant, and low clinical trial participation in 2L, which corroborates findings from other registries (Jain 2025, Stuver 2019). Outcomes improved for pts treated with non-cytotoxic agents. Updated data including additional pts and subgroup analyses will be reported at the meeting.

Abstract Background Previous studies in aggressive B-cell lymphoma demonstrate that patients with shorter diagnosis-to-treatment intervals (DTI) represent those with higher risk disease. This suggests that patients enrolled in clinical trials may carry a selection bias as they often have longer DTI than patients in the general population. This has important implications for clinical research design and the generalizability of clinical trials in aggressive lymphomas. However, the prognostic implications of DTI have not been evaluated in peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL). Therefore, we examined DTI and its association with clinical factors and outcomes in a prospective observational cohort of patients with PTCL from the United States within the LEO (Lymphoma Epidemiology and Outcomes) and MER (University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Specialized Programs of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource). Patients and Methods We evaluated patients enrolled to the MER (2002-2015) and LEO (2015-2020) cohorts with the following forms of PTCL: PTCL-not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS, n=217), nodal T-follicular helper (TFH) cell lymphoma (nTFHL, n=153), anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), ALK positive (ALCL, ALK+, n=74), ALCL, ALK negative (ALCL, ALK-, n=95), enteropathy associated T-cell lymphoma (n=18), and monomorphic epitheliotropic intestinal T-cell lymphoma (n=2). Associations of DTI with clinical factors and outcomes were examined using Kaplan Meier and Cox models. Event free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from start of treatment to relapse/progression, start of 2nd line therapy, or death from any cause. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from start of treatment until death from any cause. DTI was defined as the number of days between the first diagnostic biopsy and the start of therapy. Patients who were initially observed or had DTI > 100 days were excluded. Results In 559 patients (229 MER and 330 LEO), median age was 60, 34% had IPI>2 and 71% were stage III/IV. 472 (84%) patients initially received anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Median DTI was 23 days (interquartile range (IQR): 12-39) and was similar in MER (21 days, IQR: 11-33) and LEO (25 days, IQR: 14-42). 168 (30%) patients had DTI 0-14 days, 178 (32%) 15-28 days, and 213 (38%) 29-100 days. Overall in the cohort, shorter DTI was associated with a worse 5-year OS (DTI 0-14 days: 43%; DTI 15-28 days: 53%; DTI 29-100 days: 58%, p<0.001) and 5-year EFS (DTI 0-14 days: 31%; DTI 15-28 days: 39%; DTI 29-100 days: 45%, p<0.001). In multivariable analyses, the association of DTI with outcomes remained consistent after adjusting for age and International Prognostic Index (IPI). Shorter DTI was strongly associated with adverse clinical factors, including elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, poor performance status, B-symptoms, and higher IPI in both cohorts (all P < .003). DTI was not associated with age, sex, or distance from the LEO/MER center (all p>0.3). 6% patients with DTI of 0-14 days received 1L treatment on a clinical trial, compared to 11% with DTI 15-28 days and 13% with DTI 29-100 days, underscoring that patients with lower DTI may be underrepresented in clinical trials. When examining within PTCL subtypes, the association between short DTI (0-14 days) and inferior outcomes was most prominent in PTCL, NOS (OS HR=2.13, 95% CI: 1.52-2.94; EFS HR =1.49, 95% CI: 1.19-1.85). Associations between short DTI and outcomes were weaker in other subtypes: nTFHL (OS HR=1.28, 95% CI: 0.83-2.00; EFS HR =1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.81), ALCL, ALK-, (OS HR=1.30, 95% CI: 0.59-2.86; EFS HR =1.32, 95% CI: 0.68-2.56), ALCL, ALK+, (OS HR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.26-4.17; EFS HR =2.12, 95% CI: 0.84-5.26). Conclusion Shorter DTI is associated adverse prognostic clinical factors (LDH, stage, high IPI) and inferior EFS and OS in newly diagnosed PTCL. Patients with DTI ≤ 14 days, which represents approximately 1/3 patients with PTCL, may be underrepresented in clinical trials. Understanding of this selection bias should inform clinical trial design and interpretation. Future studies should consider strategies to minimize barriers to enrollment for patients with low DTI.

Abstract Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive leukemia with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Previous studies on T-PLL patients receiving an allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) are limited by small numbers with limited data on disease and transplant characteristics. Further, recent data from our large national cohort of patients demonstrated significant survival difference between TCL1A+ and TCL1A- T-PLL, and CD8+ T-PLL vs CD8- T-PLL. In this large multi-center series, utilizing comprehensive disease subtype and alloSCT clinical data, we evaluated prognostic and survival therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients that had an alloSCT with a particular focus on T-PLL disease subtypes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 572 diagnosed with T-PLL at 21 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023, of which we performed a further evaluation on the169 that proceeded with alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Among n=169 alloSCT recipients with T-PLL, the median follow-up time was 20.9 months post-alloSCT (range: 0.2-182.9), the median age at transplant was 59 years (range: 35-77) and 52% were male. In evaluated patients (n=109), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 69%. As our recent analysis demonstrated significant differences in survival among specific subtypes of T-PLL, we evaluated outcomes in patients with CD4+CD8- T-PLL (n=90, 53%), CD4-CD8+ (n=17, 10%) T-PLL, and CD4+CD8+ T-PLL (n=52, 31%). 53% (87/164) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan and 45% (43/96) of known patients had minimal residual disease (MRD) at the time of transplant [defined as <5% T-PLL in marrow by flow, or +cytogenetics (e.g. TCL1A)] prior to alloSCT. At the time of alloSCT, 136 (80%) patients were in CR and 23 (14%) patients were in PR. Forty-nine (30%) had a myeloablative (MAC)conditioning regimen and 114 (70%) had a reduced intensity chemotherapy (RIC) conditioning regimen. Eighty (49%) patients had TBI as part of their regimen. The most common regimens were fludarabine (flu)/melphalan based regimens (n=44; 26.0%), flu/cyclophosphamide (cy) based regimens (n=33; 19.5%), flu/busulfan based regimens (n=22; 13.0%), flu/total body irradiation (TBI) (n=8; 4.7%), and cy/TBI (n=4; 2.4%). Across the whole cohort, the median OS and PFS post-alloSCT was 32.6 months (95% CI: 21.0-41.9) and 20.8 months (95% CI: 14.4-30.5) months while the 1-year cumulative incidences (CI) of NRM and relapse were 17% and 20%, respectively. The incidences of grade II-IV acute GVHD and cGVHD were 19% and 23%. There was no difference between patients with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (n=49, 29%) when compared to patients that received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (n=114, 67%) in OS (33.1 vs 29.2; p=0.68) and PFS (20.2 vs 20.8; p=0.97). Patients that were MRD+ (n=31) had worse OS (22.2 vs 48.6; p=0.1) and PFS (14.1 vs 32.5; p=0.04) and higher rates of relapse (1-year relapse 20% vs 8%; p=0.08) than patients that were MRD- (n=50). PFS was improved in those who received alloSCT though only trended towards significance due to low numbers (HR 0.76, p=0.09). In subtype analysis, TCL1A+ T-PLL had significantly worse outcomes compared to TCL1A negative T-PLL. TCL1A+ disease had significantly worse OS (21.6 vs 63.1; p=0.01) and PFS (12.4 vs 50.7; p=0.01) compared to TCL1A-. Additionally, in TCL1A+ disease CI of NRM (24% vs 3%; p=0.02) and relapse (25% vs 12%; p=0.86) was higher vs TCL1A- PLL. CD4+CD8-, CD4-CD8+, and CD4+CD8+ disease had no difference in survival via either OS (28.0 vs 34.4 vs 21.0; p=0.17) or PFS (29.4 vs 23.5 vs 13.6; p=0.09) as well as no difference 1-year CI of NRM ( 11.6 vs 23.5 vs 26.2; p=0.35) and relapse (18.5 vs 23.5 vs 20.0; p=0.67).Conclusions: AlloSCT significantly improved outcomes for patients with T-PLL compared to those who did not proceed to alloSCT and remains he only curative therapy for those with T-PLL. OS, PFS, and CI relapse were significantly worse for patients with TCL1A+ subtype of T-PLL, or those with MRD positivity or PR prior to alloSCT. Novel strategies to decrease relapse such as post-alloSCT maintenance therapy to improve outcomes are urgently needed in these patients.

Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Outside of prospective trials utilizing alemtuzumab, data is derived primarily from small retrospective series, and limited data on survival outcomes and therapeutic efficacy, particularly beyond frontline therapy are available. In this large multi-center series, with comprehensive clinical data, we evaluated survival and therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients, with a focus on identification of prognostic subgroups of T-PLL, that will inform future investigations into the biology and treatment of this disease. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all patients diagnosed with T-PLL at 15 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023 using the recent TPLL-ISG staging and response criteria with overall response rate (ORR) defined as CR and PR. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and cox proportional hazard models. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) was performed using the standard 10X Genomics platform. Results: 377 patients, with a median follow-up time of 29 months (range: 0-196) were evaluated. The median age at diagnosis was 64 and 51% were male. In evaluated patients (n=223), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 82%. 61% of patients had CD4+CD8- T-PLL, 11% of patients had CD4-CD8+ T-PLL, and 24% of patients had CD4+CD8+ T-PLL, with 4% unknown. 175 patients (46.4%) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan. Among treated patients (n=342, 91%), using TPLL-ISG criteria, the ORR to any frontline treatment was 67% (49% CR, 18% PR). Median OS and PFS was 19 months and 10 months in responding patients from the start of treatment initiation. For those treated with frontline alemtuzumab (n=250), the ORR was 74% (58% CR), with a median OS and PFS of 18 and 12 months. 20 patients (5%) were treated with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin frontline with an ORR of 85% (70% CR), which was superior to alemtuzumab alone (ORR 74%, 58% CR). Patients that had frontline chemotherapy (excluding pentostatin, n=48) had a worse ORR of 35% (15% CR) (p<0.001), and a worse PFS of 4 months (p=0.002), when compared to those who received alemtuzumab. Among patients in 1st CR/PR (n=226), 44% (n=99) received an allograft and had an improved 3-year OS of 50% vs 17%, (HR=0.67, 95%CI 0.48-0.93), and 50% improvement in PFS (HR 0.48, 0.33-0.68) compared to those who did not receive an allograft. For patients that received second line treatment (n=176, 52%), re-treatment with alemtuzumab (n=33) produced a 46% ORR (21% CR). Other active second-line treatments included: pentostatin (n=23; 44% ORR, 17% CR), ruxolitinib-based regimens (n=4; 25% ORR, 0% CR), venetoclax-based regimens (n=13; 39% ORR, 8% CR), bendamustine (n=10; 30% ORR, 0% CR), and nelarabine (n=4; 75% ORR, 50% CR). In subgroup survival analysis, TCL1A+ patients had a worse OS and PFS when compared to TCL1A- patients (23 months vs 43 months; p=0.02), and (14 months vs 24 months; p=0.02) respectively, with HR 1.58 (1.08, 2.31) (p=0.02) for OS and HR 1.62 (1.09-2.40) (p=0.02) for PFS. Furthermore, CD4- T-PLL had worse OS (16 months vs 25 months) when compared to CD4+ patients [HR 1.57 (1.08, 2.27), p=0.02]. Single cell RNA seq in 13 patients, including 3 TCL1A- patients, with a total of 66,269 T-PLL cells, demonstrated a unique RNA signature between the CD4+/- and TCL1A+/- patients, suggesting these represent unique molecular subtypes of T-PLL. Conclusions: In this large, multi-center study of T-PLL, frontline treatment with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin improved response rates and OS. Further, among patients who attained a CR, allograft improved OS & PFS vs no allograft. In relapsed T-PLL, retreatment with alemtuzumab had a high ORR, and we report significant activity of multiple novel/alternative agents with the largest reported numbers to date. Intriguingly, TCL1A+, and CD4- T- PLL had worse OS/PFS, and scRNAseq confirmed unique molecular signatures in these populations, suggesting these represent novel molecular subtypes of T-PLL with prognostic significance. These studies form the foundation for future, targeted, therapeutic studies in this rare, aggressive disease with few treatment options.

Background: The rising incidence of PCNSL in the elderly represents an unmet need with an undefined standard approach [Villano Br J Cancer 2011]. High-dose methotrexate-based (HD-MTX) therapy is feasible and effective in older patients, but outcomes in this population remain poor. Despite high response rates to HD-MTX induction therapy, poor candidacy for intensive consolidative therapy results in transient disease control that may benefit from maintenance strategies [David Am J Hematol 2023]. Lenalidomide (len) has demonstrated activity in PCNSL even at low doses and represents a potential alternative to consolidation considering its extensive use in maintenance settings [Vu Br J Haematol 2019]. Anecdotal activity in PCNSL by checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab (nivo) has been reported [Nayak Blood 2017], and its immune response may be enhanced by len [Görgün Clin Cancer Res 2015]. A051901 evaluates the feasibility of the addition of len and nivo to rituximab (R) and HD-MTX as first line induction therapy followed by len-nivo maintenance in elderly patients with PCNSL not eligible for intensive consolidation. Study Design and Methods: This is a single-arm phase 1 multicenter US study (NCT04609046) conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology with a traditional 3+3 design. Eligible patients are 18 years of age or older with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma PCNSL diagnosed through brain biopsy or resection, or cerebrospinal (CSF) or vitreous fluid not considered candidates for high dose chemotherapy consolidation. This study is available to all eligible patients, regardless of race, gender, or ethnic origin. Patients must have adequate end-organ function including creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Use of systemic corticosteroids for disease control to be tapered after initiation of therapy is allowed. Induction consists of six 14-day cycles with rituximab 500 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1, HD-MTX 3g/m2 i.v. on day 2. In the most recent treatment schedule, a 5-day course of lenalidomide PO at different dose levels (dose level (DL) 1 = 10 mg, DL2 = 15 mg, DL3 = 20 mg) is initiated immediately after adequate clearance of HD-MTX. Once a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of len is defined, a subsequent cohort will evaluate the addition of nivo 240 mg i.v. to the day 14 of the induction cycle of R-HD-MTX plus len at the MTD. Patients who present any clinical benefit from induction with at least stable disease by International PCNSL Collaborative Group response criteria are eligible for maintenance - twelve 28-day cycles of therapy with len 15 mg PO from day 1 to day 21 (regardless of dose during induction) +/- nivo 480 mg i.v. on day 1 (for those who received len and nivo during induction). The primary endpoint of the induction therapy is the MTD of len when given in combination with R-HD-MTX; the primary endpoint of maintenance is its feasibility, defined as the proportion of patients able to remain on maintenance for at least 6 cycles. As of July 2024, 16 patients have been enrolled with a maximum expected sample size of 47 patients with the assumption of 75% of patients being eligible to proceed with maintenance and 50% of those who begin maintenance not progressing in the first 6 cycles. Overall response, adverse events, progression-free and overall survival will be evaluated in all eligible patients with a focus on the outcome of patients treated at the MTD. For patients who consent to biobanking, diagnostic tissue, peripheral blood and CSF from different timepoints are collected and banked with planned exploratory analyses including whole exome sequencing, circulating tumor DNA, proteomics, metabolomics. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.

Background Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) comprise a rare, heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas of mature T-cell origin. Most systemic (s) PTCL subtypes typically have poor outcomes with conventional anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Biomarker-driven and subtype-specific treatments are promising but unmet needs. Few benchmark studies exist to characterize the current real-world landscape of clinical and pathologic practice. We report the patterns of care and updated outcome data for PTCL patients enrolled in the LEO-MER multi-center prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02736357). Methods Patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed PTCL were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER cohort (2002-2015) or the expanded LEO cohort (2015-2020). Clinical, pathology, treatment, and outcome data were abstracted from medical records using a standard protocol in both cohorts. Pathology underwent expert re-review based on WHO criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of diagnosis to date of death or last follow-up. Event-free survival (EFS) was calculated from date of diagnosis to disease progression, initiation of 2 nd line therapy, or death from any cause. EFS and OS were evaluated using Cox model and Kaplan-Meier estimator. Log-rank test was used to test the significance of difference between groups. Results LEO-MER enrolled 1132 PTCL patients during the study period (462 MER and 670 LEO). Of these, 722 were sPTCLs (281 MER and 441 LEO), including PTCL-NOS (N=253, 35%), anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL; N=180, 24.9% [74 ALK+, 106 ALK-]), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL, N=164, 22.7%), extranodal NK-TCL (N=50, 6.9%), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (N=33, 4.6%), enteropathy-associated TCL (N=19, 2.6%), and hepatosplenic TCL (N=13, 1.8%) ( Table 1). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years. M:F ratio was 1.5. Comparing LEO to MER, African American population was 15.4% vs 0.7%, and Hispanic was 10% vs 2.2%. Clinical characteristics were comparable between MER and LEO overall: PS≥2, 20.9%; elevated LDH, 50.7%; stage III-IV, 67.6%; and IPI 2-5, 65.7%. The most common 1 st line chemotherapy regimens overall were CHOP-based (N=506, 70%), including 60% receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy in both MER and LEO cohorts (CHOP [N=268, 37%], CHOEP [N=91, 13%] or EPOCH [N=75, 10%]), and 16% with CHOP-like in combination with novel agents in LEO cohort (BV+ [N=41, 9.3%], azacitidine+ [N=11, 2.5%], pralatrexate+ [N=10, 2.3%], lenalidomide+ [N=8, 1.9%]) ( Table 1). More patients received etoposide in LEO (40.3%) than in MER (20.3%). 74 patients (10.3%) underwent consolidative SCT following induction chemotherapy (71 auto and 3 allo). 65 patients (11.2%) received frontline therapy on clinical trials. At a median follow-up of 9.4 years in MER and 4 years in LEO, 177 (MER) and 269 (LEO) events, and 150 (MER) and 206 (LEO) deaths were observed, respectively. The 3-year EFS and 4-year OS estimates for sPTCL were 46.3% and 59.1% in MER, and 40.4% and 51.3% in LEO. EFS and OS correlated with IPI scores and differed by sPTCL subtypes ( Figure 1). ALCL had superior survival, with 3-year EFS and 4-year OS of 78.2% and 90.5% for ALK+, and 65.9% and 76.9% for ALK-. Non-ALCL subtypes including PTCL-NOS and AITL had inferior outcomes, with 3-year EFS and 4-year OS of 31.4% and 42.8% for PTCL-NOS, and 33.4% and 50.7% for AITL. In subset analysis, the addition of etoposide to CHOP chemotherapy as either CHOEP or EPOCH was associated with improved OS for ALK- ALCL (p=0.038, log-rank), but not for ALK+ ALCL (p=0.75) or non-ALCL subtypes of PTCL-NOS and AITL (p=0.88). Conclusion The LEO-MER study is the largest prospective cohort study of PTCL to date. Patterns of care in the LEO cohort begin to incorporate novel agents in frontline therapy. Outcomes continue to mature with longitudinal follow-up and ongoing accrual, which poise to shape benchmarks in the contemporary era. The lack of benefit of etoposide adding to CHOP induction and poor overall survival of non-ALCL subtypes underscores the unmet need of therapeutic breakthrough for non-ALCL frontline treatment, particularly through clinical trials with biomarker-guided approaches incorporating novel agents.

12100 Background: The safety profiles of novel agents are mainly based on clinician-reported adverse events (AEs) from clinical trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may better represent the treatment burden experienced by patients (pts) compared with clinician-reported AEs. Using data from POLARIX, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 3 international study (NCT03274492), we previously presented PRO and clinician-reported data showing similar rates of neuropathy (Trněný et al. 2022). Here, we evaluate the reporting of other common symptoms using PRO and clinician-reported data in POLARIX. Methods: POLARIX methods were previously described (Tilly et al. 2022); this analysis included all pts with PRO data. PRO and clinician-reported data described the incidence and severity of fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Clinician-reported severity grading was based on the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) v4.0. PROs were collected using the European Organisation Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), which was administered to pts at clinic visits on Day 1 of Cycles 1 (baseline), 2, 3, and 5, and end of treatment (EOT). PRO severity scores included ‘A little’, ‘Quite a bit’, and ‘Very much’. Results: Overall, 825 pts were evaluable. From baseline to EOT, PROs showed a higher incidence of symptoms compared with clinicians for fatigue (98% vs 27%), constipation (68% vs 29%), diarrhea (56% vs 26%), nausea (58% vs 40%), and vomiting (24% vs 15%). PRO severity scores of ‘Quite a bit’ or ‘Very much’ were reported in 33% of pts for fatigue, 29% for constipation, 17% for diarrhea, 19% for nausea, and 7% for vomiting. Clinicians reported Grade ≥2 symptoms in 11% of pts for fatigue, 11% for constipation, 11% for diarrhea, 14% for nausea, and 6% for vomiting. Conclusions: In POLARIX, pts reported a higher incidence and severity of symptoms compared with clinicians. Although distinct scales were used, the differences in symptom rates reported by pts and clinicians were clinically meaningful. These data may have implications for symptom management, including physician evaluation and communication of symptom expectations for pts. Reporting of symptoms by PROs should be incorporated into clinical trials as an adjunct to standard AE reporting to better characterize the patient experience. Clinical trial information: NCT03274492 . [Table: see text]