Russler‐Germain, David A.

Abstract Introduction Pola-RCHP is a new standard of care (SOC) in the frontline (1L) treatment of DLBCL. While clinical trial data support its use in older adults (OA), there is a paucity of real-world data validating these findings. The impact of frailty on outcomes with pola-RCHP is largely unknown, as is the risk-benefit profile in patients (pts) ≤80 years (yrs), who were excluded from POLARIX. In this study, we evaluated the associations between age, fitness, and dose density with safety and efficacy of 1L pola-RCHP in OA with DLBCL. Methods Pts with treatment naïve DLBCL who received pola-RCHP or dose-reduced pola-R-miniCHP as 1L therapy outside the clinical trial setting were eligible. This multicenter retrospective study included pts from 17 US centers. Baseline characteristics including markers of baseline fitness such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G) score, presence of geriatric syndrome (GS; defined as dementia, delirium, depression, osteoporosis, incontinence, falls, failure to thrive, or neglect/abuse), and impairments in activities of daily living (ADLs; defined as bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, feeding, or continence) were collected. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in OA (age ≤70 yrs) with DLBCL. Secondary endpoints included safety, overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR) and overall survival (OS). Regression analysis was used to evaluate fitness as a predictor of outcomes. Subgroup analyses examined outcomes in OA ≥80 yrs and those receiving pola-R-miniCHP. Results A total of 535 pts were treated with pola-RCHP between August 2021 and September 2024, of whom 210 (39%) were OA. Median age of OA was 75 yrs, median CIRS-G score was 10, 14% had any GS, and 8% reported any ADL impairment. OA tended to have worse ECOG PS (≥2; 23%, p=0.009) and IPI score (3-5; 77%, p<0.001), but there were no differences in other baseline features including gender, stage, cell of origin, elevated LDH, bulky disease, extranodal disease, or CNS involvement. OA received pola-R-miniCHP more frequently (18% vs 1.5%, p<0.0001) and had similar rates of treatment completion (85%, p=0.2) as pts <70 yrs. Median follow up was 11.3 months. ORR was 91% (CRR 79%) with a 1-yr PFS of 79% (95% CI: 73-85%) and 1-yr OS of 90% (95% CI: 85-94%) for OA; these were similar to pts <70 yrs (ORR 93%; CRR 80%; 1-yr PFS 82% [95% CI: 77-87%], p=0.18; 1-yr OS 91% [95% CI: 88-95%], p=0.53]. OA had higher rates of cardiomyopathy (6.2% vs. 1.5%, p=0.004), grade 3+ (G3+) neutropenia (38% vs. 27%, p=0.013), G3+ thrombocytopenia (22% vs. 11%, p<0.001) and hospitalization (38% vs 26%, p=0.004); rates of neuropathy, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar to pts <70 yrs. Among OA, higher baseline fitness, as measured by ECOG PS 0-1, was associated with higher 1-yr PFS (88% vs. 63%, p<0.0001) and 1-yr OS (96% vs. 74%, p<0.0001) and a lower rate of hospitalization (30% vs. 65%, p<0.001). A lower comorbidity burden (CIRS-G <6) was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization (18% vs 41%, p=0.041), but did not impact PFS or OS. Impairments in ADLs were also associated with lower OS (78% vs 91%, p=0.03). OA receiving pola-R-miniCHP (n=38) were older (79 yrs vs. 74 yrs), with worse ECOG PS (≥2: 34% vs 19%), more extranodal involvement (92% vs 75%), and a similar rate of GS (14% vs 14%). The rate of hospitalization was higher (45% vs. 36%, p<0.05) but ORR (84% vs. 93%), CRR (79% vs. 79%), 1-yr PFS (85% vs. 78%), and 1-yr OS (87% vs. 90%) were similar. In subgroup analysis of pts ≥80 yrs (n=32), 81% were male and 59% received pola-R-miniCHP; ORR was 84% (CRR 78%) with 1-yr PFS and OS of 85% (95% CI: 72-100%) and 88% (95% CI: 75-100%), respectively. Pts ≥80 yrs had a higher rate of any grade neuropathy (23%, p=0.03) but similar rates of treatment completion, cardiomyopathy, G3+ neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, G3+ thrombocytopenia, and hospitalization relative to pts 70-80yrs. Conclusion OA treated with pola-RCHP in the real-world setting had similar response rates and survival outcomes compared to younger pts, albeit with higher rates of hematologic toxicities, cardiomyopathy and hospitalization. Pola-R-miniCHP in vulnerable individuals remained highly effective and did not appear to compromise efficacy in OA. Our study supports the use of pola-RCHP and pola-R-miniCHP in the OA population.

Abstract Background: Prognostication for patients with non-transformed relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) is not well defined. Progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) and number of lines of prior therapy are commonly used to benchmark outcomes and for trial eligibility in this space. However, a comprehensive model for risk prediction in R/R FL is lacking. Here we utilize patients from the LEO Consortium for Real World Evidence (CReWE) and Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE MER to develop a clinical prediction model for R/R FL. Methods: Patients with grade 1-3A FL were prospectively enrolled at diagnosis in the MER and/or initiated second line or later therapy (2L+) for non-transformed FL at one of the 8 LEO Centers from a previous LEO CReWE study (Casulo et al, Lancet Haem 2022). All available lines of therapy were abstracted; lines of therapy after histologic transformation were not used in the analyses. A management plan of observation was considered as a type of therapy in the 1L setting but not in the 2L+ setting. Clinical variables and outcomes were abstracted at each line of therapy. Variables considered for modeling included demographics, clinical labs, treatment history, and pertinent clinical variables (including FLIPI and FLIPI24 components). Multiple imputation was used to address missing data in modeling; beta-2 microglobulin (B2M) was unable to be imputed due to the amount of missing data. Index therapy was defined as the date of initiation of a line of therapy (2L, 3L or 4L) for non-transformed FL. The primary endpoint for model development was the time from index therapy until the histologic transformation or lymphoma-related death (HT/LD). Cox proportional hazards models were used for model development. Modeling was first performed separately for each line of therapy and then evaluated across lines. Bootstrapping on imputed datasets was used to assess optimism in model performance. Results: N=1001 patients initiated 2L+ therapy and were utilized for modeling. Of these patients, N=654 initiated 3L and N=344 initiated 4L therapy. Median age at index therapy was (60, 61, and 62) for lines 2-4, respectively. Median follow-up by line of therapy was 8.2, 6.1, and 6,1 years and number of HT/LD events for modeling was 272, 154, and 88, respectively. Observed outcomes decreased modestly as the line therapy increased: median event-free (1.6, 1.5, and 1.2 years) and overall survival (17.6 years, 14.5 years, and 12.3 years), for lines 2-4, respectively. 5-year estimates of HT/LD by line of therapy were 21.6% (95% CI: 18.9-24.3), 23.7% (95% CI: 19.9-27.4) and 29.3% (95% CI: 23.3-34.7), respectively. A clinical prediction model was independently developed for each line of therapy; the final model for each line consisted of the same variables: increasing age, male sex, higher LDH, lower hemoglobin, higher white blood cell count, prior immunochemotherapy exposure, and shorter time since initial diagnosis. The parameter estimates for these variables were broadly similar across the different lines of therapy. The model output is an individual patient's risk of HT/LD. Patients with high-risk FLP-R, as defined using the upper quartile of FLP-R risk scores for each line, had observed 5 year HT/LD rates of 43%, 44% and 51% in lines 2-4, respectively. In contrast, patients with the lower quartile of FLP-R risk scores had observed 5 year HT/LD rates of 10%, 6% and 8% in lines 2-4, respectively. The optimism-corrected c-statistic for the FLP-R model across all lines of therapy was 0.685. This added significant information beyond FLIPI diagnosis (c=0.533) FLIPI at index line (c=0.563), the line of therapy (c=0.525), POD24 status (c=0.578), or all 4 variables combined (c=0.614). Conclusions: The FLP-R model identifies a group of patients with non-transformed FL in the R/R setting who are at very high risk of transformation and/or lymphoma-related death across lines of therapy. FLP-R features 4 of the 5 components of the 1L FLIPI24 prediction model (B2M was unavailable for modeling) with the addition of sex, treatment history and time since initial diagnosis. The number of prior therapies is not sufficient to identify high-risk populations for clinical trial enrichment in the R/R FL setting and model discrimination for FLP-R was greatly improved over FLIPI and/or POD24 across lines of therapy. A Shiny app will be provided for model implementation; external validation is planned.

Abstract Purpose: Polatuzumab vedotin (polatuzumab) was approved for up-front treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in combination with chemoimmunotherapy (Pola-R-CHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, when stratified by cell of origin (COO), polatuzumab seems to have greater efficacy in activated B-cell than germinal center B-cell (GCB) subtype disease. Most studies of polatuzumab used RNA expression to assess COO, whereas in routine clinical practice, the immunohistochemistry-based Hans algorithm is used. Experimental Design: To assess the impact of COO by immunohistochemistry on polatuzumab efficacy, we conducted a multicenter real-world study of adults with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) receiving polatuzumab from 2015 to 2024, split by receipt of polatuzumab in first-line versus relapsed/refractory settings. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to polatuzumab-based treatment in GCB versus non-GCB relapsed/refractory LBCL. Results: Of 740 patients, 305 received polatuzumab in the first-line setting and 435 in the relapsed/refractory setting. In the relapsed/refractory cohort, the ORR in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL was 59.7% versus 36.3% [OR, 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.77–3.84; P < 0.0001], with a complete response rate of 35.7% versus 17.7% (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.66–4.02; P < 0.0001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients with non-GCB versus GCB COO (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.5–0.83; P = 0.0006). In the first-line cohort, ORR, complete response rate, and progression-free survival were similar in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL, as hypothesized based on outcomes in the Pola-R-CHP arm of POLARIX, suggesting that the addition of polatuzumab overcomes the adverse risk of non-GCB COO in patients receiving R-CHOP. Conclusions: Based on these data, COO classification by the Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of polatuzumab efficacy in LBCL, informing real-world treatment decisions.

Background: FL3B is the least common among FL subtypes, accounting for 5-10% of cases. Almost half of FL3B tumors have concurrent diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the diagnostic tissue biopsy, while FL3B rarely coexists with FL1-2 or FL3A. Several lines of evidence suggest that FL3B displays distinct biological and clinical characteristics resembling aggressive DLBCL rather than the indolent FL1-3A. Accordingly, DLBCL anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, are the mainstay of therapy for FL3B with or without coexisting DLBCL. However, while some studies show that R-CHOP therapy in FL3B was associated with 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 54%, others report outcomes comparable to FL3A with 79-90% survival. Additional controversy involves the clinical implication of pure FL3B (FL3Bp) vs FL3B with concurrent DLBCL (FL3Bc). Thus, it remains unclear if FL3B clinically resembles DLBCL or lower-grade FL and whether FL3Bp has a different prognosis from FL3Bc. To address these questions, we performed a pooled study of two large prospective multicenter study cohorts to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of newly diagnosed FL3B with FL1-2, FL3A and DLBCL patients, all of whom were uniformly treated with frontline R-CHOP. Patients and Methods: Weevaluated 469 newly diagnosed patients with FL1-2 (n=216), FL3A (n=170) and FL3B (n=83) who received R-CHOP within 6 months of diagnosis and 739 de novo DLBCL (GCB n=455 and non-GCB n=284) who were prospectively enrolled into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohorts between 2002 and 2021. FL3B cases were designated as FL3Bc and FL3Bp based on the presence or absence of coexisting DLBCL, respectively. Histologic diagnosis was determined by an expert pathologist at each participating center and centrally reviewed. Event free survival (EFS) and OS were defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, retreatment or death, and early progression defined as failing to achieve EFS at 24 months (EFS24). Associations between clinical features and EFS or OS were evaluated using Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models unadjusted and adjusted for age and FLIPI (comparisons with FL1-2 and FL3A) or IPI (comparisons with DLBCL). Results: The median age was 61 years (range, 18-94 years). Among FL3B patients, 21 (25%) had FL3Bc and 62 (75%) FL3Bp. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were broadly similar between the two FL3B subtypes. We then compared all FL3B patients to those with lower-grade FL. Patients with FL3B showed similar clinical features to those with FL1-2 and FL3A, with exception for a lower tumor burden. After R-CHOP, FL1-2 patients had an inferior EFS (HR 2.13 95%CI 1.31-3.46) than those with FL3B, whereas there was no difference compared to FL3A. OS was similar across all FL grades. Although FL1-2 patients failed to achieve EFS24 more frequently than FL3B and FL3A (34% vs 18% and 15%, p<0.001), FL3B patients who did fail EFS24 had almost three folds higher risk of subsequent mortality (HR 2.84 95%CI 1.35-6.01) than other FLs. At 5-year follow-up, FL3B patients had twice the risk of relapse with an aggressive subtype (i.e., DLBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma) than those with FL1-2 and FL3A, who instead often recurred with indolent disease (i.e., FL1-2, FL3A; p<0.001). We further compared FL3B patients to those with DLBCL classified based on cell-of-origin into GCB and non-GCB subtypes. At diagnosis, patients with FL3B had more favorable clinical features than those with GCB and non-GCB DLBCL. Compared to FL3B, patients with non-GCB DLBCL had an inferior EFS (HR 1.73 95%CI 1.07-2.79) and OS (HR 2.04 95%CI 1.11-3.75), while those with GCB DLBCL did not show a significant difference in EFS (HR 1.41 95%CI 0.88-2.25) or OS (HR 1.69, 95%CI 0.93-3.06) likely due to insufficient statistical power. Patients with FL3B failed EFS24 less frequently than patients with GCB or non-GCB DLBCL (17% vs 25% and 32%; p=0.01). Among patients who failed EFS24, those with FL3B had a similar subsequent OS as both GCB (HR 1.41 95%CI 0.73-2.72) and non-GCB DLBCL (HR 1.27 95%CI 0.65-2.47). Conclusions: We report that FL3Bp and FL3Bc appear clinically similar. While most FL3B patients have a prognosis comparable to FL1-2 and FL3A, 18% exhibit aggressive behavior with poor outcome reminiscent of DLBCL. Future studies with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings.

Background: Polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) is an antibody drug conjugate targeting CD79b that incorporates the microtubule disrupting monomethyl auristatin E payload. Pola was approved in 2023 for the upfront treatment of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (polaRCHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, the activity of pola appears to vary based on DLBCL cell of origin (COO) subtype, with greater efficacy in activated B cell (ABC) DLBCL compared to germinal center B cell (GCB) DLBCL (Russler-Germain Blood 2023). When outcomes in POLARIX are stratified by COO, polaRCHP demonstrated progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits over RCHOP in patients with ABC but not GCB subtype DLBCL (PFS HR 0.34 ABC vs 1.03 GCB, OS HR 0.27 ABC vs 1.64 GCB; Morschhauser ASH 2023 and FDA data). Most prospective studies of pola used gene expression to assess COO, which is not readily clinically available. This study aims to examine if COO subtype by Hans algorithm (based on CD10, BCL6, and MUM1 expression by immunohistochemistry) is predictive of pola responses and outcomes in patients with large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter observational study of adults with LBCL who received pola (monotherapy or in combination) from 2015-2024 with Hans algorithm COO data and response assessment available. Patients were stratified by receipt of pola in the frontline vs relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to pola-based treatment in GCB vs non-GCB subtypes. Secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), PFS, and OS. For time to event endpoints, patients responding to pola who received CAR T or stem cell transplantation prior to progression were censored at time of cellular therapy. Demographics were summarized by descriptive statistics. Comparative and survival analyses used Chi squared/Fischer exact tests and Kaplan Meier analysis. Data cutoff was July 1, 2024. Results: 718 patients were included. Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range [IQR] 8-32). Median age at LBCL diagnosis was 66 years (IQR 56-74); 62% were men; 69 (10%) had double hit lymphoma (DHL); 129 (18%) had underlying low grade lymphoma. Pola was used in the frontline setting in 293 (41%) patients, of whom 139 (47%) had GCB vs 154 (53%) non-GCB COO. Of the 426 patients receiving pola for R/R LBCL (including one patient receiving pola retreatment), 224 (53%) had GCB vs 202 (47%) non-GCB COO. Among patients receiving pola-based regimens in the R/R setting (GCB vs non-GCB: pola monotherapy = 7% vs 4%, pola + R = 26% vs 26%, pola + BR = 55% vs 61%, pola + other = 12% vs 9%; p = 0.44), the ORR in GCB vs non-GCB LBCL was 36% vs 61% (p < 0.001), while CRR in GCB vs non-GCB was 17% vs 36% (p < 0.001). COO remained a significant component of logistic multivariate regression models of ORR (p < 0.001) and CRR (p < 0.001) when incorporating IPI at original LBCL diagnosis, histology, DHL status, and refractory status to frontline therapy. Despite this, no significant PFS or OS differences by COO were seen, potentially due to approximately 1/4 patients being censored due to receiving subsequent cellular therapy (e.g. CAR T) prior to progression. In patients receiving frontline pola-based regimens (of which 275 [94%] included an anthracycline), ORR and CRR were similar in GCB vs non-GCB (ORR 89% vs 88% p > 0.5; CRR 76% vs 77% p > 0.5). While PFS and OS were similar between COO groups in the frontline cohort, follow-up and cohort size were limited. Conclusion: Based on this real-world evidence, COO classification by Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in R/R LBCL, with significantly higher ORR and CRR in patients with non-GCB compared to GCB COO LBCL. This aligns with the cumulative existing evidence. ORR and CRR to pola-containing therapy in the frontline setting did not differ significantly by COO subtype, but longer follow-up of larger cohorts is needed to clarify the predictive role of COO by Hans algorithm in this setting, especially considering the PFS advantage with polaRCHP in POLARIX was not associated with significant differences in ORR or CRR. Overall, clinicians should consider factoring COO subtype into treatment decisions regarding pola-containing regimens, and studies of pola-based therapies should stratify patients and report outcomes by COO subtype.

Abstract Background Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM), an asymptomatic precursor of multiple myeloma (MM), carries a variable risk of progression to MM. There is little consensus on the efficacy or optimal timing of treatment in SMM. We systematically reviewed the landscape of all clinical trials in SMM. We compared the efficacy of treatment regimens studied in SMM to results from these regimens when used in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), to determine whether the data suggest deeper responses in SMM versus NDMM. Methods All prospective interventional clinical trials for SMM, including published studies, meeting abstracts, and unpublished trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov up to April 1, 2023, were identified. Trial-related variables were captured, including treatment strategy and efficacy results. Relevant clinical endpoints were defined as overall survival (OS) and quality of life. Results Among 45 SMM trials identified, 38 (84.4%) assessed active myeloma drugs, while 7 (15.6%) studied bone-modifying agents alone. Of 18 randomized trials in SMM, only one (5.6%) had a primary endpoint of OS; the most common primary endpoint was progression-free survival (n = 7, 38.9%). Among 32 SMM trials with available results, 9 (28.1%) met their prespecified primary endpoint, of which 5 were single-arm studies. Six treatment regimens were tested in both SMM and NDMM; 5 regimens yielded a lower rate of very good partial response rate or better (≥VGPR) in SMM compared to the corresponding NDMM trial (32% vs 63%, 43% vs 53%, 40% vs 63%, 86% vs 89%, 92% vs 95%, and 94% vs 87%, respectively). Conclusion In this systematic review of all prospective interventional clinical trials in SMM, we found significant variability in trial design, including randomization status, primary endpoints, and types of intervention used. Despite the statistical limitations, comparison of treatment regimens revealed no compelling evidence that the treatment is more effective when introduced early in SMM compared to NDMM.

Abstract Follicular lymphoma (FL) is clinically heterogeneous, with select patients tolerating extended watch-and-wait, whereas others require prompt treatment, suffer progression of disease within 24 months of treatment (POD24), and/or experience aggressive histologic transformation (t-FL). Because our understanding of the relationship between genetic alterations in FL and patient outcomes remains limited, we conducted a clinicogenomic analysis of 370 patients with FL or t-FL (from Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance trials 50402/50701/50803, or real-world cohorts from Washington University School of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, or University of Miami). FL subsets by grade, stage, watch-and-wait, or POD24 status did not differ by mutation burden, whereas mutation burden was significantly higher in relapsed/refractory (rel/ref) FL and t-FL than in newly diagnosed (dx) FL. Nonetheless, mutation burden in dx FL was not associated with frontline progression-free survival (PFS). CREBBP was the only gene more commonly mutated in FL than in t-FL yet mutated CREBBP was associated with shorter frontline PFS in FL. Mutations in 20 genes were more common in rel/ref FL or t-FL than in dx FL, including 6 significantly mutated genes (SMGs): STAT6, TP53, IGLL5, B2M, SOCS1, and MYD88. We defined a mutations associated with progression (MAP) signature as ≥2 mutations in these 7 genes (6 rel/ref FL or t-FL SMGs plus CREBBP). Patients with dx FL possessing a MAP signature had shorter frontline PFS, revealing a 7-gene set offering insight into FL progression risk potentially more generalizable than the m7–Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (m7-FLIPI), which had modest prognostic value in our cohort. Future studies are warranted to validate the poor prognosis associated with a MAP signature in dx FL, potentially facilitating novel trials specifically in this high-risk subset of patients.