Haddadi, Sara

ABSTRACT Rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R‐GemOx) is a commonly used chemoimmunotherapy regimen for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but there are limited real‐world data. In a multicenter retrospective study from a cohort of eight US academic centers (LEO CReWE), we evaluated 183 patients with R/R DLBCL and high‐grade B cell lymphoma treated with R‐GemOx, including subgroups treated without intent for consolidation with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy ( n = 100), those utilizing R‐GemOx as a bridge to ASCT or CAR T ( n = 83), and those aged 70 and older ( n = 71). Overall response rates (ORRs) for all patients treated with R‐GemOx were 45% with a complete response (CR) rate of 29%. The median event‐free survival (EFS) was 2.3 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 13.5 months. Patients receiving R‐GemOx without intent for ASCT or CAR T had ORR and CR rates of 33% and 18%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 2.0 and 9.5 months, respectively. Patients receiving R‐GemOx as a bridge to ASCT or CAR T had ORR and CR rates of 57% and 36%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 3.5 and 17.4 months, respectively. Patients receiving R‐GemOx aged 70 and older had ORR and CR rates of 53% and 33%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 2.2 and 13.9 months, respectively. These data provide a benchmark for R‐GemOx in the rapidly evolving landscape of R/R DLBCL therapies.

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

Background: Rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) is a commonly utilized chemoimmunotherapy regimen for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), especially for patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR T). R-GemOx is used as a comparator arm in several active phase III clinical trials for R/R DLBCL, including the POLARGO (polatuzumab vedotion and R-GemOx), STARGLO (glofitamab and GemOx), SUNMO (mosunetuzumab and polatuzumab vedotin), LOTIS-5 (loncastuximab tesirine and rituximab), and EPCORE DLBCL-1 (epcoritamab) studies. However, real-world data are limited to understand the patterns of use and outcomes of R-GemOx in the US. Methods: We developed a retrospective multicenter US cohort (known as LEO CReWE) of patients with R/R DLBCL and other aggressive B-cell lymphomas at the eight US academic centers participating in the LEO Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Patients first diagnosed with DLBCL (including transformed and high-grade B-cell lymphoma) from 2007 - 2022 who received second line (2L) or later therapy for R/R DLBCL with R-GemOx were included. Baseline characteristics, treatment, and follow-up data were abstracted by chart review. Index line of therapy was defined as the first receipt of R-GemOx therapy in the 2L or later setting. Intent for CAR T and/or ASCT was evaluated at each line of therapy based on medical records at the time of treatment initiation. Subgroup analyses were pre-planned in groups of special interest, including those treated with R-GemOx without intent for ASCT or CAR T, those treated as a bridge to CAR T, and those aged 70 and older. Results: 183 patients with R/R DLBCL treated with R-GemOx were included. At time of initiation of R-GemOx, median age was 68 years (range 21-88), with 71 patients (39%) aged 70+ and 18 (10%) aged 80+. Many patients had high risk features including 13% with high grade B-cell lymphoma and 56% with IPI 3 or greater. 21% had an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Patients received a median of 2 lines of therapy prior to the index line of R-GemOx (range 1-7). 52% of patients did not achieve a complete response (CR) to first-line therapy, and 20% relapsed <12 months from an initial CR. In all patients receiving R-GemOx, the overall response rate (ORR) was 45% (29% CR). At a median follow-up of 39 months, median EFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.8-3.2), with 12-month EFS of 21% and a 24-month EFS of 15%. Median OS was 13.5 months (95% CI: 9.6-18.1), with a 12-month OS of 52% and a 24-month OS of 38%. In patients treated without intent for ASCT or CAR T, ORR was 33% (18% CR). Median EFS was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.6-2.5) with 12- and 24-month EFS of 14% and 9%, respectively. Median OS was 9.5 months (95% CI: 6.6-16.1) with 12- and 24-month OS of 45% and 29%, respectively. In patients receiving R-GemOx as bridging to ASCT or CAR T, ORR was 57% (35% CR). 35% received CAR T and 14% received ASCT, while the remainder did not receive the intended therapy as part of this line. Median EFS was 3.6 months (95% CI: 1.8-5.2) with 12- and 24-month EFS of 28% and 25%, respectively. Median OS was 17.4 months (95% CI: 13.4-NR); 12- and 24-month OS were 61% and 50%, respectively. In patients aged 70+, ORR was 53% (33% CR). Median EFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.6-5.2), with 12- and 24-month EFS of 20% and 18%, respectively. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI: 8.6-30.2); 12- and 24-month OS were 57% and 39%, respectively. Conclusion: This study represents the largest reported cohort of patients treated with R-GemOx in US academic centers to date. The ORR of 45% and CR rate of 29% CR, as well as median EFS and OS of 2.3 and 13.5 months, respectively, are consistent with findings from previous phase II studies; these results highlight that responses to R-GemOx are not durable and the vast majority of patients require additional therapy. This study demonstrates real-world evidence of the efficacy of R-GemOx in a large cohort of patients with R/R DLBCL from the US over a long period, including both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, and patients treated in the CAR T era. These data aid in providing a benchmark for active clinical trials in the rapidly evolving landscape of R/R DLBCL therapies and allow potential comparison to a real-world cohort of patients with a broad range of clinical characteristics.

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: Recently, large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs) have undergone major shifts in classification and treatment paradigm, particularly with the advent of CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T). Initially approved as third-line treatment in LBCL in 2017, as of early 2022 CAR-T is indicated for second-line therapy (2L) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) disease within 12 months of frontline treatment or who are not candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Given this quickly changing landscape, we aimed to describe disease characteristics, patterns of care, and survival outcomes in patients with R/R LBCL receiving two or more lines of systemic therapy across modern treatment eras. Methods: We developed a database of patients with R/R LBCL from 8 U.S. academic centers in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort study (NCT02736357) and Consortium for Real World Evidence (CReWE). Unlike the SCHOLAR-1 dataset (M Crump et al, Blood 2017), our cohort included any patient receiving 2L, regardless of timing of progression/relapse. For this analysis, eligible patients were aged ≥18 years and received 2L between 2002-2022. Patients with histologic transformation, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder, primary CNS lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, or plasmablastic lymphoma were excluded. Prognostic factors, therapy details (including intent for ASCT and/or CAR-T), and outcomes, including treatment response, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS), were abstracted for all lines of therapy. Treatment eras were defined as pre-CAR-T (2002-2010), CAR-T available via clinical trial (2011-2017), and post-FDA approval of CAR-T (2018-2022). Results: Of 1760 patients initiating 2L for R/R disease, 1523 were eligible for analysis. Median age at start of 2L was 62 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-70), and 65% were male; 11% were non-White, and 8% were Hispanic. High-grade subtypes comprised 16% of all cases. IPI was available for 1013 patients at time of 2L therapy, with 54% having IPI 3-5. Median time from diagnosis to 2L was 8.7 months (IQR 5.6-18.5), with 834 patients not having achieved complete response (CR) to 1L, 285 patients relapsing <12 months after 1L, and 404 patients relapsing ≥12 months after 1L. The median number of total lines of therapy received was 4 (range 2-18), with 586 and 347 receiving ASCT and CAR-T, respectively, at any line of treatment. At a median follow-up of 48 months from the start of 2L, 926 patients (61%) had died. Progressive lymphoma was the primary cause of death in 75% of deceased patients, with 8% of reported deaths due to therapy. 2L was received at an academic medical center in 83% cases, and 209 patients (14%) received 2L on a clinical trial. ASCT and/or CAR-T was planned at 2L for 989 patients (65%), of whom 463 ultimately received ASCT, 88 received CAR-T, and 21 received allogeneic transplant at 2L. 494 patients were not considered for ASCT or CAR-T at 2L, and 40 were unknown for ASCT/CAR-T intent. Breakdown by treatment era (n = 1518 with available treatment start date) is shown in the Table. Median EFS from start of 2L was 4.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-4.8). Median OS from start of 2L was 18 months (95% CI: 17-22), and 2- and 5-year OS estimates were 46% (95% CI: 44-49%) and 35% (95% CI: 33-38%), respectively. EFS and OS improved significantly for patients initiating 2L between 2011-2017 compared to 2002-2010. However, EFS and OS in the 2018-2022 era remained similar to 2011-2017 (Figure). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first-ever large-scale attempt to describe patterns of care and outcomes in LBCL 2L in the modern era, inclusive of all treatment approaches. The rich and unique LEO CReWE dataset captures evolving practice approaches over time in terms of both intent for and receipt of cellular therapies. Likely reflecting the rapid development of many novel immune effector cell products and bispecific antibodies, we observed increased enrollment on 2L clinical trials in the 2018-2022 period, including a substantial proportion of patients receiving CAR-T in 2L. Importantly, survival increased in treatment eras during which CAR-T was available. Ongoing analyses of factors associated with improved survival will be presented at the meeting.