Galasso, Natasha

Introduction There is no prospective data to guide the utilization of peri-transplant radiation (PTRT) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In retrospective analyses, PTRT has been associated with local disease control, however evidence supporting improved progression free survival (PFS) is less well defined (Milgrom SA et al Cancer. 2017; 123(8):1363-1371). Furthermore, the added benefit of PTRT in the era of recent advancement in salvage strategies, including brentuximab vedotin (BV) and checkpoint inhibitors (CPI), is unclear. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis, we evaluated the impact of PTRT on PFS for patients with R/R cHL. Methods We identified consecutive pts ≥7 years old at time of diagnosis with R/R cHL treated with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) at 5 US academic institutions between 2010-2021. PTRT was defined as radiation administered within 3 months of ASCT. The primary objective was to compare the post-ASCT PFS, defined as the time from ASCT to subsequent relapse or death from any cause, between the two groups. Univariable and Multivariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the impact of various relevant clinical factors on post-ASCT PFS. Results A total of 958 eligible pts were identified ( Table 1). The median age at cHL diagnosis was 31 (range, 7-72). At the time of first relapse/primary refractory disease, 406 (54%) pts had early-stage disease, 167 (24%) pts had bulky disease (≥5.0 cm), 308 (36%) pts had extra-nodal disease, 182 (22%) pts had B-symptoms (B-sx), and 338 (45%) had primary refractory disease. A total of 302 (32%) pts received >1 line of salvage before ASCT. Salvage treatment at any time point before ASCT included chemotherapy only for 457 (48%) patients, BV(+/- chemotherapy) for 308 (32%) patients, and CPI (+/- BV or +/- chemotherapy) for 193 (20%) patients. In total, 239 (24.9%) pts received PTRT, 139 (58.1%) before ASCT and 100 (41.8%) after ASCT. Among pts with available dosing information (23.3%), the median radiation dose administered was 28 Gy. The most common doses administered were 30 Gy in 77 (31.7%) pts, 36 Gy in 62 (27.8%) pts, and 18 Gy in 43 (19.2%) pts. Radiated sites included mediastinum in 172 (80.7%) pts, neck/cervical lymph nodes in 68 (31.9%) pts, and supra/infra clavicular region and axilla, each in 31 (14.6%) pts. Compared to the 719 pts that did not receive PTRT, patients treated with PTRT were more likely to have early stage disease (73% vs 47%, p<0.001), bulky disease (30% vs 22%, p = 0.048), primary refractory disease (56% vs 40%, p <0.001), >1 line of salvage treatment prior to ASCT (40% vs 29%, p<0.001), and <CR prior to ASCT (36% vs 27%, p = 0.007) (Table 1). Patients treated with PTRT were less likely to have RT at initial diagnosis (5.9% vs 22%, p<0.001), extra-nodal disease (19% vs 42%, p<0.001), B-sx (17% vs 25%, p=0.035), salvage treatment that included CPI (11% vs 23%, p<0.001), and BV maintenance (20 vs 31%, p<0.001). After a median follow up from ASCT of 4.5 years (range, 2.4-7.2), 2-year PFS was 76% (73%, 79%) and 5-year PFS was 70% (67%, 73%). In univariable analysis, receipt of PTRT showed non-significant reduced hazard for PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.05, p = 0.093) (Figure 1). In a multivariable model, PTRT showed significant association with PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36-0.88, p=0.009) when adjusting for other clinically relevant factors at relapse such as stage, B-sx, bulk, primary refractory disease, BV(+/- chemotherapy) or CPI (+/- BV or +/- chemotherapy) in salvage, PET response prior to ASCT, and BV maintenance after ASCT. To determine if specific subgroups benefited from PTRT, we tested for interaction effects between PTRT and clinically relevant factors. Only bulk (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.85, p=0.013) and B-sx (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20-1.02, p=0.041) showed significant interaction with PTRT.Among pts with bulky disease, 5-year PFS was significantly improved with receipt of PTRT (81% vs 62%, p=0.013). Conclusion In this large multi-center analysis of pts with R/R cHL undergoing ASCT, there was no significant difference in PFS regardless of receipt of PTRT. However, after adjusting for known clinically relevant factors, receipt of PTRT was significantly associated with PFS and was particularly beneficial for patients with bulky disease or B-sx at relapse. We found decreased utilization of PTRT in pts receiving CPI-based salvage; therefore the role for PTRT for pts receiving CPI-based salvage is unclear.

Background: For patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), the standard of care remains salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for responding patients. Historical data suggest 40% of patients may relapse after ASCT, and these patients have generally a poor median overall survival (OS) of less than 2 years (Moskowitz et al., Br J Haematol. 2009;146(2):158-62). However, since these reports, the treatment landscape of R/R HL has dramatically improved, most notably with the introduction of two novel therapies, brentuximab vedotin (BV) and anti-PD1 agents. To refine our understanding of clinical outcomes in this context, we characterized patients who relapsed after ASCT in the modern era. Methods: We used a multicenter retrospective patient database at 5 transplant centers in the United States to identify patients with HL aged ≥ 12 years at diagnosis who had received ASCT on or after 1/1/2010. The primary objective was to determine the median OS for patients who relapsed after ASCT (post-ASCT-relapse OS), defining survival as the time from relapse after ASCT to subsequent death from any cause. Univariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the impact of various factors on post-ASCT OS. Outcomes by era were evaluated using three different eras based on approval dates of novel agents: (1) pre-BV approval (pre-7/31/2011), (2) post-BV approval (8/1/2011-4/30/2016), (3) post-anti-PD1 approval (5/1/16-present). Results: A total of 215 patients were identified. The median age at ASCT was 34. Before ASCT, 128 patients (62%) had no exposure to novel agents, 76 patients (35%) had received BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy, and 11 patients (5.1%) had received anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV. Conditioning was mostly with BEAM (59%) or CBV (32%). The median time to relapse after ASCT was 6 months (range: 1-109 months). Nearly half all relapses (47%) occurred within 6 months of ASCT. Only 14% of relapses occurred after 1 year. Among 126 patients with available treatment information, the median number of post-ASCT lines of therapy was 2 (IQR: 1, 4). Therapy for post-ASCT relapse included BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy in 41 patients (29%), anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV for 70 patients (50%), and no novel agents for only 15 patients (11%). The median followup time from the date of ASCT among survivors was 5.0 (IQR: 2.8, 7.8) years. The median post-ASCT-relapse OS was not reached ( Figure 1). The 2- and 5-year post-ASCT-relapse OS were 75% (95% CI: 70%-81%) and 59% (95% CI: 53%-67%), respectively. On univariable Cox regression for post-ASCT-relapse OS ( Table 1), time to relapse greater than 6 (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.85) or 12 months (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96) were significantly associated with improved post-ASCT-relapse OS. Increasing age at relapse was associated with worse OS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.07). Receipt of a novel agent (compared to chemotherapy alone) as the first salvage regimen for post-ASCT relapse was associated with improved post-ASCT OS (BV: HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.96; anti-PD-1: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-1.08). Outcomes improved over time as regulatory approvals for novel agents occurred (post-BV-approval: HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39-1.24; post-anti-PD-1 approval: HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.91). Conclusion: We show prolonged overall survival post-ASCT relapse compared to historical data likely due to the introduction of BV and anti-PD1 agents. This report represents one of the largest datasets of post-ASCT relapse in cHL, and this data should serve as an updated benchmark for future evaluations.

Gene fusions involving tumor protein p63 gene (TP63) occur in multiple T and B cell lymphomas and portend a dismal prognosis for patients. The function and mechanisms of TP63 fusions remain unclear, and there is no target therapy for patients with lymphoma harboring TP63 fusions. Here, we show that TP63 fusions act as bona fide oncogenes and are essential for fusion-positive lymphomas. Transgenic mice expressing TBL1XR1::TP63, the most common TP63 fusion, develop diverse lymphomas that recapitulate multiple human T and B cell lymphomas. Here, we identify that TP63 fusions coordinate the recruitment of two epigenetic modifying complexes, the nuclear receptor corepressor (NCoR)—histone deacetylase 3 (HDAC3) by the N-terminal TP63 fusion partner and the lysine methyltransferase 2D (KMT2D) by the C-terminal TP63 component, which are both required for fusion-dependent survival. TBL1XR1::TP63 localization at enhancers drives a unique cell state that involves up-regulation of MYC and the polycomb repressor complex 2 (PRC2) components EED and EZH2. Inhibiting EZH2 with the therapeutic agent valemetostat is highly effective at treating transgenic lymphoma murine models, xenografts, and patient-derived xenografts harboring TP63 fusions. One patient with TP63 -rearranged lymphoma showed a rapid response to valemetostat treatment. In summary, TP63 fusions link partner components that, together, coordinate multiple epigenetic complexes, resulting in therapeutic vulnerability to EZH2 inhibition.

Abstract Recurrent chromosomal rearrangements are a hallmark of hematologic malignancies and play critical roles in pathogenesis. The TP53 analog TP63 is rearranged in 5-10% of diverse subtypes of both aggressive T- and B-cell lymphomas. Patients with TP63-rearranged lymphomas have dismal outcomes, with 5-year overall survival rates between 0-17%, depending on cohorts. The function and mechanisms of TP63 rearrangements and TP63 fusion proteins in tumorigenesis are poorly understood. As a result, attempts to treat these patients to date have been largely empiric. Thus, there is an urgent need to understand how TP63 fusions contribute to tumorigenesis and to translate the findings into novel therapeutic options for these patients. Here, we demonstrated that TP63 fusions are essential for the propagation of T-cell lymphomas (TCLs). Knockdown of TP63 fusions with specific shRNAs in TCL cell lines harboring TP63 fusions suppressed both cell growth in vitro and tumor growth in vivo. Retroviral expression of TBL1XR1-TP63, the most common TP63 fusion, conferred cytokine independence in Ba/F3 cells, consistent with its role as an oncogene. To investigate the role of TP63 fusions in T- and B-cell lymphomagenesis, we engineered a CAG-Loxp-Stop-Loxp-TBL1XR1-TP63 conditional knock-in mouse model and crossed with hCD2-Cre mice. This results in expression beginning during early lymphoid development. As observed in patients, transgenic mice developed multiple subtypes of both T- and B-cell lymphoma. To define the effects and mechanisms of TP63 fusions within T cells, we performed CRISPR scanning, transcriptomic, epigenomic, and proteomic analyses. Our data showed that domains within both the N-terminal TBL1XR1 and C-terminal TP63 portions contribute to the function of this fusion. We found that the N-terminal component of TP63 fusions interacts with components of the NCOR/SMRT complex. At the same time, the C-terminal portion of TP63 (which recapitulates the deltaN-p63 isoform expressed in some carcinomas) interacts with the enhancer modifier KMT2D and its complex members. TBL1XR1-TP63 binds to a novel distal enhancer to drive MYC expression, and thus upregulates the expression of the histone H3K27 methylase EZH2. Finally, we assessed whether EZH2 is a vulnerability of TP63-rearranged lymphomas. We found that knockdown of EZH2 in TP63-rearranged lines significantly impaired cell growth, as did treatment with the EZH2 and 1 dual inhibitor valemetostat. Valemetostat, which is now being tested in patients with lymphoma, counteracted the oncogenic effects of TP63 fusions in multiple preclinical models in vivo. Together, our results identify the TP63 fusion as a highly unique oncogenic driver in lymphomagenesis capable of recruiting multiple epigenetic modifier complexes and inducing a targetable dependence on EZH2. Citation Format: Gongwei Wu, Noriaki Yoshida, Jihe Liu, Xiaoyang Zhang, Yuan Xiong, Tayla Heavican-Foral, Huiyun Liu, Geoffrey Nelson, Lu Yang, Renee Chen, Katherine Donovan, Marcus Jones, Mikhail Roshal, Yanming Zhang, Ran Xu, Ajit Nirmal, Salvia Jain, Catharine Leahy, Kristen Jones, Kristen Stevenson, Natasha Galasso, Nivetha Ganesan, Tiffany Chang, Wen-Chao Wu, Abner Louissaint, Lydie Debaize, Hojong Yoon, Paola Dal Cin, Wing Chan Chan, Shannan Ho Sui Ho Sui, Samuel Ng, Andrew Feldman, Steven M. Horwitz, Mathew Meyerson, Karen Adelman, Eric Fischer, Chun-Wei Chen, David Weinstock, Myles Brown. TP63 fusions drive enhancer rewiring, lymphomagenesis, and dependence on EZH2. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 5755.