Wehmeyer, Graham T.

e19023 Background: Undetectable measurable residual disease (uMRD) is associated with prolonged progression free survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (Rios-Olais et al., 2024). Peripheral blood (PB) MRD testing is less invasive and allows more frequent MRD monitoring than bone marrow (BM) MRD testing. As MRD testing and MRD-guided time-limited therapies become more common, there is a need to determine the concordance between rates of uMRD in the PB and BM. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in CLL to determine the concordance between rates of uMRD in the PB and BM. Prospective clinical trials evaluating first-line, time-limited treatment of CLL with targeted agents or anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were identified via searches of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception until December 15 th , 2025. Studies were included if they reported rates of BM and PB uMRD at the same timepoint using the same method of MRD testing. Study arms evaluating chemotherapy, single-agent targeted therapy or single-agent anti-CD20 mAbs were excluded. Study sample size, number of patients receiving MRD testing, rates of uMRD in PB and BM, time and method of MRD testing, depth of MRD testing, and treatment arm were extracted. The agreement of uMRD rates between PB and BM was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results: 3128 studies were identified on initial search. After study selection criteria were applied, 24 timepoints across 12 prospective clinical trials were analyzed. Across all timepoints, 3121 PB and 2782 BM MRD measurements were included. All timepoints defined uMRD at a depth of under 0.01% CLL cells (10^-4). 20/24 timepoints utilized flow cytometry for MRD testing, 3 utilized allele-specific oligonucleotide PCR (ASO-PCR), and one utilized next-generation sequencing (NGS). 8 timepoints evaluated patients treated with a BTK inhibitor + venetoclax, 10 evaluated patients treated with venetoclax + an anti-CD20 mAb, and 6 evaluated patients treated with triplet therapy. The ICC between rates of uMRD in PB and BM was 0.925 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.95), indicating an excellent degree of agreement between the two methods of testing.(Koo & Li, 2016) The mean uMRD rates in PB and BM were 70.1% and 64.3%, respectively. The mean rate of uMRD in the PB was 5.87% (95% CI: -7.05, 18.80%) higher than in the BM; indicating a consistent slight bias of higher PB uMRD rates compared to BM across timepoints. Conclusions: Overall, we demonstrate that in patients with CLL treated with modern, time-limited therapy, there is high concordance in uMRD rates between PB and BM. Rates of uMRD in the PB are typically slightly higher than in BM.

Abstract Introduction: Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) was approved in the United States for the treatment of CLL in 3/2024 for patients who have received two prior lines of therapy including a covalent BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor. Data regarding outcomes of liso-cel is limited to reports from the registrational TRANSCEND-CLL 004 clinical trial which had strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. This work investigates the real-world efficacy and safety of liso-cel for patients with CLL and its efficacy in specific sub-populations. Methods: This is a multi-institutional retrospective study (Collaborative Assessment of Real-World Evidence of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory CLL/SLL [CARE CAR-T CLL]) of patients with CLL who received commercial liso-cel in the United States. Patients with Richter transformation were excluded. Response was defined by iwCLL criteria. Patients who did not undergo a marrow biopsy but met other criteria for a complete response (CR) were categorized as unconfirmed CR (CRu). CRS and ICANS were graded per ASTCT criteria. Results: A total of 30 patients were identified with a median age of 67 years (range 44 – 80). Twenty of thirty patients (67%) had either del17p and/or mutated TP53, and 8/30 (27%) had complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities) at time of liso-cel infusion. Patients received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (range 1 - 12), and 24 (80%) were previously treated with chemotherapy. All patients had previous exposure to a covalent BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor. Twenty-seven (90%) of patients had prior exposure to pirtobrutinib. Twenty-nine patients (96.7%) received bridging treatment that was stopped after leukapheresis with 1 patient in CR and 25 patients in PR at time of liso-cel. Eighteen patients (60%) were treated with pirtobrutinib as the last line of treatment prior to liso-cel. Median length of time on pirtobrutinib prior to liso-cel infusion was 4 months (interquartile range [IQR], 2 – 8 months). Twelve (66.7%) patients stopped pirtobrutinib between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion, and 6 continued after liso-cel. Best CR/CRu rate was 60.0% (CR, n = 17/30; CRu, n = 1/30), and best overall response rate (ORR) was 83.3% (25/30) with median time to best response of 30 days (IQR, 28 – 30 days). Of the 18 patients who received pirtobrutinib as their last line of therapy, 13 (72%) achieved a CR/CRu. Meanwhile, of the 12 patients who did not receive pirtobrutinib as their last line of therapy, only 5 (28%) achieved a CR. Measurable residual disease testing (MRD) by flow cytometry was done in 14/30 patients, and 9 patients (64%) had achieved undetectable MRD (uMRD). MRD by next generation sequencing (NGS) was done in 17 patients, and 7 (41%) patients had uMRD. Twenty-seven of 30 patients (90%) were alive at time of data collection. Median follow-up was 3.3 months (IQR, 1.2 – 8.9 months). Twenty-six patients (87%) experienced any grade cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 3 patients experienced grade 3 CRS (10%). Twelve patients (40%) experienced any grade immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and 4 patients (13%) experienced grade 3 ICANS. There were no grade 4 or 5 CRS or ICANS. One patient experienced grade 3 immune effector cell-associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome (IEC-HS). At day 30, patients had a median absolute neutrophil count of 1.7K/μL (IQR, 0.8 – 3.6K/μL), hemoglobin of 11.7 g/dL (IQR, 8.6 – 13.1 g/dL), and platelet count of 72K/μL (IQR, 29 – 119K/μL). Conclusion: Real-world analysis of liso-cel for patients with relapsed/refractory CLL showed CR and ORR of 60.0% and 83.3%, respectively. Despite having a heavily pre-treated and chemotherapy-exposed population and with over half the patients having high-risk features, these response rates are higher than what was described in the TRANSCEND-CLL 004 clinical trial. These results are limited by the short follow-up period and the variability in response assessment typical of a retrospective study. As we increase our sample size, we will also be interested if the use of the non-covalent BTK inhibitor pirtobrutinib prior to liso-cel is associated with a higher CR rate, mimicking the findings of the sub-cohort analysis of TRANSCEND-CLL 004 where the concurrent use of ibrutinib led to higher CR rates. Further updates and patients from additional collaborators will be presented at the meeting.

Abstract Background: Glofit, a CD20/CD3 bispecific antibody, has shown efficacy in prospective trials, including the Phase III STARGLO study evaluating glofit plus gemcitabine/oxaliplatin (GemOx) in transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with R/R large B-cell lymphoma (BCL). However, concerns raised by the FDA's Oncology Drug Advisory Committee regarding the generalizability of the STARGLO data to U.S. pts underscore the need for real-world evidence. We report real-world outcomes of Glofit-GemOx in U.S. pts with R/R aggressive BCL. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective review across 8 U.S. academic centers, identifying 31 pts with R/R aggressive BCL treated with Glofit-GemOx outside clinical trials. Baseline characteristics, treatment history, and outcomes were abstracted from medical records. Results: At Glofit-GemOx initiation: median age was 72 years (range, 34–88); 90% had stage III/IV disease. Histologic subtypes included DLBCL in 58% (n=18), high-grade BCL in 29% (n=9), PTLD/DLBCL in 6.5% (n=2), follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3B in 3.2% (n=1), and Burkitt lymphoma (BL) in 3.2% (n=1). Germinal center B-cell phenotype was seen in 80% of evaluable cases. Double- (n=8) or triple-hit (n=1) cytogenetics were observed in 31% (n=9). Elevated LDH was present in 74%, and 16% had B symptoms. Median ECOG performance status was 1 (range, 0–3), and 23% (n=7) had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Pre-treatment biopsy was performed in 77% (n=24) with CD20 expression tested in 74% (n=23). CD20 expression was negative in 3 pts by flow cytometry and/or immunohistochemistry. Pts received a median 1 prior line of therapy (range, 0-6); Glofit-GemOx was administered as 1L in 7% (n=2), and 2L in 58% (n=18). Median 4 cycles (range, 1-11); both 1L pts had prior FL (1 and 3 prior lines for FL). Twelve pts remain on therapy, 2 on Glofit monotherapy. Four pts were unevaluable (2 death pre-assessment; 2 pending evaluation). Among 27 evaluable pts, ORR was 78% (21/27) and CR rate was 41% (11/27). Among CD20- negative cases on pre- Glofit-GemOx biopsy (n=3), ORR was 33% (1/3), with 1 CR lasting 3.5 months. Of 11 pts who progressed on Glofit-GemOx, 6 were rebiopsied; 1 showed CD20 loss, 1 was previously CD20-negative. Among the 24 pts who received Glofit-GemOx as destination therapy, ORR of 75% (15/20 evaluable). Among pts with prior CAR T (n=7), the ORR and CR rate were both 43% (3/7). None received Glofit-GemOx within 30 days of CAR T-cell infusion; 4 received within 6 mo; 2 of whom achieved CR. Seven pts (24%) received Glofit-GemOx as bridging to CAR T. ORR pre-CAR T was 86% (6/7); 4 pt successfully proceeded to CAR T, 2 are pending infusion, and 1 progressed after 2 cycles and transitioned to alternate therapy. Three pts were evaluable post-CAR T with an ORR of 100% (3/3) and CR rate of 67% (2/3). At data cutoff, 23/31 pts were alive. Full PFS and OS data will be presented at ASH. Notable individual responses included a patient with relapsed BL post–DA-EPOCH-R who received Glofit-GemOx as 2L therapy and achieved a 6 mo CR without consolidation before progression. Another patient treated with Glofit-GemOx in the 7L setting after prior allogeneic transplant achieved a 3 mo CR prior to progression. CRS occurred in 58% (18/31), with grade ≥3 in 13% (4/31), including 2 possible treatment-related deaths. One occurred in a frail patient after the 1st dose, though neutropenic fever was present prior to Glofit administration. The second followed influenza A infection, respiratory failure, and possible grade 4 ICANS after the 2nd dose; attribution to CRS vs. infection was unclear. ICANS occurred in 10% (3/31), with one possible grade ≥3 case. Conclusions: This is the first U.S.-based real-world analysis of Glofit-GemOx, including more U.S. pts than the STARGLO trial, appear to demonstrate comparable response rates, potentially supporting its use as both bridging and destination therapy. Notable toxicities, including CRS, were observed, with 2 possible treatment-related deaths, with plausible alternate non-treatment related causes. Favorable responses were seen in bridging therapy and high-risk subgroups (transformed, HGBCL) which were excluded in the STARGLO trial. These findings support the real-world utility of Glofit-GemOx in the management of R/R aggressive BCL but underscore the need for caution due to associated toxicities. Further real-world and prospective evaluation are warranted, particularly in rare subgroups and as bridging therapy.

Multiple CD19-directed therapies are available for the treatment of relapsed and refractory (R/R) DLBCL, including CAR T cells, tafasitamab/lenalidomide (TL), and loncastuximab tesirine (lonca-T) (Sermer D., Blood Rev 2023). However, there are few data available on the efficacy of sequential CD19-directed therapies. We performed a retrospective study evaluating all patients with R/R LBCL treated consecutively with TL at 11 institutions from 8/2020 to 8/2022, identifying 178 patients. In this study, we specifically evaluate outcomes in patients who received anti-CD19 therapy prior to or after TL. The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival (PFS) in TL recipients who previously received CD19-directed CAR T therapy, with overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR), and overall survival (OS) also evaluated. Outcomes of lonca-T and CAR T after TL therapy were evaluated. Data on CD19 expression was assessed on biopsies after TL; this was determined locally using flow cytometry or immunohistochemistry per institutional protocols. In subgroup analyses, ORR and CRR were compared using Fisher's exact test. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with differences tested using the log-rank test. Of 178 patients who received TL, 52 had received prior anti-CD19 CAR T therapy, at a median of 7.4 months before TL (Table 1). Median PFS was lower in prior CAR T recipients (1.6 mo, 95% CI 1.1-2.5) vs no prior CAR T (2.1 mo, 95% CI 1.8-3.2), with hazard ratio 1.46 (p = 0.04; Figure 1). Best ORR was lower in patients with prior CAR T exposure (15% vs 33%, p = 0.02) though CRR was not significantly different (15% vs 18%, p = 1.0). We specifically evaluated TL outcomes based on prior response to CAR T, given the previously identified association of refractory disease with poor TL outcomes (Qualls D et al., presented at ASH 2022). Of 19 patients who had progressive disease more than 6 months after CAR T, ORR and CRR to TL therapy were 31.6% (all responses were CRs); in 33 patients with refractory disease (less than CR or relapse within 6 months) after CAR T, ORR and CRR to TL were significantly lower, at 6.1% (p = 0.04). Median PFS after TL was shorter in CAR-refractory than CAR-relapsed disease, at 1.4 vs 3.5 months (HR 2.2, p = 0.02). Of 88 patients who received therapy after TL, 20 (23%) received lonca-T and 14 (16%) received CAR T. Data on survival and initiation of new treatment after CAR T or lonca-T was available, but response and progression data after CAR T or lonca-T therapy is pending. These data allowed an estimate of OS and event-free survival (EFS), defined as survival without initiation of a new treatment after CAR T or lonca-T. With a median 3.9 months' follow-up, median EFS after CAR T administration was 3.7 months (95% CI, 0.9 - 6.5), and median OS was 8.1 months (95% CI, 0.6 - 15.7). In patients who received lonca-T, with median 2.7 months' follow-up from initiation, median EFS was 2.8 months (95% CI, 0.9 - 4.7), and median OS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.2 - 5.7). When comparing CAR T and lonca-T to polatuzumab vedotin- or chemotherapy-based therapies after TL, there were no significant differences in OS or EFS. In patients who discontinued TL, 24 had a biopsy a median of 18 days after the last dose of tafasitamab. Of these, 13 (54%) were CD19-positive and 11 (46%) were CD19-negative. All samples obtained more than 21 days after tafasitamab (6/6) were CD19-positive, while 46% obtained within 21 days were CD19-positive. These time-dependent findings may reflect “epitope masking” by tafasitamab rather than CD19 loss, reflecting other recent reports (Fitzgerald K., Leuk Lym 2022; Duell J., Leuk Lym 2022). In patients receiving TL after CAR T, responses and PFS were lower than in patients without prior CAR T therapy; however, with disease that was not refractory to prior CAR T, results were similar to patients who had not had prior CAR T. This may reflect that refractory disease, regardless of prior therapy, is associated with shorter PFS, though the possibility of CD19-mediated mechanisms of resistance remains. Modest EFS and OS were seen in patients receiving CAR T therapy or lonca-T after already receiving TL, though this may also reflect the high-risk disease characteristics of this cohort. Overall, in a high-risk, real-world cohort of TL-treated patients, these data suggest that some patients may benefit from subsequent CD19-directed therapies, but better therapeutic options are needed.

Abstract In this real-world evaluation of tafasitamab-lenalidomide (TL) in relapsed or refractory LBCL, patients receiving TL had higher rates of comorbidities and high-risk disease characteristics, and substantially lower progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with the L-MIND registration clinical trial for TL.