Baron, Kelsey

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.

Background: Maintenance therapy with brentuximab vedotin (BV) after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improved progression-free survival (PFS) among high-risk patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the phase III AETHERA trial. However, cHL treatment has changed significantly since that trial with frequent incorporation of BV and PD-1 inhibitors into earlier lines of therapy. The efficacy of BV maintenance may be different among pts who receive novel agents before ASCT. Methods: Pts with a diagnosis of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT between 2010 and 2022 were identified at 5 US transplant centers. Pts receiving no systemic post-ASCT maintenance or BV maintenance were included, while pts receiving investigational maintenance treatments were excluded. Medical records were reviewed to identify clinical variables. Results: 921 pts were identified. Median age was 32 yrs (IQR 24-44). 641 pts (70%) had primary refractory disease or relapsed within 12 months of frontline therapy, 326 (35%) had extranodal disease at relapse, and 173 (19%) had B symptoms at relapse. Pts received a median of 2 (1-9) lines of therapy before ASCT, including 295 (32%) who received ≥3 lines. 425 (46%) pts received BV before ASCT (including 24 pts as part of frontline treatment). 70 pts (8%) were BV-refractory (defined as failure to achieve an objective response to any BV-based treatment). 169 (18%) received a PD-1 agent with salvage treatment. 638 pts (69%) had a complete response on pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET). BEAM (71%) or CBV (21%) conditioning were used for most pts and 236 pts (26%) received peri-ASCT radiation. 224 pts (24%) received post-ASCT BV maintenance (including 37% of pts undergoing ASCT from 2015-2022). Compared to pts receiving no maintenance, pts receiving BV maintenance were more likely to have primary refractory/early relapsed disease (79% vs 67%, p<0.001), have received only 1 salvage regimen (79% vs 65%, p=0.001), and received BEAM conditioning (83% vs 67%, p<0.001). BV maintenance pts were less likely to receive peri-ASCT radiation (20% vs 28%, p=0.022). The median number of BV maintenance cycles was 10 (1-18) and the most common reason for discontinuation was neuropathy. Median post-ASCT follow-up was 4.9 yrs. 5-yr PFS and OS after ASCT were 70% (95% CI 67-74%) and 85% (83-88%), respectively. Because BV-refractory pts were much less likely to receive BV maintenance (p=0.0044) and had inferior PFS (HR 2.2, p<0.001) (and therefore would serve as a confounder), we excluded BV-refractory pts from additional analyses. Use of BV maintenance was associated with improved PFS (5-yr 81% vs 67%, HR 0.47 [0.33-0.69], p<0.001) and OS (5-yr 92% vs 83%, HR 0.38 [0.20-0.73], p=0.004). The benefit of BV maintenance depended upon pre-ASCT therapy. BV maintenance was associated with a significant improvement in PFS for pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.41 [0.25-0.65], p<0.001), but not for BV-treated (HR 0.69 [0.38-1.25], p=0.22) or PD-1-treated pts (HR 0.63 [0.13-3.03], p=0.56) ( Figure). Among pts with 0-1 modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance was not associated with a significant PFS benefit in any treatment subgroup (no novel agents, HR 0.50, p=0.087; BV-treated, HR 1.28, p=0.67; PD-1-treated, HR 2.97, p=0.44). For pts with 2+ modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance significantly improved PFS in the no novel agent group (HR 0.35, p<0.001) but not in the BV-treated (HR 0.55, p=0.099) or PD-1 treated groups (HR 0.24, p=0.19). In multivariable analyses that included key variables (age, year of ASCT, conditioning regimen, peri-ASCT radiation, early relapse/primary refractory disease, B symptoms, extranodal sites, pre-ASCT PET, lines of therapy), BV maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit among pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.27 [0.12-0.65], p<0.001), but not for pts treated with BV (HR 0.56 [0.28-1.10], p=0.091) or PD-1 blockade (HR 1.10 [0.22-5.56], p=0.91) before ASCT. Conclusions: In this large cohort, BV maintenance was associated with the clearest benefit among pts who received only chemotherapy before ASCT. We were unable to identify a significant improvement in PFS for pts receiving novel agents before ASCT (which could be due to insufficient power to detect a small benefit in this population), suggesting that if these pts benefit from BV maintenance, its impact is likely more limited.

Introduction: Single arm studies incorporating PD-1 blockade and/or brentuximab vedotin (BV) to salvage regimen have produced encouraging results in transplant-eligible relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) and are increasingly used in practice. As prospective randomized studies comparing PD1 based salvage to other salvage regimens are lacking, we conducted a retrospective study comparing post-transplant outcomes of R/R cHL patients who received PD1-based regimen and other novel and conventional regimen. Methods: Consecutive adult patients with R/R cHL who received salvage therapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) between 2010 and 2021 at 5 United States academic institutions were included. Demographics and clinical variables were recorded at relapse by electronic health records review. Study Objectives were post-ASCT progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 981 pts of R/R cHL were identified. At relapse, median age was 31 (IQR: 21-43) years, 504 (52%) were male, 323 (49%) had advanced stage, 353 (41%) had extranodal disease (END), 185 (22%) had B symptoms, 345 (45%) were refractory to frontline therapy and 317 (32%) relapsed within a year of frontline therapy.308 (31%) received >1 line of salvage before ASCT. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on salvage therapy received: 1) 195 (20%) patients received a PD-1 agent with or without BV at any point before ASCT (PD-1 group), 2) 312 (32%) patients received BV at any point before ASCT without PD-1 (BV group), and 3) 474 (48%) patients received no novel agent before ASCT (chemo group). PFS was significantly higher in PD1 group (2-yr PFS 93.1 (CI 95: 89.4-96.9)%); compared to BV (2 yr PFS 73.9 (CI 95: 69.1-79.1)% , p <0.0001) or chemo groups (2 yr PFS 71.6 (CI 95: 67.6-75.9)% , p<0.0001). PFS was not different between the BV and chemo groups (p=0.88) (Figure 1). OS was not significantly different between PD-1 group (2 yr OS 96.2 % (CI 95: 93.2-99.2), p=0.06), BV group (2 yr OS 94.3% (CI 95: 91.7-97.0), p=0.2) and chemo group (2 yr OS 91.8% (CI 95: 89.3-94.4)). Amongst pts who were transplanted in complete metabolic response (CMR), we assessed post-ASCT PFS and OS based on salvage therapy received immediately before ASCT. Pts who received PD-1 as last salvage therapy had improved PFS compared to chemo (HR: 0.15 (CI 95: 0.07-0.3), p= <0.0001) and BV (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.08-0.5), p= <0.001). Pts receiving PD-1 immediately before ASCT also had higher OS compared to those receiving chemo (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.05-0.8), p= 0.02) but not BV (HR: 0.8 (CI 95: 0.4-1.3), p=0.1). There was no difference between BV and chemo group in regards to PFS and OS. In multivariable analysis that included time to relapse, B symptoms, END, pre-ASCT response, number of salvage therapy lines before ASCT, year of transplant and BV consolidation, PD-1 salvage therapy had significantly higher PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.3 (CI 95: 0.2-0.5), p= <0.001). BV group had significantly lower PFS (HR: 3.34 (CI 95: 1.8-6.0), group=0.002) compared to PD1 group. PFS was not different between BV and chemo group (p= 0.7). OS was similar between all 3 groups. Similar PFS and OS were seen among patients receiving PD-1 + BV (n=83) and PD-1 with or without chemo (n =112) (p=0.96 for PFS; p= 0.72 for OS); as well as for patients receiving PD-1 as part of their first salvage therapy (n=151) or later salvage treatments (n=44) (p=0.45 for PFS, p= 0.3 for OS). Patients who received PD1 based regimen as last salvage therapy pre-ASCT had significantly better PFS (HR: 6.8 (CI 95: 2.4-19.2), p= <0.0001) and OS (HR: 10.6 (CI 95: 2.5-44.8), p= 0.0001) compared to patients who received PD1 prior to their last line of salvage therapy per-ASCT. Conclusion: Receipt of PD-1 based salvage therapy at any point before ASCT is associated with significantly improved PFS compared to either BV or chemotherapy-based salvage treatments. In the subgroup of patients transplanted in CMR, PD1 based last salvage regimen were associated with higher PFS compared to chemotherapy and BV and higher OS compared to chemotherapy. PD1 based last salvage therapy pre-ASCT was associated with better survival compared to PD1 prior to last salvage therapy. Results of this study strongly support the use of PD-1 based salvage therapy for patients with R/R cHL. S.D., R.M., H.S contributed equally. R.S., M.M. contributed equally.