Feldman, Andrew L.

Abstract Family history of hematologic malignancy (FHHM) is an established risk factor for developing lymphoma, but studies examining associations between self-reported FHHM and lymphoma prognosis during the recent treatment era are limited. Utilizing a prospective cohort study, we evaluated associations between FHHM and prognosis for common lymphoma subtypes, including diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL), follicular (FL), marginal zone (MZL), mantle cell (MCL), Hodgkin (HL), and T-cell (TCL) lymphomas. We used the Mayo Clinic component of the Molecular Epidemiology Resource, a prospective cohort study of newly diagnosed lymphoma patients enrolled from 2002 to 2015. Self-reported FHHM (HL, NHL, leukemia, or multiple myeloma) in a first-degree relative was obtained via questionnaire. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS; time from diagnosis to disease progression, initiation of second-line therapy, or all-cause death). Secondary outcomes were failure to achieve 24 months of event-free survival (EFS24; associated with aggressive disease and poor outcomes) and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS; time from diagnosis to death from lymphoma or lymphoma treatment-related complications). We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of FHHM with OS, EFS, and LSS, and logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI for the association with failure to achieve EFS24. All models were adjusted for sex and a lymphoma subtype specific prognostic index. The cohort consisted of 650 DLBCL, 679 FL, 291 MZL, 178 MCL, 254 HL, and 196 TCL patients. The prevalence of FHHM ranged from 9.7% in TCL to 14% in FL. FHHM was not associated with OS in any subtype, but MCL patients with FHHM showed an inferior EFS (HR=1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.85; p=0.04). For EFS24, FHHM was associated with failure to achieve EFS24 only in FL (OR=1.57, 95% CI 0.99-2.48; p=0.05). Similarly, FHHM was associated with inferior LSS in FL patients (HR=1.98, 95% CI 1.11-3.53; p=0.02). In a treatment subgroup analysis of FL patients, the FHHM associations with failure to achieve EFS24 (OR=2.48, 95% CI 1.04-5.74; p=0.04) and inferior LSS (HR=2.68, 95% CI 1.09-6.58; p=0.03) strengthened among those treated with frontline immunochemotherapy (IC). In summary, there were no evidence of associations between FHHM and OS across lymphoma subtypes, but MCL patients with FHHM displayed inferior EFS. FL patients with FHHM were more likely to not achieve EFS24 and to ultimately die of their lymphoma or a lymphoma treatment-related complication. This finding was stronger in more aggressive FL requiring frontline IC. This novel finding would suggest that genetic or environmental factors associated with FHHM may underlie pathways that impact disease aggressiveness and early clinical failure in FL. Citation Format: George Cholack, Raphael Mwangi, Thomas M. Habermann, Verena Hinder, Rosalie Griffen, Dennis Robinson, Andrew L. Feldman, Thomas E. Witzig, Stephen M. Ansell, Brian K. Link, Yucai Wang, Carrie A. Thompson, Susan L. Slager, Matthew Maurer, Anne J. Novak, James R. Cerhan. Family history of hematologic malignancy and prognosis across lymphoma subtypes: Novel association with poor outcomes in follicular lymphoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 7344.

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.

Introduction Peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) encompasses a heterogeneous group of clinically aggressive entities. ~30% of cases cannot be further classified and are designated as PTCL - not otherwise specified (NOS). We delineated two novel molecular subgroups among PTCL-NOS with distinct clinical and biological features: PTCL-GATA3 which is characterized by high expression of GATA3, a master regulator of T-helper-2-cell (TH2) differentiation, and its target genes (i.e., CCR4, IL4, IL13) and PTCL-TBX21 which is characterized by high expression of TBX21, a master regulator of TH1 differentiation, and its target genes (i.e., CXCR3, IFNG), with the GATA3 subtype showing significantly worse clinical outcomes (overall survival). Nonsense mutations in CCR4 are found predominately in PTCL-GATA3, often within the cytoplasmic domain and gain-of-function in nature. Methods Mutation and copy number data were generated from whole exome sequencing (TFH phenotype excluded following LLMPP pathology review; n = 153). Single nucleotide variants were determined using Mutect2 and Varsvan2 using in-house filtering. Copy number (CN) profiles were generated using CNVkit. Four CCR4 cytoplasmic domain mutants and controls (cytoplasmic domain knockout [CDKO], wild-type CCR4 overexpression (CCR4-WT), and empty vector [EV]) were transduced into healthy-donor CD4+ T cells (n = 2). Polarization studies were generated using TH1- or TH2-associated cytokine exposure. Surface plasmon resonance was used to determine the binding affinity of CCR4 proteins to CCL17 and CCL22. In silico docking studies were done through Schrödinger's BioLuminate. Antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) assay was performed through co-incubation of NK92 (CD16 and CD56) and CCR4 edited primary CD4+ T-cells (stained with calcein AM) for 2 hours at a 5:1 NK:T cell ratio by 7-AAD flow cytometry. Results PTCL-GATA3 had a higher frequency of CN aberrations (e.g. TP53, PTEN CN loss) and a more aberrant genome (p < 0.001) than PTCL-TBX21, including mutations with genes associated with DNA repair and damage (TP53, ATM) and T-cell differentiation (CCR4). CCR4 mutations were virtually mutually exclusive with TP53 mutations, and these cases showed higher CCR4 mRNA and protein expression than CCR4-WT cases (p < 0.05). Primary CD4+ T-cells with ectopic expression of the CCR4 variants, especially CCR4-Q330X, did not require CD3/CD28 for proliferation, bypassing CD3/CD28 ligation for T-cell activation. In addition, proliferation rates were similar between TH2-conditional media and normal media, but proliferation and TBX21 expression in TH1-conditional media were inhibited, implying a novel role of CCR4 in T-cell receptor (TCR) activation and TH-differentiation. CCR4 variant proteins showed higher binding affinity for their natural ligands, CCL22 and CCL17, with mutants exhibiting tighter binding to both ligands (1.5- to 3-fold decrease in KD) by surface plasmon resonance and in silico modeling studies. The in silico models demonstrated mutant CCR4 bound mogamulizumab tighter than CCR4-WT, consistent with a higher ADCC-induced apoptosis rate, highest with CCR4-Q330X mutation. CCR4-Y331X exhibited a worse docking score compared to CCR4-WT and a lower ADCC-induced apoptosis rate. Conclusions Our findings reveal distinct genetic characterizations including aberrant TP53 and PI3K signaling and CCR4 mutations in PTCL-GATA3. These CCR4 mutations are shown to have a key role in PTCL-GATA3 pathogenesis by dysregulating TH-differentiation and aberrantly activating the TCR. CCR4 mutation promotes the TH2 phenotype by blocking TH1 differentiation. CCR4 mutant proteins demonstrated an increased binding affinity towards its known ligands, CCL17 and CCL22, and mogamulizumab, consistent with previous studies exhibiting mogamulizumab efficacy against CCR4 mutations. However, the most frequent CCR4 mutant, Y331X, showed worse binding compared to other CCR4 mutants or CCR4-WT, a mutation that showed Mogamulizumab-resistance in a prior CTCL study as well as in an in vitro ADCC assay. The results emphasize aberrant pathways implicated by genomic and clinical evaluation of two novel PTCL subtypes, as well as support the novel role of mutant CCR4 in enhancing T-cell lymphomagenesis and T-helper differentiation, highlighting multiple therapeutic targets.

Introduction: The use of standardized, evidence-based classification systems is crucial for the accurate diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Moreover, standardized classification facilitates research and epidemiologic studies and promotes consistency in communication among healthcare professionals. Since 2016, the revised 4 th edition of the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM4R) has been the global standard for diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies. With the emergence of new data, 2 new classification systems were developed and published in 2022: the 5 th edition of the WHO Classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). Both WHO-HAEM5 and ICC maintain a shared fundamental concept of disease classification that integrates clinical, pathologic, and molecular data. However, they differ on nomenclature, establishment of new entities, and/or diagnostic criteria for some disease categories. To evaluate the impact of these differences on real-world diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), we examined the diagnostic classification of NHL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Methods: Initiated in 2015, LEO is an ongoing prospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed NHL. Patients are enrolled at 8 major U.S. medical centers. Clinical, epidemiologic, pathologic, and treatment data are abstracted at baseline and active follow-up is conducted for all patients. Lymphoma subtype is coded for each case based on expert hematopathology re-review of the diagnostic pathology slides, the pathology report, biomarker data, and clinical data. Of note, NHL subtype distribution is similar to SEER data. We studied all patients enrolled in LEO between 7/1/2016 (the date LEO pathology review started using WHO-HAEM4R diagnostic codes) and 5/31/2020. WHO-HAEM4R diagnoses and additional clinicopathologic data, when relevant, were used to map cases into the corresponding WHO-HAEM5 and ICC diagnoses. Differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC were annotated for each case as: None - same disease entity; Minor - difference in nomenclature with similar diagnostic criteria; Major - difference in disease category and/or diagnostic criteria; or Unevaluable - insufficient data to assign WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis. Results: LEO enrolled 6143 patients during the study period. Of these, comparison between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC was evaluable in 5730 (93.3%). Unevaluable cases included those without a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis at enrollment (N=384; e.g., patients with a low-grade B-cell lymphoma that could not be definitively sub-classified) and those with a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis, but with insufficient clinicopathologic data to assign a specific WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis (N=29). Of the 5730 evaluable cases, 5376 (93.8%) showed no difference between WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis, 311 (5.4%) showed minor differences (nomenclature only), and 43 (0.8%) showed major differences (Table 1). The 43 major differences all involved B-cell NHLs; 20 (46.5%) were attributable to different approaches to classifying double-hit lymphomas, 21 (48.9%) to classification of splenic/leukemic B-cell lymphomas, and 2 (4.6%) to classification of B-cell lymphomas occurring at specific anatomic sites (Table 2). Conclusion: In a large, prospective lymphoma cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice at 8 major U.S. medical centers, major diagnostic differences in the classification of NHL using WHO-HAEM5 or ICC classification criteria were seen in 0.8%, whereas the remaining 99.2% of diagnoses were either the same or showed differences in nomenclature only. The existence of 2 concurrent classification systems presents potential for discrepancies in pathologic diagnosis, clinical practice, clinical trials, and other lymphoma research. Furthermore, some of the differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC are clinically and potentially therapeutically significant, and their resolution requires further study. Nevertheless, our findings argue that the proportion of patients affected would be small in real-world practice settings. This appears largely related to incidence rates of specific lymphoma subtypes, with major differences between the 2 classifications predominantly affecting rare entities, while there is general concordance on the most common forms of NHL.