Sethi, Tarsheen

Abstract INTRODUCTION The ECHELON-2 trial for newly diagnosed CD30+ peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) demonstrated superior overall survival with brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy (BV-CHP) compared to CHOP. However, total enrollment was restricted to only 30% of patients with non-anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) histologies and was not powered to analyze survival benefits in this cohort. Thus, the benefit of BV-CHP in non-ALCL patients remains less clear. Adding to this uncertainty, CHOP plus etoposide (CHOEP) remains a standard regimen for many non-ALCL PTCL histologies for patients <60 years of age. Which of these three regimens offers superior outcomes for patients with CD30+ non-ALCL PTCL remains to be determined, is a critical knowledge gap in this area, and could meaningfully inform the management of these patients. METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of chemotherapy-naïve CD30+ (≥1%) PTCL from 7 centers in the United States. Histologies were limited to PTCL-NOS and PTCL with a T follicular helper phenotype (PTCL-TFH). Frontline regimens were defined as BV-based (BV-CHP), etoposide-based (CHOEP/EPOCH), novel-CHOP (CHOP/CHOEP + novel drug on a clinical trial), or CHOP. CD30 was considered positive if any expression was reported, and when available, stratified as ≥10% or <10% of the total lymphocyte population. RESULTS The CD30+ PTCL cohort consisted of 194 patients with a median age of 68 years at diagnosis and a male (65%) predominance. Nodal PTCL-TFH (65%) was the most common histology. Most had stage III-IV disease (89%) with a high-intermediate to high-risk IPI score of 3-5 (54%). 18% had an ECOG of ≥2, 45% had ≥2 extranodal sites, and 43% had bone marrow involvement, although biopsies were not performed in all patients. CD30 expression in ≥10% of malignant T cells was observed in 55% of all quantitatively reported cases. Frontline therapy consisted of BV-based (36%), etoposide-based (30%), CHOP (27%), and novel-CHOP (7%). Baseline characteristics and CD30 expression were similar between treatment groups. The ORR was 72% (64% CR, 8% PR), with no differences observed by treatment or histology. On multivariate analysis (MVA), a high LDH was associated with lower CR (OR 2.84, p=0.003). For the patients who demonstrated a CR to frontline therapy, 61% underwent ASCT. With a median follow-up of 26.1 months (IQR 12.3-51.6), the median PFS and OS were 11.4 (9.8-14.2) and 47 (32-60.3) months, respectively. The 2-year PFS and OS were 34.9% (28.1-41.7) and 62% (54.5-68.6), respectively. PFS and OS were similar for PTCL-NOS compared to PTCL-TFH, and AITL fared similarly to non-AITL PTCL-TFH. By treatment, novel-CHOP demonstrated the most favorable PFS (median 41.9 months) and OS (median 68.1 months). Survival curves overlapped continuously with all other treatment regimens and was not statistically significant. For patients <60, PFS and OS were equivocal with BV-based (n=17) compared to etoposide-based (n=26) regimens. On MVA, stage III/IV disease conferred an inferior PFS (HR 2.00, p=0.018) as did an IPI score of 3-5 for OS (HR 2.15, p=0.001). Neither histology nor frontline treatment impacted PFS or OS. The chosen frontline treatment also had no survival impact in key subgroup analyses including patients <60 (n=56) or with CD30-expression ≥10% (n=43). For patients with CR to frontline therapy, ASCT demonstrated a significant PFS benefit (HR 0.59, p=0.028) but no statistically significant difference in OS benefit (HR 0.58, p=0.073). CONCLUSION These data provide valuable insight into the lesser-represented patient population from the pivotal ECHELON-2 trial. In this cohort of CD30+ (≥1%) non-ALCL PTCL, there was no clearly superior standard frontline regimen. The number of patients with quantitively reported CD30 expression was too small for definitive conclusions in the ≥10% CD30+ cohort and retrospective pathology review is ongoing. ASCT for patients in CR offered superior outcomes, supporting this strategy regardless of the frontline regimen, recognizing the limitations of non-randomized, retrospective analyses. Novel-CHOP regimens demonstrated encouraging survival, and clinical trials should maintain priority over standard regimens for patients with CD30+ (1-10%) PTCL-NOS and PTCL-TFH.

Abstract Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive leukemia with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Previous studies on T-PLL patients receiving an allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) are limited by small numbers with limited data on disease and transplant characteristics. Further, recent data from our large national cohort of patients demonstrated significant survival difference between TCL1A+ and TCL1A- T-PLL, and CD8+ T-PLL vs CD8- T-PLL. In this large multi-center series, utilizing comprehensive disease subtype and alloSCT clinical data, we evaluated prognostic and survival therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients that had an alloSCT with a particular focus on T-PLL disease subtypes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 572 diagnosed with T-PLL at 21 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023, of which we performed a further evaluation on the169 that proceeded with alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Among n=169 alloSCT recipients with T-PLL, the median follow-up time was 20.9 months post-alloSCT (range: 0.2-182.9), the median age at transplant was 59 years (range: 35-77) and 52% were male. In evaluated patients (n=109), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 69%. As our recent analysis demonstrated significant differences in survival among specific subtypes of T-PLL, we evaluated outcomes in patients with CD4+CD8- T-PLL (n=90, 53%), CD4-CD8+ (n=17, 10%) T-PLL, and CD4+CD8+ T-PLL (n=52, 31%). 53% (87/164) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan and 45% (43/96) of known patients had minimal residual disease (MRD) at the time of transplant [defined as <5% T-PLL in marrow by flow, or +cytogenetics (e.g. TCL1A)] prior to alloSCT. At the time of alloSCT, 136 (80%) patients were in CR and 23 (14%) patients were in PR. Forty-nine (30%) had a myeloablative (MAC)conditioning regimen and 114 (70%) had a reduced intensity chemotherapy (RIC) conditioning regimen. Eighty (49%) patients had TBI as part of their regimen. The most common regimens were fludarabine (flu)/melphalan based regimens (n=44; 26.0%), flu/cyclophosphamide (cy) based regimens (n=33; 19.5%), flu/busulfan based regimens (n=22; 13.0%), flu/total body irradiation (TBI) (n=8; 4.7%), and cy/TBI (n=4; 2.4%). Across the whole cohort, the median OS and PFS post-alloSCT was 32.6 months (95% CI: 21.0-41.9) and 20.8 months (95% CI: 14.4-30.5) months while the 1-year cumulative incidences (CI) of NRM and relapse were 17% and 20%, respectively. The incidences of grade II-IV acute GVHD and cGVHD were 19% and 23%. There was no difference between patients with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (n=49, 29%) when compared to patients that received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (n=114, 67%) in OS (33.1 vs 29.2; p=0.68) and PFS (20.2 vs 20.8; p=0.97). Patients that were MRD+ (n=31) had worse OS (22.2 vs 48.6; p=0.1) and PFS (14.1 vs 32.5; p=0.04) and higher rates of relapse (1-year relapse 20% vs 8%; p=0.08) than patients that were MRD- (n=50). PFS was improved in those who received alloSCT though only trended towards significance due to low numbers (HR 0.76, p=0.09). In subtype analysis, TCL1A+ T-PLL had significantly worse outcomes compared to TCL1A negative T-PLL. TCL1A+ disease had significantly worse OS (21.6 vs 63.1; p=0.01) and PFS (12.4 vs 50.7; p=0.01) compared to TCL1A-. Additionally, in TCL1A+ disease CI of NRM (24% vs 3%; p=0.02) and relapse (25% vs 12%; p=0.86) was higher vs TCL1A- PLL. CD4+CD8-, CD4-CD8+, and CD4+CD8+ disease had no difference in survival via either OS (28.0 vs 34.4 vs 21.0; p=0.17) or PFS (29.4 vs 23.5 vs 13.6; p=0.09) as well as no difference 1-year CI of NRM ( 11.6 vs 23.5 vs 26.2; p=0.35) and relapse (18.5 vs 23.5 vs 20.0; p=0.67).Conclusions: AlloSCT significantly improved outcomes for patients with T-PLL compared to those who did not proceed to alloSCT and remains he only curative therapy for those with T-PLL. OS, PFS, and CI relapse were significantly worse for patients with TCL1A+ subtype of T-PLL, or those with MRD positivity or PR prior to alloSCT. Novel strategies to decrease relapse such as post-alloSCT maintenance therapy to improve outcomes are urgently needed in these patients.

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.

Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Outside of prospective trials utilizing alemtuzumab, data is derived primarily from small retrospective series, and limited data on survival outcomes and therapeutic efficacy, particularly beyond frontline therapy are available. In this large multi-center series, with comprehensive clinical data, we evaluated survival and therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients, with a focus on identification of prognostic subgroups of T-PLL, that will inform future investigations into the biology and treatment of this disease. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all patients diagnosed with T-PLL at 15 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023 using the recent TPLL-ISG staging and response criteria with overall response rate (ORR) defined as CR and PR. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and cox proportional hazard models. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) was performed using the standard 10X Genomics platform. Results: 377 patients, with a median follow-up time of 29 months (range: 0-196) were evaluated. The median age at diagnosis was 64 and 51% were male. In evaluated patients (n=223), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 82%. 61% of patients had CD4+CD8- T-PLL, 11% of patients had CD4-CD8+ T-PLL, and 24% of patients had CD4+CD8+ T-PLL, with 4% unknown. 175 patients (46.4%) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan. Among treated patients (n=342, 91%), using TPLL-ISG criteria, the ORR to any frontline treatment was 67% (49% CR, 18% PR). Median OS and PFS was 19 months and 10 months in responding patients from the start of treatment initiation. For those treated with frontline alemtuzumab (n=250), the ORR was 74% (58% CR), with a median OS and PFS of 18 and 12 months. 20 patients (5%) were treated with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin frontline with an ORR of 85% (70% CR), which was superior to alemtuzumab alone (ORR 74%, 58% CR). Patients that had frontline chemotherapy (excluding pentostatin, n=48) had a worse ORR of 35% (15% CR) (p<0.001), and a worse PFS of 4 months (p=0.002), when compared to those who received alemtuzumab. Among patients in 1st CR/PR (n=226), 44% (n=99) received an allograft and had an improved 3-year OS of 50% vs 17%, (HR=0.67, 95%CI 0.48-0.93), and 50% improvement in PFS (HR 0.48, 0.33-0.68) compared to those who did not receive an allograft. For patients that received second line treatment (n=176, 52%), re-treatment with alemtuzumab (n=33) produced a 46% ORR (21% CR). Other active second-line treatments included: pentostatin (n=23; 44% ORR, 17% CR), ruxolitinib-based regimens (n=4; 25% ORR, 0% CR), venetoclax-based regimens (n=13; 39% ORR, 8% CR), bendamustine (n=10; 30% ORR, 0% CR), and nelarabine (n=4; 75% ORR, 50% CR). In subgroup survival analysis, TCL1A+ patients had a worse OS and PFS when compared to TCL1A- patients (23 months vs 43 months; p=0.02), and (14 months vs 24 months; p=0.02) respectively, with HR 1.58 (1.08, 2.31) (p=0.02) for OS and HR 1.62 (1.09-2.40) (p=0.02) for PFS. Furthermore, CD4- T-PLL had worse OS (16 months vs 25 months) when compared to CD4+ patients [HR 1.57 (1.08, 2.27), p=0.02]. Single cell RNA seq in 13 patients, including 3 TCL1A- patients, with a total of 66,269 T-PLL cells, demonstrated a unique RNA signature between the CD4+/- and TCL1A+/- patients, suggesting these represent unique molecular subtypes of T-PLL. Conclusions: In this large, multi-center study of T-PLL, frontline treatment with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin improved response rates and OS. Further, among patients who attained a CR, allograft improved OS & PFS vs no allograft. In relapsed T-PLL, retreatment with alemtuzumab had a high ORR, and we report significant activity of multiple novel/alternative agents with the largest reported numbers to date. Intriguingly, TCL1A+, and CD4- T- PLL had worse OS/PFS, and scRNAseq confirmed unique molecular signatures in these populations, suggesting these represent novel molecular subtypes of T-PLL with prognostic significance. These studies form the foundation for future, targeted, therapeutic studies in this rare, aggressive disease with few treatment options.

Abstract There are limited data assessing the risk scores for primary treatment failure (PTF) in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL; PTF-cHL) undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT). ECLIPSE (Evaluation of Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma patients wIth Primary treatment failure and analySis of outcomEs) is a multicenter retrospective cohort of patients with PTF-cHL (aged ≥15 years) diagnosed on or after 1 January 2005, at 15 US medical centers. PTF was defined as 1 of the following patterns of failure: (1) progressive disease by imaging during or within 6 weeks of completion of frontline chemotherapy (primary progression [PP]); (2) partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) by imaging after completion of frontline treatment (PR/SD); (3) progression of disease by imaging (and confirmed by biopsy) within 12 months of frontline therapy completion after prior documentation of complete response (CR; early relapse [ER]). A total of 478 patients were included in the analysis. Among these, 217 (45%) were PP, 86 (18%) were PR/SD, and 175 (37%) were ER. The 6-month and 1-year cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality after auto-HCT were 0.9% and 1.1%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after auto-HCT were 4.33 and 10.09 years, respectively. Although those not in CR at the time of auto-HCT were associated with inferior PFS and OS, advanced age and diagnosis before 2011 were associated with inferior OS. This study showcases the safety and long-term efficacy of auto-HCT, even in patients with high-risk disease who are traditionally considered chemotherapy refractory, and will serve as a benchmark for the ongoing transplant vs no transplant trials.

11079 Background: Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) inform the standard of care in cancer treatment yet have a mixed track record of success. In this study, we sought to 1) determine the overall success rate of phase 3 RCTs; 2) assess whether authorship patterns differ between successful (positive) and unsuccessful (negative) trials; and 3) explore if individual authors have distinct track records of success. Methods: The HemOnc knowledgebase (KB) was queried for initial publications of phase 3 RCTs of systemic anticancer therapy; those without primary outcome described were excluded. RCTs were labeled positive if the primary endpoint was met per HemOnc standard criteria (P value ≤ 0.05 or hazard ratio upper bound ≤ 1 for any experimental arm[s]) and negative if they did not meet these criteria or if the experimental arm was statistically inferior. Trial metadata and author information were extracted from the HemOnc KB. Author positive publication rate (PPR) was defined as % of publications reporting a positive result divided by total number of eligible publications. Prolific authors were defined as those with 6+ eligible publications. Author count for manuscripts reporting positive vs negative results was evaluated with the Mann-Whitney U test; other statistics were descriptive. Results: 3328 studies met criteria as of February 5, 2024; these were associated with 3305 initial publications between 1960-2023, involving 25,412 unique authors. 1474 (44.3%) of the studies were positive. Publications reporting positive trial results had, on average, 3 more authors, median (interquartile range) of 18 (12-23) vs 15 (11-20), p<0.0001. The mean (±SD) PPR for n=1967 prolific authors was 47.7% (±22.3%). The PPR was not related to individual author output; mean PPR for non-prolific authors was 48.0% (SD not reported). Differences in PPR were apparent by the disease under study and the years of publication (Table). Among the 46 prolific authors who had a PPR 2+ SD above the mean, 26 (55%) were from China followed by Italy with 3 (6%). Conclusions: Despite known positive publication bias, the success rate of published phase 3 RCTs remains <50%. Publications reporting positive results had significantly more authors; this finding requires further study including adjustment for trial sample size. Significant variation in PPR amongst fields could be due to watershed therapeutic advances, differential selection of primary endpoints, and/or selective reporting of results. Finally, a signal for geographic association of outlier PPRs suggests the need for further investigation. [Table: see text]

11023 Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in cancer typically compare experimental to control arm regimens. The choice of an appropriate control (ctrl) arm can have a major impact on the expected success of an RCT. The frequency with which cancer RCTs use control arms based on established dosing and scheduling protocols has not been described. Methods: The HemOnc knowledgebase (KB) was used to identify systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) regimen variants, defined as regimens with identical components that differ in dosing, scheduling, and/or route. Non-cancer, nonrandomized, and non-SACT studies were excluded. Study publication year was used to define standard variants as those evaluated in the experimental arm of a positive phase 3 RCT >1 year prior to publication as a control arm, regardless of cancer type or context of treatment. Study-variant dyads were evaluated to determine whether the variant was standard. Success rates of RCTs with standard vs non-standard control arms were evaluated with Fisher’s exact test. Results: 5221 studies were associated with ≥1 named variant in the HemOnc KB, as of 2024-02-06. After exclusions, there were 3511 study-variant dyads (2386 studies; 1714 variants). The 9 most common regimens are shown in the Table. The median (IQR) number of variants per regimen was 2 (1-3); carboplatin & paclitaxel (CP) had the most variants (n=33). Across all control arm study-variant dyads, 2228/3492 (64%) utilized non-standard variants. For example, 60/97 studies (62%) of docetaxel as control used the 75 mg/m2 q3wk variant after it was established in 2000, whereas n=27 others used 19 non-standard variants. Trials that used a standard control arm had a numerically higher success rate, 45% vs 42% (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.32). Conclusions: Non-standard regimen variants are frequently used in cancer RCTs. Reasons for this could include toxicity, patient convenience, or emerging data from smaller studies that establish comparable efficacy or improved toxicity to standard variants. However, the a priori efficacy of non-standard control arms is less rigorously established, and trials with standard control arms might be more successful. Future directions include quantifying the granular differences between standard and non-standard variants and investigating whether certain types of non-standard variation (e.g. fewer cycles, lower doses) associate with trial success rates. [Table: see text]