Di, Mengyang

Abstract Background Several bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), including mosunetuzumab, glofitamab, and epcoritamab, are approved for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, real-world patient-centered data evaluating treatment-related time burden and preferences are lacking. Methods We conducted an online survey of 120 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL; N = 60) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; N = 60) receiving BsAbs. Participants reported all-cause healthcare visits and time spent on cancer-related healthcare resource utilization over the past 30 days, including travel, treatment administration, recovery, and impact on daily activities. Participants also evaluated two hypothetical treatment profiles to assess preference for fixed-duration versus treat-to-progression therapy. Results Participants with FL reported a mean of 2.5 healthcare visits in the past 30 days, with significantly fewer visits for mosunetuzumab versus epcoritamab (1.7 vs 3.3, respectively; P < .01). In DLBCL, the mean was 2.6 visits, with fewer visits for glofitamab versus epcoritamab (2.2 vs 3.0; P =.01). Although epcoritamab visits were shorter in FL, more frequent visits and longer recovery time resulted in significantly lower monthly time burden with mosunetuzumab versus epcoritamab (31.2 vs 61.9 hours; P < .05). Similarly, monthly time burden was also lower with glofitamab than epcoritamab in DLBCL (43.0 vs 87.7 hours; P < .05). Most participants reported little to moderate impact on daily activities. Across treatment groups, ≥92% preferred a hypothetical fixed-duration regimen over a treat-to-progression therapy. Conclusion Our real-world data, including novel aspects of time toxicity, demonstrate clinically meaningful differences in time burden associated with BsAbs and emphasize the importance of incorporating patient convenience and preference into shared decision-making in NHL.

Abstract Introduction: Older adults (OAs) with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have inferior survival compared with younger patients (pts). NAVD has been widely adopted in clinical practice for frontline (1L) treatment of OAs with advanced stage cHL based on the subset analysis of S1826 study (Rutherford et al, JCO 2025) showing a 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 93% and 1-year overall survival (OS) of 95% after NAVD (n = 50) which remained durable on longer-term follow up. Another phase 2 study (Torka et al, JCO 2025) showed that NAVD is a highly effective and well-tolerated 1L regimen in OAs with cHL (n=40) across a wide range of geriatric impairments. Adverse events (AEs) and efficacy have not been reported in OAs treated with NAVD outside of a clinical trial. Hence, we sought to evaluate safety profile and efficacy outcomes of OAs with cHL treated with 1L NAVD in a real-world setting (RWS). Methods This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with cHL treated with 1L NAVD between 2023 and 2025 at 20 US academic sites. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of pts ≥60 years were evaluated as a pre-planned subset analysis. The safety evaluable cohort received at least 1 cycle of NAVD and included pts who had not yet completed treatment. The efficacy evaluable cohort had completed 6 cycles of treatment including end of treatment (EOT) PET-CT and included pts who intended to complete treatment but died or discontinued due to progressive disease or AEs. The primary endpoint was EOT overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included EOT complete response rate (CRR), PFS and OS. PFS and OS were analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results Among 311 pts, 81 were OAs (26%). Median age of the OA cohort was 70 (range 60-88) yrs, 65% male, 84% Caucasian, 71% nodular sclerosis subtype, 58% stage 4 disease, 59% B symptoms, 14% bulky disease (>7.5 cm), 69% extranodal sites, 41% EBV positive, 54% hypoalbuminemia, 49% IPS ≥ 4 and10% had an autoimmune disease. G-CSF was given in 81% pts. All 81 pts were evaluable for safety; 74% experienced a grade 3+ (≥G3) AE, 54% had ≥G3 hematological AE, 48% had ≥G3 neutropenia, 17% had febrile neutropenia. Infection rate was 28% with 10% ≥G3, neuropathy rate was 23% with 4% ≥G3. One infusion reaction was noted. Treatment related hospitalizations rate was 23% with median duration of 7 (range 1-16) days. There were 24 immune related AEs (IrAE) (30%) of which 5 were ≥G3. Most common IrAE was hypothyroidism (n=5), followed by inflammatory arthritis (n=4), pneumonitis (n=2, ≥G3, n=1), hepatitis (n=2, both ≥G3), adrenal insufficiency (n=2, ≥G3, n=1), colitis (n=2), and rash (n=2). One patient each had autoimmune neutropenia, sarcoidosis of lung/skin and myocarditis (≥G3). Overall, 15% pts required steroids with resolution of IrAEs in 56% cases, 30% (n=7) pts required continued therapy (levothyroxine in 4 pts, steroids in 3 pts, medical tx for heart failure in 1 pt). Treatment was interrupted in 22%, reduced in 22%, and discontinued in 23% pts. Nivolumab was discontinued in 14% pts. Among all pts (n=81), 81% had an interim PET-CT after 2-4 cycles. The ORR and CR rate at interim PET-CT were 100% and 81%, respectively. In the efficacy evaluable pts (n=52; 24 still on therapy), the EOT ORR and CRR were 93.2% and 84% in OAs compared to 96.8% and 91.7% in pts <60yrs, respectively. At a median follow up of 10.2 mo (range 0.27-28.52), the 1-yr PFS was 90.6% (95% CI: 82.7%-99.3%) in OAs and 95.5% (95% CI: 91.6%- 99.6%) in pts <60 yrs (p=0.044). 1-yr OS was 97.5% (95% CI: 94.1-100%) and not evaluable in pts <60yrs (p=0.017). None of the baseline features were predictive of response, additional analysis to understand impact on AEs and survival is ongoing. Among the 5 pts with progression/relapse, 4 were primary refractory. 4 pts received 2nd line (2L) therapy.79 pts are alive at data cut off, 2 deaths occurred- 1 infection-related and other unknown; both after the 1st cycle. Conclusions In this largest RWS cohort of OAs treated with NAVD we showed comparable response rates, AEs and 1-year survival outcomes to those in the pivotal S1826 trial. Notably, rates of ≥G3 AEs including infections, neuropathy and IrAEs remained low and manageable. Although survival significantly improved with NAVD compared to historical data, outcomes of OAs remained inferior compared to pts <60 yrs. Our data reinforces the use of NAVD as the preferred 1L option for OAs with advanced stage cHL.

Abstract Introduction: NAVD has become a standard-of-care for frontline (1L) treatment (tx) of advanced stage cHL, based on the results of the S1826 study. S1826 demonstrated a 1-year progression free survival (PFS) of 94% for NAVD compared to 86% for brentuximab vedotin-AVD, which remained durable at 2 years (Herrera et al, NEJM 2024). Adverse events (AEs) and efficacy have not been reported in patients (pts) treated with NAVD outside of a clinical trial. Hence, we sought to evaluate safety profile and efficacy outcomes of pts with cHL treated with 1L NAVD in a real-world setting (RWS). Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we included pts ≥18 years with cHL treated with 1L standard of care NAVD between 2023 and 2025 at 20 US academic sites. The safety evaluable cohort received at least 1 cycle of NAVD and included pts who have not completed tx. The efficacy evaluable cohort had completed 6 cycles of tx including end of treatment (EOT) PET-CT and included pts who intended to complete tx but died or discontinued due to progressive disease or AEs. The primary endpoint was EOT overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included EOT complete response rate (CRR), PFS and overall survival (OS). PFS and OS were calculated from the start date of tx and analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Results: A total of 311 pts with cHL were treated with NAVD with 26% of pts with tx ongoing (n=83) and 73% with tx completed (n=228). Baseline demographics included 55% male pts, 60% with stage IV disease (stage IIB, n=4) and 84% with nodular sclerosis subtype. Median age was 37 years (range 18-88), 29% had bulky disease (>7.5 cm), 28% were EBV positive (n=74/268), 8% had history of an autoimmune disease, and 31% had an IPS 4-7. G-CSF was given in 64% of pts. All patients were safety evaluable. Tx was interrupted (any length) in 24%, reduced in 12%, and discontinued in 14%. The most common reason for dose reduction was neuropathy in 4%. Nivolumab was discontinued in 10% and all therapy in 3.7% due to toxicity. Any AE and any grade 3 or higher AE (>G3) were observed in 92% and 62%, respectively. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 68% (48% >G3), infection in 25% (10% >G3), and neuropathy in 30% (2.8% >G3). Hospitalization for an AE occurred in 20% (4.5% febrile neutropenia). Among pts with complete data (n=305), any immune related AE (irAE) occurred in 78 pts (25.6%) with any >G3 irAE in 23 pts (7.5%). The most common irAEs included hypothyroidism (7.9%, all grade 1-2), hepatotoxicity (1.6% G1/G2, 3.3% >G3), inflammatory arthritis (3% G1/G2, 0.6% >G3), rash (2.6%, all grade 1-2), and colitis (1% G1/G2, 1% >G3). Other notable >G3 irAEs included adrenal insufficiency (n=2), AKI/ATN (n=1), myocarditis (n=1), diabetes (n=1) and pancreatitis (n=1). Of 84 irAE events, 47 (56%) have had complete resolution. Among all pts, 14.4% (n=45) required systemic steroids at any time (intravenous in 4.1%), 3.2% (n=10) require ongoing steroids/immunosuppression and 8.3% other therapy for an irAE (n=23 levothyroxine, n=1 hemodialysis, n=1 heart failure tx, n=1 insulin). Among all pts, 265 (85%) had an interim PET-CT after 2-4 cycles. The ORR and CRR at interim PET-CT were 97% and 78%, respectively. In the efficacy evaluable population (n=228), the EOT ORR and CRR were 96% and 90%. The median follow up was 10.2 mo (range 0.27-28.52). The 1-year PFS and OS estimates were 93.8% (95% CI: 90.8-98.4%) and 99.1% (95% CI: 97.9-100%), respectively. In multivariable analysis (MVA), only IPS score (OR 0.6, 95%CI: 0.59-0.60) was associated with lower CRR. In Cox univariable analysis, EBV+ status (HR=14.8, 95% CI: 3.2-69.2), IPS score (HR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.0-2.2), and ESR (HR=1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.04) were associated with worse PFS. Among the 11 pts with progression/relapse, 9 were primary refractory. 10 pts were started on second line (2L) therapy, and all pts are alive (1 pt pending 2L tx initiation). There were 2 deaths: one related to infectious complications and other unknown and both occurred after the first cycle of therapy. Conclusions: Pts treated with NAVD in a large RWS showed comparable response rates and 1-year survival outcomes to those in the pivotal S1826 trial. Most AEs were similar and grade 1-2, but close monitoring of irAEs is necessary given the potential long-term toxicity of checkpoint inhibitors and potential for ≥G3 irAEs (7.5%) in this young patient population. Our data supports the use of NAVD for 1L advanced stage cHL.

Abstract This real-world retrospective cohort study evaluated utilization and comparative effectiveness of covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (cBTKi) monotherapies in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL) from electronic health records in the United States. Adults with R/R MCL who received second- or third-line (2L/3L) zanubrutinib, acalabrutinib, or ibrutinib monotherapy, on or after 1 January 2018, were included. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used in adjusted Cox models to compare real-world time-to-next treatment (rwTTNT) and overall survival (rwOS). Among 698 patients who received 2L/3L cBTKi monotherapy, 49%, 32%, and 19% received acalabrutinib, ibrutinib, and zanubrutinib, respectively. Unadjusted analyses showed median rwTTNT for 2L zanubrutinib, acalabrutinib, and ibrutinib was 14.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.0-23.2), 12.8 (95% CI, 10.5-15.6), and 10.3 (95% CI, 7.6-13.7) months, and median rwOS was 26.4 (95% CI, 23.2 to not reached [NR]), 29.2 (95% CI, 22.9-38.1), and 29.3 (95% CI, 21.8-41.6) months, respectively. Median rwTTNT for 3L zanubrutinib, acalabrutinib, and ibrutinib was 21.1 (95% CI, 3.9 to NR), 9.2 (95% CI, 6.8-14.7), and 9.6 (95% CI, 4.8-18.0) months, and median rwOS was NR (95% CI, 27.3 to NR), 27.4 (95% CI, 15.1-42.2), and 27.0 (95% CI, 15.6 to NR) months, respectively. Adjusted models in the 2L/3L cohorts combined showed numerically longer rwTTNT and statistically significantly longer rwOS for zanubrutinib vs ibrutinib (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.96), and trends for improved rwTTNT and rwOS for zanubrutinib over acalabrutinib. Toxicity was a frequent reason for changing to another cBTKi. These findings suggest potential improvements in rwTTNT and rwOS with the use of second- and next-generation cBTKis for R/R MCL from 2018 and beyond.

Abstract Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) are clinically relevant outcomes/end points during examination of therapies. However, with median OS approaching 20 years for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), it is often not feasible to use OS as a primary end point in clinical studies. Although validated tools exist for assessing QoL in patients with lymphoma, QoL data are rarely the sole basis for drug approvals in FL. Therefore, other survival end points, surrogates, and intermediate clinical end points have all been used to measure outcomes in FL trials. In this review, we discuss the strengths and limitations of these commonly used traditional end points in FL trials and examine the current gaps, including delayed availability of results and suboptimal sensitivity in distinguishing difference in therapeutic effects. To help address the identified gaps, well-validated surrogates, such as complete remission 30 months after starting frontline immunochemotherapy, may be used as the primary or co-primary end point in confirmatory randomized trials. Emerging intermediate end points like minimal residual disease may be useful in early phase trials and in guiding accelerated approvals after appropriate validation. As patient preference plays a crucial role in treatment decisions in FL, it is critical to include QoL as an important secondary trial end point and to measure nonmedical burdens, including time and financial toxicities. End points that are clinically relevant, timely, and patient-centered may identify new drugs that help patients with FL live longer and better lives.

Introduction: Liver transplantation (LT) provides significant survival benefits to patients with unresectable HCC. In the United States, organ allocation policies for HCCs within the United Network for Organ Sharing criteria do not prioritize patients based on their differences in oncological characteristics. This study assessed whether transplant-associated survival benefits (TASBs) vary among patients with different tumor burden scores (TBS) measured at the time of listing. Methods: We analyzed data from adults applying for HCC MELD exception points between 2002 and 2019, with follow-up until December 2023, using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. TBS was determined based on the largest tumor diameter and number of HCCs. Patients were categorized into low (≤3), intermediate (3.1–5), and high (>5) TBS groups. TASB was measured as the difference in 5-year survival with and without LT. Results: This study included 36,634 LT candidates. High-TBS patients had higher waitlist dropout rates and marginally lower post-transplant survival, resulting in a significantly greater TASB. The 5-year TASB for the low, intermediate, and high TBS groups were 15.7, 22.1, and 25.0 months, respectively. The adjusted survival benefit expressed in 5-year survival differences was 21.9%, 34.5%, and 39.4% in the low, intermediate, and high TBS groups, respectively ( p <0.001). Conclusions: Higher TBS during listing correlates with greater LT benefits for patients with unresectable HCC within UNOS criteria. We conclude that organ allocation policies in the United States should prioritize patients with high TBS due to their increased risk of dropout and comparable post-transplant survival when compared to patients with less advanced tumors.

Introduction: Treatment for R/R MCL has evolved with the use of cBTKi monotherapy. Previously, we reported differences in RW time to next treatment (rwTTNT) and overall survival (rwOS) among patients (pts) treated with ibrutinib (ibr), acalabrutinib (acala), and zanubrutinib (zanu), but reasons for the differences were unknown (Phillips et al. EHA 2024). Our objectives were to re-evaluate trends in rwTTNT and rwOS; assess treatment patterns of cBTKis, including switching; describe reasons for cBTKi discontinuation; and compare RW effectiveness of ibr, acala, and zanu monotherapy. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult pts diagnosed with R/R MCL who initiated second-line (2L) or third-line (3L) first cBTKi treatment 01/2018-11/2023 and were followed until loss to follow-up or death using the US nationwide Flatiron Health EHR deidentified database. Patient characteristics and survival estimates based on Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were summarized. Adjusted analysis using a multivariate Cox model was applied to assess rwTTNT and rwOS. Key model variables were age, sex, POD24 (2L start ≤24 mo from first-line start), and number of prior lines of therapy. Reasons for discontinuation were abstracted from documentation in notes and included non-mutually exclusive categories. Results: This study included 698 pts who received cBTKi monotherapy in 2L or 3L for MCL. The median age at cBTKi start was 73 (range, 34-85 yrs); the majority of pts were male (74%) and White (White 78%, Black 3.2%, Asian 1.3%, Other Race 7.6%, Unknown 10%) and non-Hispanic/Latino (non-Hispanic/Latino 74%, Hispanic/Latino 6.0%, Unknown 20%). Patients varied by socioeconomic status (Yost index 1 [12%], 2 [16%], 3 [19%], 4 [24%], 5 [19%], Unknown [10%]). Patients also varied by baseline ECOG performance status, Ki67, comorbidities, and LDH. Most pts had stage III/IV at diagnosis (75%). Among pts who received a cBTKi at 2L or 3L index therapy, 135 received zanu (2L [79%], 3L [21%]), 342 received acala (2L [76%], 3L [24%]), and 221 received ibr (2L [75%], 3L [25%]). Follow-up time (median [IQR]) from start of 2L/3L for each cBTKi were zanu 15 mo (10, 25), acala 36 mo (20, 52), and ibr 57 mo (35, 67). Among the overall 2L/3L cBTKi monotherapy cohort, median rwTTNT was 11.5 mo (95% CI 10.0, 13.5) and median rwOS was 30.4 mo (24.7, 36.1). For each cBTKi therapy in unadjusted KM analyses, median rwTTNT for zanu was 16.8 mo (95% CI 11.1, 23.2), acala 11.9 mo (9.2, 14.6), and ibr 9.8 mo (7.6, 13.1); median rwOS was 28.8 for zanu (95% CI 23.7, not reached), acala 29.2 mo (22.9, 36.5), and ibr 29.3 mo (21.2, 39.1). Adjusted multivariate model showed a trend of longer rwTTNT with zanu compared to ibr (HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.57, 1.01]; P=.06) and acala (0.88 [0.67, 1.16]; P=.40), and significantly longer rwOS for zanu compared to ibr (0.67 [0.46, 0.98]; P=.04) but a nonsignificant trend in rwOS favoring zanu compared to acala (0.73 [0.51, 1.05]; P=.09). Forty-seven pts (6.7%) who received cBTKi monotherapy in 2L or 3L switched to another cBTKi; 31 (4.4%) switched from ibr to acala or zanu, 12 (1.7%) from acala to zanu, and &lt;5 (0.1%) from zanu to acala. Reasons for discontinuation (~60% documented in cohort) varied by cBTKi monotherapy use. The most common documented reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (30% overall; zanu [24%], acala [35%], ibr [26%]) and toxicity (11% overall; zanu [7%], acala [10%], ibr [17%]). Among pts who switched from one cBTKi to another, the most documented reason for discontinuation was toxicity for ibr to acala or zanu (61%) and for acala to zanu (58%). Other reasons included financial (1%), non-cancer-related medical issue (4%), cancer-related symptoms not due to therapy (2%), and pt request (1%). Conclusions: Among RW pts with R/R MCL who received cBTKi monotherapy, zanu had a longer rwOS compared to ibr, and a trend of longer rwTTNT and rwOS compared to acala. Reasons for discontinuation were most commonly disease progression and toxicity. Among pts who switched cBTKis, the most common reason for switching was toxicity, which provides a broader scope of reasons for differences in rwTTNT that are not exclusive to disease progression.