Iyengar, Varun

Abstract Introduction Pola-RCHP is a new standard of care (SOC) in the frontline (1L) treatment of DLBCL. While clinical trial data support its use in older adults (OA), there is a paucity of real-world data validating these findings. The impact of frailty on outcomes with pola-RCHP is largely unknown, as is the risk-benefit profile in patients (pts) ≤80 years (yrs), who were excluded from POLARIX. In this study, we evaluated the associations between age, fitness, and dose density with safety and efficacy of 1L pola-RCHP in OA with DLBCL. Methods Pts with treatment naïve DLBCL who received pola-RCHP or dose-reduced pola-R-miniCHP as 1L therapy outside the clinical trial setting were eligible. This multicenter retrospective study included pts from 17 US centers. Baseline characteristics including markers of baseline fitness such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G) score, presence of geriatric syndrome (GS; defined as dementia, delirium, depression, osteoporosis, incontinence, falls, failure to thrive, or neglect/abuse), and impairments in activities of daily living (ADLs; defined as bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, feeding, or continence) were collected. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in OA (age ≤70 yrs) with DLBCL. Secondary endpoints included safety, overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR) and overall survival (OS). Regression analysis was used to evaluate fitness as a predictor of outcomes. Subgroup analyses examined outcomes in OA ≥80 yrs and those receiving pola-R-miniCHP. Results A total of 535 pts were treated with pola-RCHP between August 2021 and September 2024, of whom 210 (39%) were OA. Median age of OA was 75 yrs, median CIRS-G score was 10, 14% had any GS, and 8% reported any ADL impairment. OA tended to have worse ECOG PS (≥2; 23%, p=0.009) and IPI score (3-5; 77%, p<0.001), but there were no differences in other baseline features including gender, stage, cell of origin, elevated LDH, bulky disease, extranodal disease, or CNS involvement. OA received pola-R-miniCHP more frequently (18% vs 1.5%, p<0.0001) and had similar rates of treatment completion (85%, p=0.2) as pts <70 yrs. Median follow up was 11.3 months. ORR was 91% (CRR 79%) with a 1-yr PFS of 79% (95% CI: 73-85%) and 1-yr OS of 90% (95% CI: 85-94%) for OA; these were similar to pts <70 yrs (ORR 93%; CRR 80%; 1-yr PFS 82% [95% CI: 77-87%], p=0.18; 1-yr OS 91% [95% CI: 88-95%], p=0.53]. OA had higher rates of cardiomyopathy (6.2% vs. 1.5%, p=0.004), grade 3+ (G3+) neutropenia (38% vs. 27%, p=0.013), G3+ thrombocytopenia (22% vs. 11%, p<0.001) and hospitalization (38% vs 26%, p=0.004); rates of neuropathy, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar to pts <70 yrs. Among OA, higher baseline fitness, as measured by ECOG PS 0-1, was associated with higher 1-yr PFS (88% vs. 63%, p<0.0001) and 1-yr OS (96% vs. 74%, p<0.0001) and a lower rate of hospitalization (30% vs. 65%, p<0.001). A lower comorbidity burden (CIRS-G <6) was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization (18% vs 41%, p=0.041), but did not impact PFS or OS. Impairments in ADLs were also associated with lower OS (78% vs 91%, p=0.03). OA receiving pola-R-miniCHP (n=38) were older (79 yrs vs. 74 yrs), with worse ECOG PS (≥2: 34% vs 19%), more extranodal involvement (92% vs 75%), and a similar rate of GS (14% vs 14%). The rate of hospitalization was higher (45% vs. 36%, p<0.05) but ORR (84% vs. 93%), CRR (79% vs. 79%), 1-yr PFS (85% vs. 78%), and 1-yr OS (87% vs. 90%) were similar. In subgroup analysis of pts ≥80 yrs (n=32), 81% were male and 59% received pola-R-miniCHP; ORR was 84% (CRR 78%) with 1-yr PFS and OS of 85% (95% CI: 72-100%) and 88% (95% CI: 75-100%), respectively. Pts ≥80 yrs had a higher rate of any grade neuropathy (23%, p=0.03) but similar rates of treatment completion, cardiomyopathy, G3+ neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, G3+ thrombocytopenia, and hospitalization relative to pts 70-80yrs. Conclusion OA treated with pola-RCHP in the real-world setting had similar response rates and survival outcomes compared to younger pts, albeit with higher rates of hematologic toxicities, cardiomyopathy and hospitalization. Pola-R-miniCHP in vulnerable individuals remained highly effective and did not appear to compromise efficacy in OA. Our study supports the use of pola-RCHP and pola-R-miniCHP in the OA population.

Abstract Purpose: Polatuzumab vedotin (polatuzumab) was approved for up-front treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in combination with chemoimmunotherapy (Pola-R-CHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, when stratified by cell of origin (COO), polatuzumab seems to have greater efficacy in activated B-cell than germinal center B-cell (GCB) subtype disease. Most studies of polatuzumab used RNA expression to assess COO, whereas in routine clinical practice, the immunohistochemistry-based Hans algorithm is used. Experimental Design: To assess the impact of COO by immunohistochemistry on polatuzumab efficacy, we conducted a multicenter real-world study of adults with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) receiving polatuzumab from 2015 to 2024, split by receipt of polatuzumab in first-line versus relapsed/refractory settings. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to polatuzumab-based treatment in GCB versus non-GCB relapsed/refractory LBCL. Results: Of 740 patients, 305 received polatuzumab in the first-line setting and 435 in the relapsed/refractory setting. In the relapsed/refractory cohort, the ORR in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL was 59.7% versus 36.3% [OR, 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.77–3.84; P < 0.0001], with a complete response rate of 35.7% versus 17.7% (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.66–4.02; P < 0.0001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients with non-GCB versus GCB COO (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.5–0.83; P = 0.0006). In the first-line cohort, ORR, complete response rate, and progression-free survival were similar in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL, as hypothesized based on outcomes in the Pola-R-CHP arm of POLARIX, suggesting that the addition of polatuzumab overcomes the adverse risk of non-GCB COO in patients receiving R-CHOP. Conclusions: Based on these data, COO classification by the Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of polatuzumab efficacy in LBCL, informing real-world treatment decisions.

Background: Polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) is an antibody drug conjugate targeting CD79b that incorporates the microtubule disrupting monomethyl auristatin E payload. Pola was approved in 2023 for the upfront treatment of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (polaRCHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, the activity of pola appears to vary based on DLBCL cell of origin (COO) subtype, with greater efficacy in activated B cell (ABC) DLBCL compared to germinal center B cell (GCB) DLBCL (Russler-Germain Blood 2023). When outcomes in POLARIX are stratified by COO, polaRCHP demonstrated progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits over RCHOP in patients with ABC but not GCB subtype DLBCL (PFS HR 0.34 ABC vs 1.03 GCB, OS HR 0.27 ABC vs 1.64 GCB; Morschhauser ASH 2023 and FDA data). Most prospective studies of pola used gene expression to assess COO, which is not readily clinically available. This study aims to examine if COO subtype by Hans algorithm (based on CD10, BCL6, and MUM1 expression by immunohistochemistry) is predictive of pola responses and outcomes in patients with large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter observational study of adults with LBCL who received pola (monotherapy or in combination) from 2015-2024 with Hans algorithm COO data and response assessment available. Patients were stratified by receipt of pola in the frontline vs relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to pola-based treatment in GCB vs non-GCB subtypes. Secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), PFS, and OS. For time to event endpoints, patients responding to pola who received CAR T or stem cell transplantation prior to progression were censored at time of cellular therapy. Demographics were summarized by descriptive statistics. Comparative and survival analyses used Chi squared/Fischer exact tests and Kaplan Meier analysis. Data cutoff was July 1, 2024. Results: 718 patients were included. Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range [IQR] 8-32). Median age at LBCL diagnosis was 66 years (IQR 56-74); 62% were men; 69 (10%) had double hit lymphoma (DHL); 129 (18%) had underlying low grade lymphoma. Pola was used in the frontline setting in 293 (41%) patients, of whom 139 (47%) had GCB vs 154 (53%) non-GCB COO. Of the 426 patients receiving pola for R/R LBCL (including one patient receiving pola retreatment), 224 (53%) had GCB vs 202 (47%) non-GCB COO. Among patients receiving pola-based regimens in the R/R setting (GCB vs non-GCB: pola monotherapy = 7% vs 4%, pola + R = 26% vs 26%, pola + BR = 55% vs 61%, pola + other = 12% vs 9%; p = 0.44), the ORR in GCB vs non-GCB LBCL was 36% vs 61% (p < 0.001), while CRR in GCB vs non-GCB was 17% vs 36% (p < 0.001). COO remained a significant component of logistic multivariate regression models of ORR (p < 0.001) and CRR (p < 0.001) when incorporating IPI at original LBCL diagnosis, histology, DHL status, and refractory status to frontline therapy. Despite this, no significant PFS or OS differences by COO were seen, potentially due to approximately 1/4 patients being censored due to receiving subsequent cellular therapy (e.g. CAR T) prior to progression. In patients receiving frontline pola-based regimens (of which 275 [94%] included an anthracycline), ORR and CRR were similar in GCB vs non-GCB (ORR 89% vs 88% p > 0.5; CRR 76% vs 77% p > 0.5). While PFS and OS were similar between COO groups in the frontline cohort, follow-up and cohort size were limited. Conclusion: Based on this real-world evidence, COO classification by Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in R/R LBCL, with significantly higher ORR and CRR in patients with non-GCB compared to GCB COO LBCL. This aligns with the cumulative existing evidence. ORR and CRR to pola-containing therapy in the frontline setting did not differ significantly by COO subtype, but longer follow-up of larger cohorts is needed to clarify the predictive role of COO by Hans algorithm in this setting, especially considering the PFS advantage with polaRCHP in POLARIX was not associated with significant differences in ORR or CRR. Overall, clinicians should consider factoring COO subtype into treatment decisions regarding pola-containing regimens, and studies of pola-based therapies should stratify patients and report outcomes by COO subtype.