Houshyar, Samin

Abstract Background: Venetoclax (VEN)+obinutuzumab (VO) is an effective therapy for CLL/SLL requiring regular monitoring for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during VEN ramp-up. The CLL14 trial of VO reported no TLS during VEN ramp-up; however, there are limited real-world data on monitoring practices and TLS outcomes for different dose levels and monitoring timepoints. This study assessed VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL/SLL starting VO in first line (1L) in an outpatient, real-world setting. Methods This interim analysis relied onretrospective observational data from 4 US sites of the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence (CORE). Adult pts with CLL/SLL were eligible if they: (1) started VO per-label outside of a clinical trial in 1L, or immediately after exposure in 1L to agents with different mechanisms of action (i.e., BTKi, anti-CD20 only) of <30 days; (2) prior to VEN start, had either (i) low physician-determined tumor burden (TB) (i.e., all lymph nodes [LN] <5 cm and ALC <25 x 109/L), or (ii) medium physician-determined TB (i.e., any LN ≥5-<10 cm or ALC ≥25 x 109/L) with creatinine clearance ≥80 mL/min; (3) had no strong CYP3A inhibitors or prophylactic rasburicase from 3 days prior to VEN start until end of VEN ramp-up; and (4) had VEN ramp-up in an outpatient setting. TB-related labs/imaging was assessed from 2 months prior to obinutuzumab initiation (i.e., index date) until VEN start. VEN characteristics (i.e., dosing, duration), prophylaxis measures (i.e., antihyperuricemics and IV hydration), and TLS-related monitoring and management (i.e., lab results and interventions received) were collected per ramp-up week and TLS monitoring timepoint. Results Of 128 pts in CORE who initiated VO in any line, 72 pts met inclusion criteria (low TB: 57 [79.2%]; medium TB: 15 [20.8%]). Median (IQR) age was 62 (56.0, 68.5) years, 58.3% were male, and 81.9% had ECOG grade ≤1. Among pts tested, 7/68 (10.3%) had del(17p)/TP53 mutation and 43/66 (65.2%) had unmutated IGHV. Median (IQR) time from index to VEN start was 23.0 (22.0, 30.0) days. Most pts completed ramp-up (98.6% [71/72]) and followed a per-label regular dosing schedule (93.1% [67/72]). Prior to VEN ramp-up, all pts received prophylactic antihyperuricemics (allopurinol: 71 [98.6%]; febuxostat: 2 [2.8%]) and prophylactic hydration. In the 2 days prior to a dose escalation for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV hydration was reported for 27 (37.5%) pts based on physician determination. One pt stopped VEN after week 2 due to neutropenia (grade 3+). During ramp-up (median [IQR] of 9 [8, 12] blood tests per pt), no lab or clinical TLS was reported. Of 21 (29.2%) pts who received an intervention following a lab assessment, most had low TB at VEN start (16 [76.2%]). All interventions were either prophylactic or non-TLS-related. Following a lab assessment for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV or escalated oral hydration intervention was reported in 17/21 pts (81.0%) based on physician determination (e.g., to manage impaired baseline renal function in those with low TB, patient request, or institutional practice) (IV hydration: 15 pts; escalated oral hydration: 2 pts). By per-label monitoring timepoints, hydration intervention was given prophylactically following pre-dose lab tests for 7 pts (across weeks 1-5), 6-8 hours post-dose for 5 pts (weeks 1-2), and 24 hours post-dose for 10 pts (weeks 1-2). By per-label monitoring timepoints, other non-TLS-related interventions (i.e., blood transfusion for anemia, insulin for hyperglycemia, and potassium for non-TLS-related hypokalemia) were given following pre-dose lab tests for 2 pts (weeks 1-5) and 24 hours post-dose for 4 pts (weeks 1-2). Conclusion Consistent with the CLL14 trial, no TLS was reported in this real-world, interim analysis of pts with mostly low TB and good renal function at 1L VO initation. All interventions during VEN ramp-up were prophylactic or non-TLS-related, with prophylactic hydration commonly given based on physician preference. These results suggest that VO initiation is manageable in an outpatient setting. Consideration should be given for simplified monitoring requirements including potential removal of 6-8 hour post-dose lab in this population and be further explored in prospective studies. Data collection for this study is ongoing to further contextualize real-world VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes in a larger cohort.

Abstract Background Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) and bispecific antibody (BsAb) therapies are both effective for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL), but differ in treatment schedules and associated “time toxicity,” or contact days spent physically interacting with the healthcare system. While contact days can be estimated from clinical trials, real-world data provides a more nuanced depiction of treatment-related time burden, which may guide treatment decision-making. The comparative time toxicity of CAR-T vs BsAb in R/R FL is not defined. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of adults with R/R grade 1-3A FL who received standard-of-care CAR-T (axi-cel, tisa-cel, liso-cel) or BsAb (mosunetuzumab, epcoritamab) in the third-line or later setting before Jan 1, 2025. Time toxicity was defined as outpatient or inpatient days with physical health care system contact, counting multiple visits on the same day as only one day. All days after treatment initiation were counted, regardless of disease progression, therapy completion, or relation to FL therapy. Median contact days over 1-year time horizon were compared, stratified by CAR-T vs BsAb, prior lines of therapy (LOT, 2 vs 3+), and time intervals (0-1, 1-3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from day of CAR-T infusion or day 1, cycle 1 for BsAb. Cox regression and propensity matching (by age, ECOG, refractory to prior LOT, POD24) were used to assess predictors and survival associations with contact days. Results Among 209 patients from 15 U.S. academic centers, median age was 64, 37% were female, 61% received CAR-T (80% axi-cel, 7% liso-cel, 13% tisa-cel) and 39% BsAb (93% mosun, 7% epcor). Most had Grade 1-2 FL (72%), advanced stage (84%), and extranodal disease (51%). Median prior LOT was 3 (range 2-15), 41% were refractory to prior LOT, and 52% had POD24. Median number of BsAb doses was 10 (range 1-36). Patients receiving BsAb were significantly older (p<.01) and had higher CIRS comorbidity scores (p<.02) in both 2 and 3+ prior LOT cohorts, and had higher ECOG scores (p=.01) and were less likely to be refractory to prior LOT (p=.029) in 3+ LOT cohort. There were no differences in POD24 rates between CAR-T and BsAb. Median PFS for the entire cohort was 3.6 yrs; median OS was not reached. In the 2 prior LOT cohort (N=75), 60% received CAR-T and 40% BsAb. With median follow-up of 1.5 years, median PFS was not reached for CAR-T and 1.6 yrs for BsAb (p<.0001). In the 3+ prior LOT cohort (N=134), 62% received CAR-T and 38% BsAb. With median follow-up of 2 yrs, median PFS was 3.6 yrs for CAR-T and 1.6 yrs for BsAb (p=.0044). In propensity matched analysis, PFS was shorter for BsAb in both 2 LOT (HR 9.0, 95% CI 1.14-71.04, p=.037) and 3+ LOT (HR 3.25, 95% CI 1.06-9.97, p=.039) cohorts as compared to CAR-T. There were no significant differences in OS between CAR-T and BsAb. Median contact days were significantly higher for CAR-T vs BsAb in the 0-1 month interval: 19 vs 8 days in 2 LOT (p<.0001) and 18 vs 7 days in 3+ LOT (p<.0001) cohorts. There were no differences in contact days between CAR-T vs BsAb in subsequent time intervals. Over 1 year, CAR-T had significantly more time toxicity than BsAb: median 51 vs 36 contact days in 2 LOT (p<.0001) and 64 vs 38 days in 3L+ LOT (p<.0001) cohorts; these remained significant in the matched analysis. B symptoms (p=.04) and Grade ≥3 cytopenias (p=.007) were associated with higher contact days in 3+ LOT cohort in univariable analysis. Higher contact days were associated with inferior PFS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p=.032) and OS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p=.038) in 3+ LOT cohort regardless of treatment type. Discussion In this large real-world cohort of patients with R/R FL, CAR-T therapy resulted in better PFS but more time toxicity over the first year as compared to BsAb therapy. Excess time toxicity from CAR-T was driven by more contact days in the first month of treatment. This study provides benchmark data for counseling patients about expected time burden of CAR-T (51-64 days) and BsAb (36-38 days) over the first year of these therapies. Further, with superior PFS of CAR-T in this study and minimal impact of time toxicity on survival outcomes, these data can be used to better support shared decision-making in R/R FL by addressing patient preferences regarding both contact days as well as duration of disease control.

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.