Gribbin, Caitlin

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) Prognosis is highly variable due to underlying biological and molecular heterogeneity. The first-line (1L) treatment paradigm for MCL continues to evolve with increasing use of bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) and decreasing use of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). TP53 alterations are associated with inferior outcomes in MCL. The aim of this retrospective study is to determine treatment strategies and clinical outcomes in MCL patients based on TP53 gene mutation status. Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 19 institutions in the United States from 1/1993 to 1/2024. We examined treatment patterns and outcomes among MCL patients >18 years of age with known TP53 mutation status by sequencing. Patients who did not receive treatment were excluded. The analysis was stratified based on presence of TP53 mutations. Systemic therapies were categorized as chemo-immunotherapy (CIT), non-chemotherapy (including monoclonal antibodies, lenalidomide, venetoclax, and novel agents on clinical trial), and regimens containing BTKi. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes were progression free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment (TTNT). OS and PFS were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to compare groups. Results: 645 patients were included in the study, with 468 men (72.6%) and median age was 64 years (range 30-89). 230/645 patients (35.7%) had a TP53 mutation, of which 182 (79%) were identified prior to 1L. While the male/female distribution was the same between the mutated and unmutated groups, median age at diagnosis and MIPI risk score was higher in the TP53 mutated group (age 65.9 vs 63.1 yrs, p= 0.015; MIPI 6.4 vs 6.1, p<0.001). TP53 unmutated patients had a median of 1 line of therapy vs. 2 for the mutated group (p<0.001, range 1-8). Blastoid histology and higher ki67 were also associated with the TP53 mutated group (p=0.045, 0.01 respectively) The median OS was 14.2 years for TP53 unmutated and 8.3 years for TP53 mutated patients (p<0.0001). PFS in 1L was 0.95 years in TP53 mutated compared to 2.02 years in TP53 unmutated group (p<0.0001). Selection of 1L therapeutic strategy was not associated with presence of TP53 mutation (Χ2 p= 0.21) although more patients in the TP53 unmutated group underwent ASCT (119/415 vs 38/230; Χ2 p=0.0006) TP53 mutation was associated with inferior survival compared to TP53 unmutated patients for CIT in 1L but the difference did not reach statistical significance when non-chemotherapy regimens and regimens containing BTKi were used. For CIT in 1L, 5 year OS was 78% [71-84%] for unmutated compared to 58% [48-67%] for the mutated group (p=0.0001 ). For non-chemotherapy regimens, 5 year OS for unmutated patients was 73% [52- 86%] compared to 52% [25-73%] for the mutated group (p=0.09). For regimens containing BTKi, 5 year OS for unmutated was 93% [81-97%] compared to 57% [28-78%] for mutated (p=0.07). Within the TP53 mutated group, there were no differences in any clinical outcomes between those receiving CIT, non-chemotherapy, or BTKi in 1L. While median OS appeared numerically longer in the BTKi group (14.4 yrs vs 8.8 yrs for CIT and 6.8 yrs for non-chemotherapy), the difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.58). In contrast,TP53 unmutated patients who received CIT in 1L had better TTNT (p=0.0039) compared to those in non-chemotherapy and BTKi groups. There was no improvement in PFS (p=0.79) or OS (p=0.47). Conclusions To our knowledge this is the largest retrospective real world dataset of MCL treatment outcomes stratified by TP53 mutation. As in prior studies, TP53 mutation portends a worse prognosis in MCL compared to TP53 unmutated patients, but outcomes are better than historically reported. CIT in 1L was not associated with improved OS in either group. Irrespective of TP53 mutation status, incorporation of BTKi in first line was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. The gap in OS between TP53 mutated and unmutated MCL may be narrowing as treatment paradigms shift away from intensive induction chemotherapy and ASCT, and due to an increasing number of effective therapies for relapsed patients. Clinical trials of novel agents are needed to further improve the OS of TP53 mutated MCL patients.

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.