Steinerová, Kateřina

Abstract Introduction The International Prognostic Index (IPI) is widely used to stratify risk in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) across all ages, with age-adjusted (aa)IPI applied to younger patients. While there have been efforts to develop prognostic indices (PIs) tailored to older patients, few are adopted in clinical practice due to their complexity and reliance on functional assessments, which are not routinely collected in real-world registry datasets. Recently proposed SENIOR-IPI (Dubois, ASH 2024) was developed for older patients with LBCL receiving anthracycline (A)-based therapy. We assessed the performance of standard and novel PIs in patients aged 80+ years and externally validated the SENIOR-IPI. Methods We harmonized and pooled data of patients aged 80+ years with newly diagnosed LBCL from a national registry and two prospective cohorts: NiHiL (Czech Republic, enrolled 2010–2023), LEO (USA; n=222, 2015–2020), and MER (USA; n=77, 2010–2015), forming a cohort of 819 individuals. We included 536 individuals with complete data on IPI components and albumin, including 485 treated with chemotherapy and 397 with A-based regimens (primary cohort). Following PIs were evaluated: IPI, NCCN-IPI, (aa)IPI, and SENIOR-IPI (age per year, aaIPI components, LDH >3x ULN as extra point, and albumin, all weighted six-fold; extranodal involvement excluded due to lack of prognostic significance). Multivariable hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models; discriminative ability was assessed using C-index and calibration plots. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); event-free survival results were consistent (230/357 events were deaths) and are not reported here. Results Among the 397 A-treated patients (median age 82 years, range 80–99), ECOG performance status (PS) 2–4 was observed in 35% of patients, clinical stage III–IV in 67%, elevated LDH in 65% (8% with >3x ULN), >1 extranodal (EN) site in 32%, and albumin levels < 3.5 g/dL in 27%. In multivariable modeling, only age per year (HR=1.07, P<0.01), and clinical stage (HR=1.36, P=0.048) were independent predictors of OS, whereas ECOG PS (HR=1.27, P=0.12), trichotomized LDH by ULN (HR=1.23, P=0.08) and albumin (HR=1.17, P=0.35) were not significant. SENIOR-IPI had the highest discrimination (C-index 0.631) in A-treated patients, outperforming IPI (0.617), NCCN-IPI (0.591), and aaIPI (0.620), with consistent results across cohorts: NiHiL (0.633), LEO (0.619), and MER (0.621). SENIOR-IPI stratified patients into low- (L-Risk, 0–9 points, 28%), low-intermediate (L-Int, 10–19 points, 42%), high-intermediate (H-Int, 20–29 points, 23%), and high-risk (H-Risk, 30–40 points, 7%) categories, with OS medians of 6.3, 3.8, 2.4, and 1.4 years, respectively (P<0.01), and significant separation between L-Int and H-Int (HR=1.47, P=0.02). By comparison, IPI categorized patients as L-Risk (12%), L-Int (24%), H-Int (27%), and H-Risk (37%), with median OS of 8.7, 4.6, 4.8, and 1.9 years, resp. (P<0.01). aaIPI yielded following distributions: 13%, 29%, 37%, and 21%; and median OS: 8.7, 5.3, 3.4, and 1.5 years; P<0.01. NCCN-IPI stratified patients into three groups: L-Int (13%), H-Int (49%), and H-Risk (39%), with respective OS medians of 8.7, 4.1, and 2.5 years (P<0.01). All PIs showed modest overestimation of mortality (calibration slopes: SENIOR-IPI 1.36; IPI 1.24; aaIPI 1.30; NCCN-IPI 1.26; intercept: -0.97, -0.87, -0.92, -0.87, resp.). In the entire cohort (n=536), SENIOR-IPI showed highest C-index (0.651 vs IPI 0.622, aaIPI 0.631, NCCN-IPI 0.606), and stratified patients into L-Risk (26%, 2-year OS: 6.4 years), L-Int (40%, 3.2 years), H-Int (24%, 1.5 years), and H-Risk (10%, 0.6 years). Calibration slope was 1.18 (intercept -0.33). Among patients not receiving chemotherapy, SENIOR-IPI also performed best (C-index 0.759 vs IPI 0.738, aaIPI 0.757, NCCN-IPI 0.728). Conclusion SENIOR-IPI enables effective risk stratification of patients aged 80+ years with LBCL into four prognostically distinct groups, outperforming traditional indices (IPI, NCCN-IPI, aaIPI) in patients receiving A-based therapy, as well as in the entire cohort and in patients not receiving chemotherapy. While its discrimination is superior, modest miscalibration suggests that future recalibration may improve precision. These findings support SENIOR-IPI as a clinically relevant prognostic tool for the elderly LBCL patient population. Funding: NU21-03-00411, P50 CA97274, U01 CA195568.

Abstract Introduction: THRLBCL is a rare disease accounting for less than 10% of all diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) subtypes. THRLBCL was associated with poor outcomes in the pre-rituximab era, with limited contemporaneous data. Optimal frontline treatment remains unclear with some studies advocating for intensive regimens. The goal of this international study is to analyze the survival and treatment-related outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed THRLBCL treated with rituximab-containing chemotherapy and to compare with a DLBCL, not otherwise specified (NOS) cohort. Methods: THRLBCL and DLBCL patients prospectively enrolled in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) (NCT02736357) (7/2015 to 5/2020), Molecular Epidemiology Resource (1/2010 to 6/2015), and Czech Lymphoma Study Group project (NiHiL) (NCT03199066) (2/2010 to 11/2023) were analyzed. Diagnosis was made in dedicated hematopathology centers in both registries. We excluded patients with prior nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma, central nervous system involvement, and not treated with rituximab-containing therapy. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier.Univariate associations were derived via Cox model and multivariate models were constructed by forward selection of significant variables with P≤0.05. Propensity score matching (1:5, caliper 0.2) between THRLBCL and DLBCL NOS patients was performed using IPI score components and treatment as covariates. Results: We identified 158 patients (LEO: 67 and NiHiL: 91) with THRLBCL. Among them, 140 patients received rituximab-containing regimens and were included in this analysis. Median age was 58 years (range, 19-89) with 57% aged ≤60 years. Most patients were male (n= 88; 63%) and had ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-1 (n= 111; 79%), stage III-IV (n= 111; 79%), elevated LDH (n= 92; 66%), and B symptoms (n= 84; 60%). Fifty (36%) patients had ≥2 extranodal (EN) sites, mostly liver (n= 39; 28%) and lung (n= 16; 11%), bone marrow (BM) involvement was observed in 26% (n= 37). Bulky disease (≥7.5cm) was present in 50 (36%) and IPI score ≥3 in 68 (48%) patients. The median diagnosis-to-treatment interval was 23 days (IQ range, 13-38.5). Frequent regimens were R-CHOP (n= 106; 75.7%), followed by intensive regimens such as R-MegaCHOP/ESHAP, R-HyperCVAD/MA, and R-CODOX-M/IVAC (n= 15; 10.7%), and R-CHOEP/EPOCH-R (n= 10; 7.14%). With a median follow-up of 3.92 years, the 4-year EFS & OS were 71% and 80%, respectively. Lymphoma was the main cause of death (n= 15; 11%) among 30 events. No difference in 4-year EFS (70% vs. 76%; P= 0.55) & OS (80% vs 82%; P= 0.96) were observed between R-CHOP and intensive regimens. Factors associated with shorter EFS and OS in univariate analysis for THRLBCL were ECOG PS 2-4: (HR= 3.3; P<.001 & HR= 5.97, P<.001, respectively); ≥2 EN sites (HR= 1.85, P= 0.043 & HR= 2.54, P= 0.014, respectively); B symptoms (HR= 2.35, P= 0.014 & HR= 2.84, P= 0.023) and IPI score (HR= 1.5, P= 0.002 & HR= 2.16, P<.001). Stage III-IV and BM involvement were associated with shorter OS only (HR= 7.36, P= 0.05 & HR= 2.18, P= 0.036, respectively). Among them, only ECOG PS 2-4 (OS: HR= 3.6, P= 0.003) and B symptoms (EFS: HR= 2.3, P= 0.046) were independent predictors of survival in multivariate analysis. Finally, we compared baseline characteristics and survival between THRLBCL (n= 140) and DLBCL NOS (n= 6099; LEO/MER: 2069 & NiHiL: 4030) treated with rituximab-containing regimens. Patients with THRLBCL were younger (≤60 years: 57% vs. 38%; P<.001), more frequently had ECOG PS 0-1 (79% vs 76%; P= 0.012), stage III-IV (79% vs 63%; P<.001), B symptoms (60% vs 38%; P<.001), and liver involvement (28% vs 7%; P<.001), compared to DLBCL NOS. Subtype was not associated with survival (OS HR= 0.79, P= 0.262 & EFS HR= 0.93, P= 0.662) when adjusted for IPI score. With a median follow-up of 4.89 years in the DLBCL NOS cohort, we observed similar 4-year EFS (71% vs 67%; P= 0.197) & OS between histologies (80% vs 77%; P= 0.125). These results were confirmed in propensity matching for EFS (HR= 0.98, P= 0.897) and OS (HR= 1.07, P= 0.732). Conclusions: In this large international analysis of patients with newly diagnosed THRLBCL contemporaneously treated, we observed similar survival rates compared to DLBCL NOS treated with R-CHOP and intensive regimens. ECOG PS and the presence of B symptoms were independent factors associated with survival.

Abstract Introduction Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is an indolent and heterogenous disease. Several prognostic models have been proposed to assess outcomes in MZL, including FLIPI, IPI (primarily designed for overall survival [OS]), and MZL-specific scores such as MALT-IPI (event-free survival [EFS]) and MZL-IPI (progression-free survival). FLIPI24 is a recently developed prognostic index for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) treated with first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy (IC), identifying a high-risk population with inferior survival and increased risk of lymphoma-related death. FLIPI24 has also demonstrated robust performance in the entire FL population, including patients under observation. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic utility of FLIPI24 in patients with MZL and to compare its performance with other established indices (FLIPI, MZL-IPI, IPI, MALT-IPI). Methods We pooled harmonized data from newly diagnosed MZL patients with complete available FLIPI24 variables (age, white blood cell count [WBC], hemoglobin [HGB], serum lactate dehydrogenase [LDH], and beta-2-microglobulin [B2M] levels) treated with 1L IC. Data were collected from three prospective international cohorts: NiHiL (Czech Republic; n=897; enrolled 2005–2023), LEO (USA; n=62; 2015–2020), and MER (USA; n=32; 2010–2015), forming a pooled cohort of 991 1L IC-treated patients. The analysis was then extended to include all newly diagnosed MZL patients (n=2,116), regardless of treatment. The primary endpoint in the 1L IC-treated cohort was EFS at 24 months (EFS24), and for all MZL patients, it was OS. Secondary endpoints included OS24 for 1L IC treated cohort, lymphoma-related mortality by FLIPI24 risk groups, and comparative prognostic performance of FLIPI, IPI, and MALT-IPI, by C-statistics; performance of MZL-IPI was assessed on a subgroup of NiHiL patients with available data (n=877 all MZL, n=485 1L IC-treated). Results Among the 991 1L IC-treated patients, the median age at diagnosis was 66 years (range 22–94); 47% were male; 11% had ECOG performance status ≥2, 68% clinical stage III–IV, 42% elevated LDH, 40% IPI 3–5, 42% FLIPI 3–5, and 62% MALT-IPI 2–3. The median B2M level was 2.8 mg/L, WBC 7.0 × 10⁹/L, and HGB 13.1 g/dL. MZL subtypes were: 64% extranodal (EMZL), 22% nodal (NMZL), and 14% splenic (SMZL). Most common 1L IC regimens were R-CVP (46%), R-CHOP-like (32%), R-chlorambucil (9%), and B-R (9%). FLIPI24 stratified patients into low- (18%), intermediate- (37%), and high-risk (45%) groups. High-risk patients were older (median 54 vs 65 vs 71 years for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively; P<0.01), had more frequent adverse baseline features, and were more likely to have the SMZL subtype (2% vs 7% vs 25% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively; P<0.01). After a median follow-up of 7.2 years, EFS24 was 89%, 85%, and 65% (P<0.01) across low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups; OS at 2 years was 98%, 97%, and 79%; and OS at 5 years was 96%, 91%, and 62%, resp. (P<0.01). The 5-year cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related death was 13% in high-risk vs 6% in low-/intermediate-risk groups. FLIPI24 showed better prognostic accuracy for EFS compared with FLIPI, MZL-IPI, IPI and MALT-IPI (C-index: 0.640 vs 0.630, 0.622, 0.620 and 0.603, resp.), as well as for OS (C-index: 0.710 vs 0.672, 0.641, 0.663, 0.652, resp.). Prognostic performance was consistent across MZL subtypes. In the extended cohort of 2,116 newly diagnosed MZL patients (47% receiving IC, 17% rituximab monotherapy, 11% radiotherapy, 8% surgery, 2% antibiotics; 15% observed), FLIPI24 stratified patients into low- (24%), intermediate- (39%), and high-risk (37%) groups. OS at 2 year was 99%, 97%, and 83%, at 5 years it was 96%, 91%, and 62%, resp. (P<0.01). The 5-year cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related death was 12% in high-risk vs 4% in low-/intermediate-risk patients. FLIPI24 outperformed other indices (OS C-index: 0.754 vs MZL-IPI 0.654, FLIPI 0.700, MALT-IPI 0.694, IPI 0.699). Conclusion FLIPI24 demonstrates strong and consistent prognostic performance across all MZL subtypes, identifying ~40% of patients as high-risk with significantly worse survival and increased lymphoma-related mortality. The FLIPI24 outperforms FLIPI, MZL-IPI, IPI, and MALT-IPI in predicting outcomes and may serve as a practical tool to guide risk-adapted management and selection of patients for novel therapies in MZL. Funding: NU21-03-00411, P50 CA97274, U01 CA195568.

Abstract Introduction The International Prognostic Index (IPI, NEJM, 1993) has guided risk stratification in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) for over three decades. Its simplicity and clinical utility have driven its widespread adoption, even in the era of precision medicine. However, the prognostic value of the IPI and its components may not be uniform across the age spectrum of LBCL patients. We evaluated the contemporary prognostic performance of the IPI in a large international cohort, focusing on age-stratified performance and the relative contributions of its individual components, grouped as patient- and disease-related factors. Methods We harmonized and pooled data from 6,941 patients with newly diagnosed systemic LBCL treated with R-CHOP-like regimens (R-CHOP, R-miniCHOP, DA-EPOCH-R, R-CHOEP, R-CHOP+X) with complete IPI data from three prospective cohorts: NiHiL (Czech Republic, n=4,590; 2010–2023), LEO (USA, n=1,789; 2015–2020), and MER (USA, n=562; 2010–2015). IPI components included age, ECOG performance status (PS) as patient-related, and Ann Arbor clinical stage, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and extranodal (EN) involvement as disease-related factors. Prognostic performance was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression models and C-statistics. Age-stratified analysis was performed for: ≤40 years (7%; n=492), 41–60 years (28%; n=1,909), 61–80 years (59%; n=4,080), and >80 years (7%; n=460). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results In the pooled cohort, the median age was 66 years (range 18–95). Compared to the original IPI cohort (n=3,273), our cohort was older (age >60 years: 66% vs 41%) but otherwise comparable: ECOG PS 2–4 (25% vs 24%), clinical stage III–IV (63% vs 66%), elevated LDH (60% vs 52%), and >1 EN involvement (32% vs 30%). In multivariable analysis, age (≤60 vs >60 years) was the strongest predictor of OS (HR=2.78; vs HR=1.96 in original IPI report), followed by ECOG PS (HR=2.07; vs 1.80), clinical stage (HR=1.50; vs 1.47), LDH (HR=1.41; vs 1.85, all P<0.01); EN involvement was not significant (P=0.50, HR=1.03 vs 1.48). Risk group distribution shifted from the original IPI: 28% were low-risk (0–1 factor; vs 35%), 23% low-intermediate (2; vs 27%), 24% high-intermediate (3; vs 22%), and 25% high-risk (4–5; vs 16%). Corresponding 2-year OS rates were 95%, 86%, 78%, and 63%, superior to those of the original IPI cohort (87%, 67%, 55%, 44%; pre-rituximab era). Age was associated with an increasing risk of mortality, with a more pronounced rise beyond 60 years. In a piecewise Cox model, the HR per year was 1.04 for ages ≤60 (linear), 1.05 for 61–69 (accelerated), and 1.06 for ≥70 years (exponential, all P<0.01). ECOG PS retained prognostic significance across age groups: HRs were 1.87 (P=0.06) for ≤40 years, 1.63 (P<0.01) for 41–60, 2.22 (P<0.01) for 61–80, and 1.43 (P<0.01) for >80 years. The strength of other IPI components declined with age. Clinical stage showed decreasing impact: HR 2.08 (P=0.09), 1.97 (P<0.01), 1.49 (P<0.01), and 1.31 (P=0.05). LDH was significant only up to age 80 years: HRs were 2.07 (P=0.04), 1.96 (P<0.01), 1.32 (P<0.01), and 1.21 (P=0.13). EN involvement was non-significant across all groups: HRs were 1.37 (P=0.34), 1.26 (P=0.05), 0.98 (P=0.74), and 1.06 (P=0.67). The IPI C-statistics was 0.676 overall and declined with age: ≤40 years (0.708), 41–60 years (0.683), 61–80 years (0.641), and >80 years (0.598). We next stratified the IPI factors into patient- (age, ECOG PS) and disease-related (clinical stage, LDH, EN involvement). In patients ≤40 years, disease-related factors outperformed patient-related (C-index 0.693 vs 0.602), as in the 41–60 group (C-index 0.677 vs 0.589). In patients aged 61–80, predictive values were comparable (0.613 vs 0.622). In >80-year-olds, both declined substantially (0.580 vs 0.568). Conclusion The IPI remains a valuable prognostic tool in LBCL, particularly among younger patients. However, its overall predictive accuracy declines with age. In patients ≤60 years old, prognosis is primarily driven by disease-related factors, suggesting a role for molecular classifiers to enhance risk stratification. In older patients, incorporation of additional patient-level factors, such as comorbidities and nutritional status could be considered. These findings underscore the need for more individualized prognostic tools for LBCL patients. Funding: NU21-03-00411, P50 CA97274, U01 CA195568, Charles University Haematology-Oncology Cooperatio Program.