Hirata, Jamie

Abstract Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) poses a challenge in hematology given its varied symptoms, and the complex interplay between disease and treatment effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The phase 3 POLARIX study demonstrated superior progression-free survival and a similar safety profile with polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) vs R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in patients with previously untreated DLBCL. Here, we evaluate HRQoL through patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to fully characterize the patient experience in the POLARIX study. Changes from baseline in HRQoL, lymphoma symptoms, and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were assessed, as well as incidence and severity of common symptoms by PROs vs clinician-reported adverse events (AEs). Baseline characteristics of PRO-evaluable patients (N = 874) were consistent. Comparison between PROs and clinician-reported AEs revealed a notable discordance; patients generally reported a higher incidence of symptoms than clinicians, emphasizing the need for patient-centric tools to accurately capture the patient experience. Both treatments exhibited rapid and sustained improvements in HRQoL and lymphoma symptoms, with the most substantial improvements seen in global health status/QoL, lymphoma symptoms, fatigue, role, emotional, and social functioning. GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, and vomiting) were generally similar between treatment arms and returned to baseline levels after treatment completion. These HRQoL data underscore the complementarity of PROs, as an adjunct to clinician-reported AEs, in evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of new treatments, including Pola-R-CHP, which may represent a new benchmark for patient-reported HRQoL in previously untreated DLBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03274492.

12100 Background: The safety profiles of novel agents are mainly based on clinician-reported adverse events (AEs) from clinical trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may better represent the treatment burden experienced by patients (pts) compared with clinician-reported AEs. Using data from POLARIX, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 3 international study (NCT03274492), we previously presented PRO and clinician-reported data showing similar rates of neuropathy (Trněný et al. 2022). Here, we evaluate the reporting of other common symptoms using PRO and clinician-reported data in POLARIX. Methods: POLARIX methods were previously described (Tilly et al. 2022); this analysis included all pts with PRO data. PRO and clinician-reported data described the incidence and severity of fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Clinician-reported severity grading was based on the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) v4.0. PROs were collected using the European Organisation Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), which was administered to pts at clinic visits on Day 1 of Cycles 1 (baseline), 2, 3, and 5, and end of treatment (EOT). PRO severity scores included ‘A little’, ‘Quite a bit’, and ‘Very much’. Results: Overall, 825 pts were evaluable. From baseline to EOT, PROs showed a higher incidence of symptoms compared with clinicians for fatigue (98% vs 27%), constipation (68% vs 29%), diarrhea (56% vs 26%), nausea (58% vs 40%), and vomiting (24% vs 15%). PRO severity scores of ‘Quite a bit’ or ‘Very much’ were reported in 33% of pts for fatigue, 29% for constipation, 17% for diarrhea, 19% for nausea, and 7% for vomiting. Clinicians reported Grade ≥2 symptoms in 11% of pts for fatigue, 11% for constipation, 11% for diarrhea, 14% for nausea, and 6% for vomiting. Conclusions: In POLARIX, pts reported a higher incidence and severity of symptoms compared with clinicians. Although distinct scales were used, the differences in symptom rates reported by pts and clinicians were clinically meaningful. These data may have implications for symptom management, including physician evaluation and communication of symptom expectations for pts. Reporting of symptoms by PROs should be incorporated into clinical trials as an adjunct to standard AE reporting to better characterize the patient experience. Clinical trial information: NCT03274492 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Abstract 775 Introduction: WW has been an initial strategy for advanced stage FL because randomized trials showed no clear benefit for immediate initiation of therapy with single agent alkylators when compared to deferring therapy (Brice, JCO 1997; Ardeshna, Lancet 2003), although a recent trial raises questions about WW in the era of rituximab (R) based frontline therapies (Ardeshna, ASH Meeting 2010). Methods: The NLCS is a prospective, multicenter, observational study collecting data on 2,738 newly diagnosed pts with FL diagnosed from 2004–2007 at 265 US sites (80% non-academic). Initial management decisions were made by the treating physician and were categorized as WW (for pts who did not receive therapy in the 90 period following diagnoses and were coded by physicians as WW) or active therapy (AT) including: R alone, R-chemotherapy (RChemo), or other. Baseline clinical factors and treatment setting were compared for WW and AT pts using multivariable logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimation and Cox models were used to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), time to 2nd and 3rd line management strategy (TT2, TT3), transformation-free survival (TFS), PFS following 1st AT, and overall survival (OS). Due to differences between WW and AT groups, adjusted Cox regression models are presented for the primary analysis of study endpoints controlling for sex, community vs. academic practice site, FL grade, and FLIPI. All time to event analyses were calculated from the 90 day period following diagnosis to allow enrollment in WW, and PFS was calculated from the starting point to the clinician's recording of progressive disease (PD) or death. Results: Among 1,737 pts presenting with stage III/IV FL in the analysis population, 237 underwent WW and 1,500 received AT immediately following diagnosis including: 241 pts treated with R, 1046 with RChemo, 26 with radiation, and 187 other therapies. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that the following pt characteristics were predictive of selection of WW rather than initial AT: age > 60 years, no B-symptoms, FL grade 1 or 2, ECOG PS = 0, ≤1 extranodal sites involved, and LDH ≤ULN (all p < 0.05). Median PFS and TT2 were 27 and 35 months for WW, and 64 months and not reached for AT. With a median follow-up of 55 months, 17% of WW pts and 19% of AT pts have died, with no significant difference in OS between WW and AT (p = 0.31). Compared with WW, RChemo improved PFS: adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.36, TFS: HR=0.65, TT2: HR=0.48, and TT3: HR=0.53, all p<0.01. For most of the 145 WW pts that later initiated an AT, PD was recorded as the reason for treatment (83%). ATs following WW were: R (51, 35%), RCVP (21, 14%), RCHOP (16, 11%), R + other chemo (23, 16%), investigational (15, 10%), chemo alone (9, 6%), radiation (8, 6%), BMT (1, 1%), or other therapy (1, 1%). The median PFS for R was 42 months when given at diagnosis and 55 months when given following WW. The median PFS for RChemo was 71 months when given at diagnosis and 37 months when given following WW. After adjustment for FLIPI, FL grade, sex, practice setting, and type of treatment, WW adversely affected PFS following 1st AT, H=2.02, p <0.0001. Conclusions: FL pts in the US who undergo initial WW are treated at a median of nearly 3 years. Median PFS following RChemo, but not R is shorter when utilized after period of WW than at diagnosis – albeit in different clinical circumstances. Additional follow-up is needed to assess the tradeoff of this time without therapy with as yet no observable differences in OS. Disclosures: Sinha: CELGENE: Research Funding. Friedberg:Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Link:Genentech: Consultancy. Flowers:Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

Abstract Abstract 97 Background: There is no consensus or standard of care for front-line therapy for FL as demonstrated by our initial publication of the National LymphoCare Study (NLCS) showing that strategies used in newly diagnosed FL patients (pts) in the US included: watchful waiting (17.7%), rituximab (R) with chemotherapy (51.9%), R alone (13.9%), radiation therapy (5.6%), chemotherapy (3.2%), or a clinical trial (6.1%). Given the lack of observational data comparing the effectiveness of front-line R-chemotherapy regimens, we examined the outcomes for patients with stage III/IV FL receiving R with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (RCVP), R with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (RCHOP), or R with a fludarabine-based regimen (RFlu) as first-line therapy. Methods: The NLCS is a prospective, multicenter, observational study collecting data on 2,738 previously untreated patients (pts) with FL diagnosed from 2004 to 2007 at 265 sites in the US. Initial management decisions were made by the treating physician without protocol-specified treatment assignments. Descriptive statistics for the baseline characteristics of pts who received RCVP, RCHOP, and RFlu were compared using Pearson Chi-square tests. A generalized logistic model was used to identify baseline factors of clinical interest (FLIPI, sex, practice setting [academic vs. community]) that were correlated with treatment. Kaplan–Meier estimation was used to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the treatment regimens; comparisons for the 2-year landmark estimates were obtained using a Wald statistic. PFS was defined as the number of days from diagnosis up to and including the date of progressive disease (PD) as assessed by the treating physician or death from any cause. Pts who had not yet experienced PD at the time of analysis were censored at the date of the most recent response assessment. To evaluate the effects of treatment on PFS and OS, Cox proportional hazards models were used controlling for FLIPI, sex, community or academic practice setting, and maintenance R or observation following treatment. Results: Of the 2,738 pts enrolled in NLCS, 926 pts were identified as having stage III/IV FL and having received the regimens of interest. Within this cohort 60% received RCHOP (n=558), 27% received RCVP (n=247) and the remaining 13% received RFlu (n=121). Baseline characteristics were correlated with induction treatment and whether a patient received subsequent R maintenance. Women (odds ratio [OR]=1.50, 95%CI 1.05–2.13) and pts aged >60 years (OR=2.36, 95%CI 1.64–3.38) more commonly received RCVP than RCHOP, and pts with LDH > upper limit of normal (OR=1.75, 95%CI 1.02–3.03) more commonly received RCHOP than RFlu. A greater % of pts receiving RCVP (61%) had poor-risk FLIPI (3–5) vs. RCHOP (49%) or RFlu (44%). In this cohort, 60% of RCVP, 43% of RCHOP, and 46% of RFlu pts received maintenance R. The overall response rates for RCVP, RCHOP, and RFlu were 88%, 94%, and 96%, respectively, and 2-year PFS was 72% (95% CI 66–78%) for RCVP, 78% (95%CI 74–81%) for RCHOP, and 76% (95%CI 67–-83%) for RFlu. There were no significant differences in PFS between treatments after adjustment (p= 0.07). However, with a median follow-up of 58 months there were significant differences in unadjusted OS (p=0.03), with 2-year OS probabilities of 88% (95%CI 84–92%) for RCVP, and 91% (84–95%) for RFlu, and 94% (92–96%) for RCHOP (Figure A). After adjustment for sex, FLIPI, practice setting, and maintenance use, the OS benefits of RCHOP persisted over RCVP HR=1.67 (95%CI 1.15–2.42) but not RFlu HR=0.94 (0.53–1.68). The benefits of RCHOP were even more pronounced in poor risk FLIPI pts (Figure B). Conclusions: First-line R-chemotherapy regimens in clinical practice have high overall response rates and high 2-year PFS and OS. With 4.75 years of follow-up in this large pt cohort, these regimens appear similar in response rates and early PFS and OS with suggestions that RCHOP may provide benefits over RCVP particularly for poor risk patients. Disclosures: Sinha: Celgene: Research Funding. Friedberg:Genentech: Consultancy; astellas: ; Lilly:; Abbott/Trubion:; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Cephalon: Consultancy. Hirata:Roche: Equity Ownership; Genentech Inc/Roche: Employment. Flowers:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 3708 Background: Rituximab maintenance (RM) following induction therapy has been demonstrated to increase PFS in randomized trials in both first-line and relapsed settings (ECOG 1496, EORTC 20981, and most recently, PRIMA), and RM has been frequently used in clinical practice in the U.S. and other countries. We examined the various RM approaches used by practicing physicians in the U.S., factors that predicted whether RM was used, and compared the “real-world” effectiveness of RM to the outcomes of observation (Obs) following front-line R-based induction in FL patients (pts). Methods: The National LymphoCare Study is a prospective, multi-center, longitudinal, observational study that collects data on treatment and outcomes for pts diagnosed with FL in the U.S. from 2004–2007. Pts who achieved complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) following initial treatment with R-based therapy and who did not initiate second line therapy during the 215-day period following the date of last dose of initial therapy were categorized as Obs. Pts meeting the same criteria who started maintenance R treatment in the 215-day period comprise the RM group. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify characteristics related to receiving RM. We compared RM and Obs groups in progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS) using Cox proportional hazards models controlling for confounding factors of clinical interest (sex, FLIPI risk group, treatment setting [academic vs. community], and induction therapy). PFS was defined as the number of days from the 215 day period following induction that defined the Obs and RM groups up to and including the date of disease progression as assessed by the treating physician or death from any cause. Pts who had not yet experienced a PFS event at the time of analysis were censored at the date of the most recent response assessment. Results: Of the 2,732 pts enrolled in NLCS, 1,536 pts completed R-based induction therapy. Among these,1,236 pts achieved CR/PR/SD and met other criteria described above to be included in analysis. 557 pts started RM treatment in the 215-day post-induction work up period (128 following R and 429 following R-chemo), and 679 pts were observed (125 following R and 554 following R-chemo). The mean duration of RM was 528 days, and the mean number of RM doses received was 13. 23% received Rx4 every 6 months, 20% Rx1 every 2 or 3 months, and 57% received another schedule. 14% of pts discontinued RM early (n=79). The most common reasons for early discontinuations were disease progression (29%), toxicity (11%), or death (7%). Pts who received R induction were more likely to receive RM than those who received R-chemo as induction (51% vs. 44%). Pts treated in community practices were slightly more likely to receive RM compared with those who were treated in academic centers (46% vs. 40%). In multivariable models, the most significant predictors of receiving RM were grade (I/II), stage (III/IV), geographic region (other than West), community practice setting, and R induction treatment (all p<0.05). After adjusting for FLIPI risk group, induction treatment, and clinical factors, RM significantly improved PFS (HR= 0.72; p= 0.010) and TTNT (HR= 0.74; p= 0.03). At 4 years of follow-up, 11% of pts in the combined population have died and there was no significant difference in OS between RM and Obs groups. 22% (n=124) of RM pts had received 2nd line treatment at the time of analysis, of whom 36% received R alone and 31% received R-chemo. The response rate for 2nd treatment was similar between RM and Obs groups (60% CR/PR for both groups). Conclusions: RM following front-line R-based induction was common in this period. However, a large percentage of pts received a RM schedule that was not consistent with standard published schedules reflecting variation among community practices. Nevertheless, RM use in clinical practice produced significant differences in PFS and TTNT compared to Obs. Importantly, response to second-line treatment was similar between RM and Obs groups. Additional followup is needed to determine whether RM produces OS benefits in this context. Disclosures: Sinha: Celgene: Research Funding. Zhou:RTI-HS: Employment; Novartis: Research Funding. Friedberg:Genentech: Consultancy; astellas: ; Lilly: ; Abbott/Trubion: ; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Cephalon: Consultancy. Hirata:Genentech Inc/Roche: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Flowers:Spectrum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche (unpaid): Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

PurposeThe optimal management of stage I follicular lymphoma, according to consensus guidelines, is based on uncontrolled experiences of select institutions. Diverse treatment approaches are used despite guidelines that recommend radiation therapy (XRT).Patients and MethodsWe analyzed outcomes of patients with stage I follicular lymphoma enrolled onto the National LymphoCare database.ResultsOf 471 patients with stage I follicular lymphoma, 206 patients underwent rigorous staging as defined by both a bone marrow aspirate and biopsy and an imaging study (a computed tomography [CT] scan of the whole body, a positron emission tomography [PET]/CT scan, or both). Rigorously staged patients had superior progression-free survival (PFS) compared with nonrigorously staged patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63). Treatments given to rigorously staged patients were rituximab/chemotherapy (R-chemo; 28%), XRT (27%), observation (17%), systemic therapy + XRT (13%), rituximab monotherapy (12%), and other (3%). With a median follow-up of 57 months for PFS, there were 44 progression events (in 21% of patients) for rigorously staged patients. For these patients, PFS was significantly improved with either R-chemo or systemic therapy + XRT compared with patients receiving XRT alone after adjustment for histology, LDH, and the presence of B symptoms. There were no differences in overall survival.ConclusionIn this largest, prospectively enrolled group of patients with stage I follicular lymphoma, variable treatment approaches resulted in similar excellent outcomes, which challenges the paradigm that XRT should be standard for this presentation.