Eyre, Toby A

PURPOSE In large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), use of high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) to prevent CNS relapse (so-called CNS prophylaxis) remains controversial. International guidelines continue to recommend HD-MTX in patients deemed ultra high risk (UHR) because of a lack of robust data specific to these subgroups. This study was designed to examine the impact of HD-MTX specifically in UHR patients. METHODS Data from two previous retrospective analyses were combined to produce a cohort of UHR patients (≥1 of the following criteria: CNS international prognostic index score 5-6; testicular, renal/adrenal, or breast involvement; ≥3 extranodal sites), treated with or without HD-MTX. The primary outcome was CNS relapse rate (isolated or concurrent with systemic relapse) measured from diagnosis with additional landmark analysis of all responding patients with no progression event at 6 months. RESULTS Analyses were performed on 1,923 patients meeting UHR criteria. No significant difference in 3-year CNS relapse rate was observed between no HD-MTX (n = 1,051) versus HD-MTX patients (n = 872), including in multivariable analyses adjusting for baseline characteristics (3-year rate, 9.3% v 8.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.57]). Analyses restricted to isolated CNS relapse also confirmed no difference (5.9% v 5.7%; adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.53]). In the landmark analysis (no HD-MTX n = 782, HD-MTX n = 773), no difference in 3-year CNS relapse was observed (6.7% v 6.6%, adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.44]). CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the largest international comparative data set of patients with LBCL with UHR features showing no significant reduction in CNS relapse with HD-MTX in all UHR or in any individual subgroup. Despite inherent limitations of retrospective analyses, the data strongly support previous studies in suggesting HD-MTX prophylaxis has no meaningful benefit for most patients.

Abstract Richter transformation (RT) is defined as an aggressive lymphoma emerging in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL). Despite novel therapeutics developed in CLL, RT is associated with poor outcomes. In light of recent progress regarding the diagnostic procedures and therapeutic concepts of RT, an international group of experts, under the coordination of the European Research Initiative on CLL, has developed consensus recommendations for clinical procedures and future research on this disease. Patients with RT typically present with a rapid clinical decline, worsening B-symptoms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and/or rapidly enlarging lymphadenopathy. Workup should include a positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan for patients with suspected RT. An excisional biopsy should be taken from an accessible lesion, preferably with the highest fluorodeoxyglucose avidity, and analyzed for the presence of aggressive lymphoma. The molecular relationship to the original CLL clone(s) should be defined. Because no effective standard treatment for RT exists, patients should be treated in a clinical trial. Response of both RT and CLL should be assessed at an early time point, and survival end points should be prioritized in trial design. We hope that these recommendations can help to harmonize clinical and translational research and improve outcomes for patients with RT.

Abstract The management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone unprecedented changes over the last decade. Modern targeted therapies are incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, patients have begun to develop resistance or intolerance to multiple classes. Symptomatic patients previously treated with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) and venetoclax represent a new and rapidly growing unmet need in CLL. Here, we define unmet needs in a modern treatment context. We also critically review the literature for PI3K inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy and lack of data to support their utility following BTKis and venetoclax. Finally, we suggest opportunities to ensure the continued innovation for patients with CLL.

Abstract The treatment of patients with Bing-Neel syndrome (BNS) is not standardized. We included patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) and a radiologic and/or cytologic diagnosis of BNS treated with ibrutinib monotherapy. Response assessment was based on criteria for BNS from the 8th International Workshop for WM. Survival from BNS diagnosis (BNS survival), survival from ibrutinib initiation to last follow-up or death (ibrutinib survival), and time from ibrutinib initiation to ibrutinib discontinuation for toxicity, progression, or death (event-free survival [EFS]) were estimated. Twenty-eight patients were included in our study. The median age at BNS diagnosis was 65 years. Ibrutinib was the first line of treatment for BNS in 39% of patients. Ibrutinib was administered orally at a dose of 560 and 420 mg once daily in 46% and 54% of patients, respectively; symptomatic and radiologic improvements were seen in 85% and 60% of patients within 3 months of therapy. At best response, 85% of patients had improvement or resolution of BNS symptoms, 83% had improvement or resolution of radiologic abnormalities, and 47% had cleared the disease in the cerebrospinal fluid. The 2-year EFS rate with ibrutinib was 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-91%), the 2-year ibrutinib survival rate was 81% (95% CI, 49%-94%), and the 5-year BNS survival rate was 86% (95% CI, 63%-95%). Ibrutinib therapy is effective in patients with BNS and should be considered as a treatment option in these patients.