Farooq, Umar

ABSTRACTDiffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients that fail to achieve a complete metabolic response with frontline immunochemotherapy have a poor prognosis. Genomic profiling has led to a broader understanding of the molecular drivers in DLBCL, but it is unknown how well current classifiers identify patients that will experience primary treatment resistance (PTR). Using whole exome and RNA sequencing data from newly diagnosed DLBCL patients, we evaluated the genomic landscape of PTR and compared it to that of non‐PTR DLBCL. We found a significant increase in the frequency of TP53 (34% vs. 15%, p = 0.005) and ARID1A mutations (21% vs. 7%, p = 0.007) in PTR cases, with pathway analysis further demonstrating a downregulation of TP53 and an increase in chromatin modifying pathways. These results suggest that TP53 and ARID1A may be key mediators of PTR and important pathways contributing to the poor outcomes. We found that the current molecular classifiers were unable to identify PTR cases at diagnosis. However, our newly identified high‐risk signature identified 46% of PTR cases at diagnosis. Overall, these results contribute to our understanding of the genomic landscape of patients with primary treatment resistance.

Abstract Little is known about the central nervous system (CNS) risk in high-grade B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBL NOS). Hence, we sought to describe the rates of baseline CNS involvement, risk of CNS recurrence after primary therapy, and management strategies in HGBL NOS. In this multicenter retrospective study, we included 160 adults with newly diagnosed HGBL NOS treated between 2016 and 2021 at 20 US institutions. Eleven patients (7%) had baseline CNS involvement at diagnosis (leptomeningeal = 6, parenchymal = 4, and both = 1). Baseline CNS involvement was significantly associated only with MYC rearrangement (OR = 3.5) and testicular (in men) or female pelvic (in women) involvement (OR = 8.1). There was no significant difference in survival outcomes between patients with HGBL NOS with (median PFS = 4 years) or without (median PFS = 2.4 years) baseline CNS involvement (P = 0.45). The cumulative incidence of CNS recurrence at 3 years was 11%. Patients with baseline CNS involvement were at the highest risk (48.5% vs 8% for those without baseline CNS involvement) and were excluded from the risk factors analysis for CNS recurrence. The risk for CNS recurrence was significantly associated with blood or bone marrow involvement, CD5 expression, non–germinal center B-cell subtype, and “dual-expresser lymphoma” phenotype, however, high CNS IPI was not. The prognosis of relapsed HGBL NOS was poor, regardless of whether recurrence was systemic or limited to the CNS, and with currently available salvage strategies, including autologous transplantation and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell modalities, almost all patients with CNS recurrence ultimately succumbed to their disease.

Abstract Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials remains a persistent challenge. Restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria have been shown to exacerbate this problem. We previously identified that up to 24% of patients treated with standard immunochemotherapy would have been excluded from recent first-line trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) based on 5 laboratory-based criteria. These ineligible patients had worse clinical outcomes and increased deaths related to lymphoma progression, suggesting the potential exclusion of patients who could have benefited most from the novel therapies being evaluated. Using data from the prospectively enrolled Lymphoma Epidemiology Outcomes cohort study, with demographics broadly similar to the US patients diagnosed with lymphoma, we evaluated the impact of laboratory eligibility criteria from recent first-line DLBCL trials across various racial and ethnic backgrounds. There were significant differences in the baseline laboratory values by race/ethnicity with Black/African American (AA) patients having the lowest mean hemoglobin and highest creatinine clearance. Based on recent clinical trial eligibility criteria, AA and Hispanic patients had higher rates of laboratory-based ineligibility than non-Hispanic White patients. The largest gap in the clinical outcomes between eligible and noneligible patients was noted within AA patients with an overall survival hazard ratio based on POLARIX clinical trial criteria of 4.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.83-9.14). A thoughtful approach to the utility of each criterion and cutoffs for eligibility needs to be evaluated in the context of its differential impact across various racial/ethnic groups.

Abstract Patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) that fail to achieve a complete response (CR) or who relapse early after anthracycline-containing immunochemotherapy (IC) have a poor prognosis and are commonly considered to have “primary refractory disease.” However, different definitions of primary refractory disease are used in the literature and clinical practice. In this study, we examined variation in the time to relapse used to define refractory status and association with survival outcomes in patients with primary refractory LBCL in a single-center prospective cohort with validation in an independent multicenter cohort. Patients with newly diagnosed LBCL were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiological Resource cohort (MER; N = 949) or the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort (LEO; N = 2755) from September 2002 to May 2021. Primary refractory LBCL was defined as no response (stable disease [SD]) or progressive disease (PD) during, or by the end of, frontline (1L) IC (primary PD; PPD); partial response at end of treatment (EOT PR); or relapse within 3 to 12 months after achieving CR at EOT to 1L IC (early relapse). In the MER cohort, patients with PPD had inferior overall survival (OS; 2-year OS rate: 15% MER, 31% LEO) when compared with other subgroups considered in defining primary refractory disease, EOT PR (2-year OS rate: 38% MER, 50% LEO) and early relapse (2-year OS rate: 44% MER, 58% LEO). Among patients receiving 1L IC with curative intent, we identified that patients with PPD are the key subgroup with poor outcomes. We propose a definition of primary refractory LBCL as SD or PD during, or by the end of, 1L treatment.

AbstractTo address the current and long‐term unmet health needs of the growing population of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/). A total of 7735 newly diagnosed patients aged 18 years and older with NHL were prospectively enrolled from 7/1/2015 to 5/31/2020 at 8 academic centers in the United States. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 18–99). Participants came from 49 US states and included 538 Black/African‐Americans (AA), 822 Hispanics (regardless of race), 3386 women, 716 age <40 years, and 1513 rural residents. At study baseline, we abstracted clinical, pathology, and treatment data; banked serum/plasma (N = 5883, 76.0%) and germline DNA (N = 5465, 70.7%); constructed tissue microarrays for four major NHL subtypes (N = 1189); and collected quality of life (N = 5281, 68.3%) and epidemiologic risk factor (N = 4489, 58.0%) data. Through August 2022, there were 1492 deaths. Compared to population‐based SEER data (2015–2019), LEO participants had a similar distribution of gender, AA race, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHL subtype, while LEO was underrepresented for patients who were Asian and aged 80 years and above. Observed overall survival rates for LEO at 1 and 2 years were similar to population‐based SEER rates for indolent B‐cell (follicular and marginal zone) and T‐cell lymphomas, but were 10%–15% higher than SEER rates for aggressive B‐cell subtypes (diffuse large B‐cell and mantle cell). The LEO cohort is a robust and comprehensive national resource to address the role of clinical, tumor, host genetic, epidemiologic, and other biologic factors in NHL prognosis and survivorship.

Background: The new standard of care for fit patients with refractory or early relapse of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy. However, for patients with a relapse ≥12 months after completing frontline therapy, salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains the standard of care. There is a need to characterize such patients and their survival in view of the recent shift in treatment paradigm. Methods: Patients with DLBCL that relapsed ≥12 months after R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like frontline therapy who underwent salvage therapy and ASCT at Mayo Clinic or University of Iowa between 07/2000 and 4/2020 were identified from institutional lymphoma and transplant databases. Clinical characteristics, treatment information, and outcome data were abstracted. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of ASCT were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. Statistical analyses were performed in JMP v15. Results: A total of 158 patients with late relapsed DLBCL who underwent salvage chemotherapy and ASCT were identified. Baseline characteristics at relapse/ASCT are shown in Table 1. Median time from frontline therapy completion to 1st relapse was 26.4 months (range 12.0-152.4). Median age at relapse was 63 years (range 19-77), and 96 (61%) patients were male. A minority (3; 3%) had ECOG PS ≥2. 43 (52%) patients had an elevated serum LDH level, 70 (65%) had advanced stage disease, and 12 (11%) had &gt;1 extranodal involvement. Median line of salvage therapy was 1 (range 1-3), and 17 (11%) patients required &gt;1 line of salvage therapy. Best response before ASCT was complete response (CR) in 97 (61%) and partial response (PR) in 61 (39%). Median age at ASCT was 64 years (range 19-78). Median follow-up after ASCT was 91.5 months (95% CI 74.0-103.3). Median PFS and OS were 54.5 (95% CI 31.9-77.8) and 99.8 (95% CI 60.3-144.5) months, respectively. The 2-year PFS and OS rates were 64% (95% CI 56-71) and 81% (95% CI 74-87), respectively. No statistically significant difference in PFS was seen based on age at ASCT, sex, serum LDH, stage, or extranodal site involvement of &gt;1 at relapse (Table 2). However, patients who required &gt; 1 line of salvage therapy, compared to those requiring 1 line of salvage therapy, had significantly inferior PFS (median 6.1 vs 61.8 months, P &lt;0.0001) and OS (17.8 vs 111.7 months, P &lt;0.0004). There was no statistically significant difference in survival in patients who achieved CR vs PR prior to ASCT, with a median PFS of 61.8 vs 37.8 months( P=0.21) and a median OS of 111.7 vs 78.3 months ( P=0.62). Patients who achieved CR after 1 line of salvage therapy had the most favorable PFS and OS, with a median PFS of 65.6 vs 45.4 vs 6.1 vs 7.6 months ( P=0.0004) and a median OS of 133.0 vs 88.9 vs 24.2 vs 17.6 months ( P=0.004) in patients achieving CR after 1 line of salvage therapy vs PR after 1 line of salvage therapy vs CR after &gt;1 line of salvage therapy vs PR after &gt;1 line of salvage therapy, respectively (Table 2). In multivariate Cox regression models adjusted for age at ASCT and sex, patients requiring &gt; 1 line of salvage therapy, compared to those who required 1 line of salvage therapy, had significantly inferior PFS with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.25 (95% CI 1.82-5.78, P &lt;0.0001) and OS with a HR of 3.50 (95% CI 1.86-6.60, P=0.0001). However, there remained no significant difference in survival based on response status (CR vs PR) with a HR for PFS 0.78 (95% CI 0.52-1.17, P=0.23) and OS 0.93 (95% CI 0.58-1.47, P=0.74). Conclusions: Survival after ASCT was excellent in patients with late relapsed DLBCL achieving CR after 1 line of salvage chemotherapy. Favorable survival outcomes were seen in patients who achieved PR after 1 line of salvage therapy. These data support the current clinical practice of ASCT consolidation in these patients. However, post-ASCT survival was poor in patients who required more than 1 line of salvage chemotherapy, despite achieving a satisfactory response to subsequent lines of salvage therapy. Alternative treatment strategies such as CAR-T therapy should be considered in such patients.

Background: The goal of clinical trial eligibility criteria is to identify a population of patients that have high risk disease or have unmet needs with standard of care therapy. Frontline trials of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) include patients with International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 as a way to identify a high risk population. Trials typically include patients with IPI score=2, and sometimes IPI score=1, to expand the eligible patient population. However, broader patient populations must be balanced by the potential inclusion of low-risk patients with excellent outcomes to standard of care therapy, leading to potentially underpowered trials. IPI is a sum of dichotomous variables which makes implementation easy but can result in heterogeneity in outcomes within IPI scores. This heterogeneity may be caused by unequal prognostic information across IPI variables, loss of information within IPI variables due to the use of cutoffs, as well as information captured by variables that are not included in the IPI. In prior modeling of outcomes in DLBCL (Maurer et al, AJH 2016), we identified that: i) LDH has a strong prognostic ability beyond the upper limit of normal (ULN) and ii) bulky disease is an independent variable for prognosis. Here we evaluate if the presence of either of these two variables, easily captured at diagnosis within the current standard clinical work-up, can identify a high-risk subset of patients within the population of those with IPI scores of 1-2. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis in the LEO Cohort at 8 academic medical centers from 2015-2020 and prospectively followed. Inclusion criteria for this analysis was aggressive B-cell lymphoma typically included in frontline trials (e.g. DLBCL, high grade B-cell lymphoma, FL3B), IPI 1-5, frontline therapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, stage II-IV disease and ages 18-80 years. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until progression, initiation of 2 nd line therapy, or death due to any cause; EFS was evaluated at 24 months (EFS24). Very high LDH was defined as LDH&gt;1.3xULN based on prior modeling (Maurer et al, AJH 2016) and bulky disease was defined as maximum tumor diameter (MTD) of 7cm or greater. IPI 1 and 2 were first evaluated separately and then combined due to similar outcomes in patients with very high LDH and/or bulky disease. High risk IPI1-2 was defined as the presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH within an IPI score of 1-2. Confirmation was performed in a similar cohort of patients enrolled in the Iowa/Mayo SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) from 2002-2015; bulky disease was defined using a 10cm cutoff per availability in MER data collection forms. Results: 1560 patients from LEO were analyzed; median age was 64 years (IQR: 54-71), 42% were female and 83% had stage III/IV disease; subtype was DLBCL, NOS in 1335 (86%). IPI was 1-2 in 766 patients, 3 in 496 patients and 4-5 in 298 patients ( table). 391 (51%) with IPI1-2 had either bulky disease and/or very high LDH (high risk IPI1-2) and 375 had low-risk IPI1-2. EFS24 in high risk IPI1-2 (71.6%, 95% CI: 67.2-76.3) was significantly inferior to IPI1-2 without bulky disease or very high LDH (85.2, 95% CI: 81.7-88.9 logrank p=0.0035, figure) and similar to patients with IPI3 (70.7%, 95% CI: 66.8-74.9). Consistent results were observed in 1014 patients analyzed in the MER using a higher cutoff for bulky disease (10cm) due to data availability ( table). Patients with high risk IPI1-2 had significantly shorter diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in both the LEO (per-week OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.77-0.88) and MER (per-week OR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.68-0.87) cohorts compared to low risk IPI1-2, both p&lt;0.0001). In sensitivity analysis, LEO results were similar when performed in the subset of patients with DLBCL, NOS. Conclusion: The presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH at presentation identifies a high-risk subset of patients with IPI 1-2 that have similar outcomes to patients with IPI 3 disease. These simple criteria can be easily implemented within existing clinical trial diagnostic work-ups. Future trial designs in frontline aggressive B-cell lymphoma should include patients with IPI 3-5 and patients with IPI 1-2 with either bulky disease and/or very high LDH to better define a high-risk population of patients for clinical trial eligibility.

Introduction: Historically, older patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) were often deemed ineligible for curative-intent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) due to age and concern for increased toxicity related to comorbidities. We previously demonstrated in the pivotal ZUMA-7 study that older pts with R/R LBCL can safely receive axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) as second-line (2L) therapy with improved event-free survival (EFS), response rate, and quality of life compared with standard of care (SOC) based on results from the primary EFS analysis (Westin, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2023). At a median follow-up of 47.2 months (mo), results from the ZUMA-7 primary overall survival (OS) analysis demonstrated superior OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; stratified two-sided log-rank P=0.03; Westin, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023; NCT03391466). We now report updated efficacy and safety results from the primary OS analysis among ZUMA-7 pts aged ≥65 years (y) and ≥70 y. Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to axi-cel or SOC (2-3 cycles of platinum-based chemoimmunotherapy; responding pts proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT). The primary OS analysis occurred 5 y after the first pt was randomized (01/25/2018) per protocol. Other endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment and safety. A planned subgroup analysis of pts aged ≥65 y was conducted in addition to an analysis for those ≥70 y. Multivariate analyses were performed to examine treatment efficacy with axi-cel compared with SOC after adjusting for multiple covariates, including sex, disease type, molecular subgroup, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), tumor burden, and age; strata for these analyses included second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI), and relapsed vs refractory disease. Exploratory analyses were conducted to determine the association between OS and axi-cel product characteristics for pts aged ≥65 y. Results: A total of 109 pts were included in the analysis (axi-cel: 51 were ≥65 y, 26 of whom were ≥70 y, maximum age was 80 y; SOC: 58 were ≥65 y, 27 of whom were ≥70 y, maximum age was 81 y). Compared with SOC pts at baseline, more axi-cel pts had high-risk features, including aaIPI 2-3, elevated LDH, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma. At a median follow-up of 46.6 mo, OS was prolonged in the axicel vs SOC arm in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.691; 95% CI, 0.401-1.190) and for those ≥70 y (HR, 0.330; 95% CI, 0.135-0.809). Similar results were observed using the piecewise Cox regression model. The median OS for axi-cel and SOC pts was 43.5 mo (95% CI, 20.9-not estimable [NE]) and 19.6 mo (95% CI, 12.3-NE), respectively, among those aged ≥65 y, and 24.7 mo (95% CI, 12.8-NE) and 11.2 mo (95% CI, 6.1-NE), respectively, among those aged ≥70 y. In the SOC arm, 57% and 52% of pts received subsequent cellular immunotherapy off protocol in pts aged ≥65 y and ≥70 y, respectively. Multivariate analyses demonstrated an even greater OS benefit with axi-cel over SOC when adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.526; 95% CI, 0.266-1.041) and in pts aged ≥70 y (HR, 0.184; 95% CI, 0.045-0.755). PFS assessed by investigator confirmed benefit of axi-cel over SOC in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.406; 95% CI, 0.230-0.715) and in pts aged ≥70 y (HR, 0.206; 95% CI, 0.078-0.547). The median PFS for axi-cel and SOC pts was 28.7 mo (95% CI, 5.1-NE) and 5.0 mo (95% CI, 2.8-7.2), respectively, for those aged ≥65 y, and 11.4 mo (95% CI, 4.1-NE) and 2.7 mo (95% CI, 1.7-5.0), respectively, for those aged ≥70 y. No new treatment-related deaths occurred since the primary EFS analysis. There were no manufacturing failures for any pt who underwent leukapheresis. Similar associations between product characteristics and outcomes were observed among the elderly and overall populations, including improved OS associated with a greater (&gt;median) proportion of juvenile or stem memory T-cell phenotype cells (CCR7+CD45RA+ T cells) in the axi-cel product among pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.369; 95% CI, 0.138-0.984). Conclusion: Axi-cel as 2L therapy prolonged survival over SOC in pts aged ≥65 y, including in pts aged ≥70 y. These findings confirm that age alone should not be a barrier for consideration of CAR T-cell therapy, supporting the use of axi-cel as a curative-intent 2L therapeutic option for older pts with R/R LBCL.

Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) after frontline immunochemotherapy (IC) is an important endpoint in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 have similar survival compared to age- and sex-matched general population. The role of EFS24 in predicting subsequent survival has not been established in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), possibly due to perceived poor survival historically. In the last decade, the outcomes of MCL are improving in the evolving treatment landscape. In this international multicenter study, we investigated conditional survival and cause of death in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC in the older and more recent eras. Methods: Outcomes after frontline IC were evaluated in 5 independent cohorts that included over 3000 patients in total: Mayo/Iowa MER prospective cohort, BC Cancer retrospective population-based cohort, US 12-center retrospective cohort, Swedish Lymphoma Registry, and Danish National Lymphoma Registry. For each cohort, 2 treatment eras were defined based on cohort-specific shifts in treatment patterns (Table 1). Overall survival (OS) after diagnosis and after achieving EFS24 were compared to the background age- and sex-matched general population using a standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Cumulative incidences of cause-specific deaths were analyzed using a competing risk model. Results: In the MER cohort, patients treated in Era M1 (2002-2009; n=147) and Era M2 (2010-2015; n=153) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population. A lower SMR in Era M2 vs M1 (2.25 vs 3.46) suggests a narrower gap in OS compared to the general US population. Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. In Era M1, patients who achieved EFS24 still had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR=2.40, 95% CI 1.76-3.19), and lymphoma remained the leading cause of death. For patients in Era M2 who achieved EFS24, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was not statistically significant with current follow-up (SMR=1.43, 95% CI 0.93-2.09), and lymphoma was no longer the leading cause of death (Table 2). In the BC cohort, patients treated in Era B2 (6/2013-2019; n=188) vs Era B1 (2003-5/2013; n=250) had a narrower gap in OS compared to the general British Columbia population (SMR 4.53 vs 6.69). Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. For patients achieving EFS24, the gap in OS was narrower in Era B2 vs B1 (SMR 3.56 vs 4.99). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the single leading cause of death for patients in Era B1 but not in Era B2 (Table 2). In the US 12-center cohort, patients treated in Era U1 (2002-2011; n=312) and Era U2 (2012-2016; n=417) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR 2.68 and 2.92, respectively). In patients who achieved EFS24, with current follow up, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was statistically significant in Era U1 (SMR=2.01, 95% CI 1.50-2.64) but not in Era U2 (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 0.82-2.34). Lymphoma was not the leading cause of death after achieving EFS24 (Table 2). In the Swedish cohort, the gap in OS compared to the general Swedish population was narrower in Era S2 (2013-2018; n=439) vs S1 (2006-2012; n=442), both after frontline IC (SMR 4.8 vs 5.4) and after achieving EFS24 (SMR 2.6 vs 3.4). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the leading cause of death for patients in Era S1 but not in Era S2 (Table 2). In the Danish cohort, patients treated in Era D2 (2014-2020; n=370) vs Era D1 (2004-2013; n=461) had a slightly narrower gap in OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR 1.90 vs 2.10). For patients who achieved EFS24, those in Era D1 still had inferior OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.68), but the OS difference compared to the general Danish population in Era D2 was not statistically significant (SMR=1.27, 95% CI 0.92-1.72) with current follow-up (Table 2). Cause of death data were not available in this cohort. Conclusion: Survival in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC improved in the more recent treatment era and moved closer to the background expected survival. After achieving EFS24, lymphoma-related mortality was no longer the leading cause of death in the more recent era. EFS24 following frontline treatment may become a critical endpoint for predicting subsequent outcomes in patients with MCL in the modern era.