Kamdar, Manali

We report correlative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analyses from TRANSFORM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03575351 ) evaluating lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus standard of care (salvage immunochemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, autologous stem cell transplantation [ASCT]) in second-line large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). ctDNA association with efficacy was investigated at predefined time points (random assignment, day 43, day 64, and day 126 [3 months after liso-cel, approximately 2 months after ASCT]) for 136 patients using ultrasensitive PhasED-Seq. ctDNA clearance (measurable residual disease [MRD] neg ) predicted longer event-free survival (EFS) at all time points in both arms, with significantly more liso-cel–treated patients achieving MRD neg . Liso-cel demonstrated superior outcomes versus ASCT, including longer EFS, progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response among patients in complete response (CR) and MRD neg . ctDNA re-emergence in patients with CR after ASCT confirmed its potential in predicting relapse. MRD neg remained significantly associated with EFS after adjusting for positron emission tomography (PET) response, while interaction testing revealed a significant interaction between PET status and treatment arm for EFS. Liso-cel achieved deeper, more durable molecular clearance by ctDNA, consistent with superior EFS and PFS versus ASCT for second-line LBCL treatment. ctDNA-MRD provided prognostic value beyond PET, supporting its role as a complementary biomarker for treatment response and relapse prediction.

Abstract Secondary central nervous system (CNS) large B-cell lymphoma (SCNSL) occurs in the de novo setting, as a CNS-isolated relapse, or synchronous (concomitant CNS and systemic) relapse. SCNSL is a devastating event without therapeutic consensus. Thus, we aimed to evaluate treatment outcomes in an international cohort. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR, estimated using competing-risk models) were reported. Prognostic factors were identified in a 6-month landmark multivariate analysis. Outcomes after thiotepa autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (CAR-T) delivered at relapse were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). A total of 1139 patients were included in the analysis (de novo: 537; relapsed SCNSL: 602). Two-year PFS estimates were 40.4%, 43.9%, and 16.2% for de novo SCNSL, CNS-isolated relapse, and synchronous relapse, respectively. Patients with CNS-isolated relapse demonstrated low rates of systemic recurrence (24-month CIR, 6%). Thiotepa-ASCT correlated with longer survival in de novo SCNSL (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .005; and OS: HR, 0.62; P = .023) and CNS-isolated relapses (PFS: HR, 0.55; P = .002; and OS: HR, 0.39; P< .0001). ASCT (thiotepa or no thiotepa) also associated with improved survival in synchronous relapses (PFS: HR, 0.57; P = .023; and OS: HR, 0.48; P = .019). Higher survival with thiotepa-ASCT than CAR-T was observed after PSM (PFS: HR, 0.45; P = .005 and OS: HR, 0.41; P = .014). These data support thiotepa-ASCT in eligible patients, particularly de novo disease and CNS-isolated relapses. CNS-isolated relapse was infrequently associated with systemic recurrence, supporting treatment regimens adopted from primary CNS lymphoma.

Abstract The benefit of rituximab maintenance after first-line (1L) bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains uncertain, with inconsistent results from the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial and several retrospective studies. We conducted a large retrospective study at 27 US and Canadian academic centers to examine the benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR. A total of 911 patients received 1L BR between 2010 and 2020, and 703 had an objective response and no evidence of disease progression at the 3-month post-BR landmark. Among those, 394 (56%) received rituximab maintenance and 309 (44%) did not, with largely similar baseline patient and disease characteristics. In the landmark analysis, rituximab maintenance was associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; median, 49.9 vs 29.7 months; P< .001) as well as overall survival (OS; median, 109.5 vs 74.2 months; P< .001). The EFS and OS benefits were observed across most of the subgroups. EFS and OS differences were statistically significant in those who achieved a complete response to 1L BR (n = 590; median EFS, 62.7 vs 31.1 months [P< .001]; median OS, 136.1 vs 75.3 months [P< .001]), but the analysis among those who achieved a partial response to 1L BR was limited by the small sample size. These results provide additional evidence for the survival benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR in MCL and support its use in clinical trial design and routine practice.

Abstract The treatment patterns and clinical outcomes for patients experiencing progression of disease (POD) following CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are undefined. We identified all patients who received CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy for R/R MCL therapy across 15 international centers, and studied those experiencing POD post–CAR T-cell therapy in detail. We extracted clinical/treatment/pathologic variables, and associated these features with survival outcomes. In total, 384 patients received CAR T-cell therapy, and 135 (35%) experienced POD. POD occurred at a median of 6 months following CAR T-cell therapy infusion, and most (64%) patients with POD had complete response as best response to CAR T-cell therapy. Tumor features at POD included blastoid/pleomorphic morphology in 29 of 78 (37%) patients, and TP53 mutation in 21 of 41 (51%) patients. Following POD, 17 patients received no further therapy, 13 underwent local therapy, and 105 received systemic therapy. The most common first-line systemic therapies were chemo(immuno)therapy (22 patients; overall response rate [ORR], 40%), pirtobrutinib (17 patients; ORR, 36%), and bispecific antibodies (13 patients; ORR, 67%). Among patients experiencing POD, the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 2.5 months and 5.4 months, respectively, from POD. Lack of response to CAR T-cell therapy and short time from CAR T-cell therapy infusion to POD (<3 vs 3-6 vs >6 months), among other factors, were associated with inferior OS after POD. In conclusion, we confirm the challenging prognosis for patients experiencing POD following CD19 CAR T-cell therapy for R/R MCL, and establish a benchmark for future investigations in this patient population.

We report 3-year follow-up results from TRANSFORM comparing lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus standard of care (SOC) for second-line primary refractory/early relapsed (≤12 months) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Adults eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (N = 184) were randomly assigned 1:1 to liso-cel (100 × 10 6 chimeric antigen receptor–positive T cells) or SOC. Results are reported descriptively. With a median follow-up of 33.9 months, median (95% CI) event-free survival was 29.5 months (9.5 to not reached [NR]) for liso-cel versus 2.4 months (2.2 to 4.9) for SOC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.375; 95% CI, 0.259 to 0.542). Median progression-free survival was NR (12.6-NR) for liso-cel versus 6.2 months (4.3-8.6) for SOC (HR, 0.422; 95% CI, 0.279 to 0.639) with 36-month rates of 51% versus 26.5%. Median overall survival (OS) was NR for both arms (HR, 0.757; 95% CI, 0.481 to 1.191), with 66% of patients crossing over to receive liso-cel; 36-month OS rate was 63% for liso-cel versus 52% for SOC. OS HR (0.566 [95% CI, 0.359 to 0.895]) favored liso-cel when accounting for the treatment effect of crossover. Safety results were consistent with previous reports. At 3-year follow-up, liso-cel confirmed superior, more durable efficacy versus SOC with a favorable safety profile and no new safety signals. These data support liso-cel as an effective second-line treatment with curative potential for relapsed/refractory LBCL.

Importance Numerous studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life and other key outcomes in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, although most lack access to this evidence-based model of care. Objective To evaluate whether delivering early palliative care via secure video vs in-person visits has an equivalent effect on quality of life in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, multisite, comparative effectiveness trial from June 14, 2018, to May 4, 2023, at 22 US cancer centers among 1250 patients within 12 weeks of diagnosis of advanced NSCLC and 548 caregivers. Intervention Participants were randomized to meet with a specialty-trained palliative care clinician every 4 weeks either via video visit or in person in the outpatient clinic from the time of enrollment and throughout the course of disease. The video visit group had an initial in-person visit to establish rapport, followed by subsequent virtual visits. Main Outcomes and Measures Equivalence of the effect of video visit vs in-person early palliative care on quality of life at week 24 per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire (equivalence margin of ±4 points; score range: 0-136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life). Participants completed study questionnaires at enrollment and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Results By 24 weeks, participants (mean age, 65.5 years; 54.0% women; 82.7% White) had a mean of 4.7 (video) and 4.9 (in-person) early palliative care encounters. Patient-reported quality-of-life scores were equivalent between groups (video mean, 99.7 vs in-person mean, 97.7; difference, 2.0 [90% CI, 0.1-3.9]; P = .04 for equivalence). Rate of caregiver participation in visits was lower for video vs in-person early palliative care (36.6% vs 49.7%; P < .001). Study groups did not differ in caregiver quality of life, patient coping, or patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or prognostic perceptions. Conclusions and Relevance The delivery of early palliative care virtually vs in person demonstrated equivalent effects on quality of life in patients with advanced NSCLC, underscoring the considerable potential for improving access to this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03375489

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.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) are essentially different manifestations of the same disease that are similarly managed. A number of molecular and cytogenetic variables with prognostic implications have been identified. Undetectable minimal residual disease at the end of treatment with chemoimmunotherapy or venetoclax-based combination regimens is an independent predictor of improved survival among patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL. The selection of treatment is based on the disease stage, presence or absence of del(17p) or TP53 mutation, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region mutation status, patient age, performance status, comorbid conditions, and the agent’s toxicity profile. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with CLL/SLL.