Reid, Erin G

The treatment landscape of B-cell lymphomas has significantly evolved in recent years with approval of novel targeted therapies. CD3 × CD20 bispecific antibodies and CD19-directed monoclonal antibodies and antibody–drug conjugates have demonstrated efficacy in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL). Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor–based regimens are emerging as effective treatment options for patients with TP53-mutated classical mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Results from ongoing clinical trials suggest that the addition of CD3 × CD20 bispecific antibodies to chemoimmunotherapy improves outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of FL, MCL, and DLBCL.

INTRODUCTION: Luxeptinib (CG-806; LUX) is an orally active noncovalent kinase inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), wild type and mutant forms of Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) (including the internal tandem duplicates (ITD), tyrosine kinase domain (TKD), and F691L mutant forms), and growth receptors like KIT, CSF1R, PDGFRα, and TRKs. In prior studies, LUX has been shown to suppress aberrant proliferative signaling in B cell malignancies and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) via regulation of BTK, LYN, SYK, AKT, ERK, and MAPK. LUX is cytotoxic to primary AML cells insensitive to other FLT3 inhibitors and to malignant B-cells insensitive to ibrutinib, at pM and nM concentrations, respectively. AIMS: The primary objectives of these studies are to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of LUX and determine recommended phase 2 doses for relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML and B cell malignancy patients. METHODS: In two studies (NCT04477291; NCT03893682), LUX (original formulation, G1) was administered continuously as oral capsules BID in 28-day cycles of ascending cohorts (relapsed or refractory de novo, secondary, or therapy-related AML or higher risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), and relapsed and refractory for B cell lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic/small lymphocytic leukemia). A novel generation 3 (G3) formulation of LUX designed to increase bioavailability was tested at a single-dose (sub-study) for relative bioavailability (RBA), followed by continuous dosing in subsequent R/R AML patients. RESULTS: In the B-cell study (as of 15 th May 2023), LUX has been administered to 36 patients at dose levels from 150 mg to 900 mg BID in patients with a median of 3 lines of prior treatment, with 47.2% having received a BTK-inhibitor. Only one (2.8%) patient had a DLT of hypertension and 14 (38.9%) experienced at least one drug related ≥Grade3 treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE). Two patients (900 mg) are currently on study with no DLT and no ≥Grade 3 related TEAEs. A Follicular lymphoma patient is at cycle 28, and achieved a best response as partial response (PR) with a decrease in lesion size of 76.2%; an SLL patient is at cycle 13, and achieved stable disease (SD) showing a decrease in lesion size of 43.1% (Figure A). The overall best response achieved among the 17 patients who have been on treatment for more than 12 weeks are stable disease (SD) (n=11), partial response (PR) (n=3), minor response (n=2) and complete response (CR) (n=1). As of 5 th June 2023, in the AML trial, a total of 40 patients (16 (40%) FLT3-ITD, 21 (52.5%) FLT3-WT, 2 (5.0%) FLT3-TKD, and 1 (2.5%) unknown mutations) with a median of 3 prior treatments (range, 1 - 10) have been treated with LUX G1 formulation at dose levels from 450 mg - 900 mg BID (n=34) or with 50 mg BID of G3 formulation (n=6). Four (10%) experienced drug related SAE and 7 (17.5%) had a drug related grade ≥3 TEAEs. The most common related TEAEs were lymphocyte count decrease, platelet count decrease, and anemia (n=2; 5% patients each). One (2.5%) patient at 450 mg dose, reported complete remission without minimum residual disease (CRmrd) and remained on study for 56 weeks. In the RBA sub-study, G3 (50 mg) produced comparable exposures to G1 (450-900 mg range) (Figure B) and was, therefore, selected as the starting dose for use in the R/R AML study. Six patients were treated with a continuous dosing of 50 mg BID G3; with plasma levels of 274 ng/mL and 195 ng/mL LUX observed by the end of C1D15 and C1D22 respectively. No drug related Grade ≥3 TEAEs or DLTs were observed in 50 mg BID G3 LUX treated patients; with no new safety signals observed for the G3 formulation. Based on these findings and expected exposures for higher dose levels, the cohort safety review committee has approved escalation of G3 dosing to 200 mg BID at which dosing is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: LUX has a favorable safety profile in patients at all tested dose levels, for multiple cycles, for both studies. Antitumor activity was observed in a heavily pretreated relapsed AML patient and in multiple B-NHL subtypes and CLL/SLL patients including several with prior ibrutinib exposure. Continuous dosing of patients with R/R AML and Higher-Risk MDS with the G3 formulation is ongoing; with updated clinical data (200 mg dose level) to be presented at the meeting.

Novel targeted therapies (small molecule inhibitors, antibody–drug conjugates, and CD19-directed therapies) have changed the treatment landscape of relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors continue to evolve in the management of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), in both the relapsed/refractory and the frontline setting. Anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapies are now effective and approved treatment options for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and MCL. Bispecific T-cell engagers represent a novel immunotherapeutic approach for relapsed FL and DLBCL after multiple lines of therapies, including prior CAR T-cell therapy. These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight the significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of FL, DLBCL, and MCL.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE Compared with people living without HIV (PWOH), people living with HIV (PWH) and cancer have traditionally been excluded from immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) trials. Furthermore, there is a paucity of real-world data on the use of ICIs in PWH and cancer. METHODS This retrospective study included PWH treated with anti–PD-1- or anti–PD-L1-based therapies for advanced cancers. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rates (ORRs) were measured per RECIST 1.1 or other tumor-specific criteria, whenever feasible. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) was used to compare OS and PFS between matched PWH and PWOH with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). RESULTS Among 390 PWH, median age was 58 years, 85% (n = 331) were males, 36% (n = 138) were Black; 70% (n = 274) received anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 monotherapy. Most common cancers were NSCLC (28%, n = 111), hepatocellular carcinoma ([HCC]; 11%, n = 44), and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; 10%, n = 39). Seventy percent (152/216) had CD4+ T cell counts ≥200 cells/µL, and 94% (179/190) had HIV viral load <400 copies/mL. Twenty percent (79/390) had any grade immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and 7.7% (30/390) had grade ≥3 irAEs. ORRs were 69% (nonmelanoma skin cancer), 31% (NSCLC), 16% (HCC), and 11% (HNSCC). In the matched mNSCLC cohort (61 PWH v 110 PWOH), 20% (12/61) PWH and 22% (24/110) PWOH had irAEs. Adjusted 42-month RMST difference was –0.06 months (95% CI, –5.49 to 5.37; P = .98) for PFS and 2.23 months (95% CI, –4.02 to 8.48; P = .48) for OS. CONCLUSION Among PWH, ICIs demonstrated differential activity across cancer types with no excess toxicity. Safety and activity of ICIs were similar between matched cohorts of PWH and PWOH with mNSCLC.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

e18790 Background: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 with a diagnosis of cancer have increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared to patients without cancer. However, little is known regarding outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and cancer in the setting of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Given the unique risks of this population, we sought to understand COVID-19 outcomes using registry data. Methods: This is a descriptive research study utilizing the CCC19 registry, an international multi-institutional registry with healthcare provider-reported cases of patients with cancer and COVID-19. Between March 2020-December 2021, 116 persons with HIV (PWH) and 10,642 persons without HIV (PWOH) with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified as eligible for the analysis. Results: Median follow-up time for both groups was 90 days, with interquartile range (IQR) 30-180 days. Most PWH were actively receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, with 71% (n = 82) having named drug information available; bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir was the most common ART (n = 25). PWH were of younger age (median 57.5 yrs [IQR 46.5-63.25] vs 65 yrs [IQR 55-74]), male (81% vs 47%), and either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic (71% vs 34%) compared to PWOH. 12% of PWH (n = 14) were current smokers compared to 6% of PWOH (n = 638), and more than half in each group were never smokers (51% of PWH and 53% of PWOH). The following comorbidities were identified in PWH vs PWOH: cardiovascular (16% vs 20%), pulmonary (16% vs 20%), renal (15% vs 14%), and diabetes mellitus (18% vs 27%). A higher proportion of PWH had hematologic malignancy compared to PWOH (33% vs 19%). More PWH had active cancer which was progressing at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to PWOH (24% vs 14%). 44% of PWH (n = 51) had received active systemic anticancer therapy within the 3 months preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection (including cytotoxic, targeted, endocrine therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to 51% of PWOH (n = 5,420). PWH had an increased rate of hospitalization (58% vs 55%) compared to PWOH. Although a lower proportion of PWH required supplemental oxygen during hospitalization compared to PWOH (34% vs 38%) and ICU admission rates were identical between the two groups (16% vs 16%), PWH had an increased rate of mechanical ventilation (14% vs 10%) and death (24% vs 18%) compared to PWOH. Conclusions: This is the first known study describing outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19 in the PWH population from a large multinational dataset. PWH have characteristics associated with adverse outcomes in prior analyses (male sex, non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic, hematologic malignancy, progressing cancer) but are notably younger and have fewer comorbidities. HIV infection may portend increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death; however, additional analyses, including multivariable regression, are warranted.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Luxeptinib (CG-806) is a potent, non-covalent oral inhibitor of BTK and FLT3. It suppresses BCR signaling pathways (LYN, SYK, BTK, AKT, ERK) and other oncogenic pathways in cell lines and primary CLL cells, kills malignant B-cells insensitive to ibrutinib or venetoclax at low nM concentrations, and shows enhanced activity in combination with venetoclax. Luxeptinib is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1a/b trial in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies (NCT03893682). AIMS: Primary objectives are to assess the safety and tolerability of luxeptinib and determine the recommended expansion dose for future clinical trials in patients with R/R CLL/SLL or B-NHL. Key secondary objectives include elucidation of the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics, and evidence of antitumor activity. METHODS: Luxeptinib is administered continuously as oral capsules BID in 28-day cycles, in ascending cohorts of 3 patients. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and tumor responses are evaluated per disease specific guidelines. RESULTS: As of June 7, 2021, a total of 23 patients (median age 64.0 years, 11 CLL/SLL, 4 follicular lymphoma (FL), 1 Richter's transformation lymphoma, 2 Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM), 2 mantle cell lymphoma, 3 diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL)) with a median of 3 prior systemic regimens (range of 1 - 12) have been treated with luxeptinib at doses of 150 mg (n=1), 300 mg (n=1), 450 mg (n=9), 600 mg (n=4) and 750 mg (n=8). Drug related grade ≥ 3 TEAEs included neutropenia (n=5, 21.7%), leukocytosis (n=2, 8.7%), decreased white blood cell count, decreased platelet count, anemia, increased alanine aminotransferase, diarrhea, hypertension, and headache (n=1, 4.3 % each). One patient, who experienced progressive hypertension before receiving luxeptinib, developed grade 1 hypertension during screening evolving to grade 2 prior to dosing on C1D1, experienced grade 4 hypertension after luxeptinib treatment at 750 mg BID for 5 days. While this was considered a DLT per protocol, luxeptinib plasma levels in this patient were lower than those observed in patients at this and lower dose levels, and no drug-related hypertension has been observed in any other patient treated to date. The average steady-state (C min) plasma levels of luxeptinib in patients treated with 750 mg BID were &gt; 1µM and were sustained over multiple cycles. PD analysis demonstrated that C min of luxeptinib in the plasma of patients treated with doses of 300 mg or higher significantly reduced levels of phosphorylated BTK, SYK, ERK and FLT3 in EOL-1 reporter cells in a plasma inhibitor activity assay, demonstrating multi-target engagement. Response evaluations were available for 12 patients who had at least one imaging study or IgM measurements (WM patients) after starting treatment. Eight out of these 12 patients had various reductions of lesion size or IgM measurements compared to baseline (3 SLL, 2 FL, 1 CLL, 1 WM and 1 DLBCL), demonstrating anti-tumor activity. FDG PET-CT scans in one FL patient, who had 2 prior regimens, revealed lesion growth during treatment with luxeptinib at 450 mg BID for 7 cycles. After dose-escalation to 600 mg BID in Cycle 8, lesion measurements demonstrated continuous reduction. By C15D1, target lesions decreased by 42.5% and 11.3% when compared with peak tumor size and baseline measurements, respectively. One WM patient in Cohort 5 (750 mg BID), who had 2 prior regimens including ibrutinib, has had a 24.9% reduction in IgM level by C3D1 compared with baseline as her best response so far. CONCLUSIONS: Luxeptinib has a favorable safety profile in patients treated with 150 mg to 600 mg BID over multiple cycles. A single apparent DLT (grade 4 hypertension in one patient with pre-existing hypertension) led to expansion of the 750 mg dose level to 6 patients. Pharmacodynamic studies documented inhibition of SYK, BTK and ERK in the BCR signaling pathway. Anti-tumor activity was observed in multiple B-NHL subtypes and CLL/SLL patients. Enrollment of patients with R/R CLL/SLL and B-NHL at dose level 5 (750 mg) is ongoing and updated clinical data will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Samaniego: Arog: Research Funding; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Burke: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; SeaGen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Mahadevan: caris: Speakers Bureau; Guardanthealt: Speakers Bureau; PFIZER: Other: Clinical trial Adverse events committee; TG Therapeuticals: Other: Clinical trial Adverse events committee. Cherry: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sadiq: Dava Oncology: Honoraria. Reid: ADC Therapeutics: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding; Xencor: Other: Serves as Principle Investigator, Research Funding. Roeker: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, LOXO, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Vaniam Group, Verastem: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Abbot Laboratories: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Melear: Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Zhang: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Rastgoo: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Benbatoul: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Haney: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Jin: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment. Marango: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Howell: Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Rice: Oncolytics Biotech Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties. Bejar: Astex: Consultancy; Silence Therapeutics: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding.

In the last decade, a better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas has resulted in the development of novel targeted therapies, such as small molecule inhibitors of select kinases in the B-cell receptor pathway, antibody–drug conjugates, and small molecules that target a variety of proteins (eg, CD-19, EZH2, and XPO-1–mediated nuclear export). Anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, first approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, has also emerged as a novel treatment option for R/R follicular lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma. These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight the new targeted therapy options included in the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of R/R disease.