Saeed, Hayder

Abstract INTRODUCTION The ECHELON-2 trial for newly diagnosed CD30+ peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) demonstrated superior overall survival with brentuximab vedotin plus chemotherapy (BV-CHP) compared to CHOP. However, total enrollment was restricted to only 30% of patients with non-anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) histologies and was not powered to analyze survival benefits in this cohort. Thus, the benefit of BV-CHP in non-ALCL patients remains less clear. Adding to this uncertainty, CHOP plus etoposide (CHOEP) remains a standard regimen for many non-ALCL PTCL histologies for patients <60 years of age. Which of these three regimens offers superior outcomes for patients with CD30+ non-ALCL PTCL remains to be determined, is a critical knowledge gap in this area, and could meaningfully inform the management of these patients. METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of chemotherapy-naïve CD30+ (≥1%) PTCL from 7 centers in the United States. Histologies were limited to PTCL-NOS and PTCL with a T follicular helper phenotype (PTCL-TFH). Frontline regimens were defined as BV-based (BV-CHP), etoposide-based (CHOEP/EPOCH), novel-CHOP (CHOP/CHOEP + novel drug on a clinical trial), or CHOP. CD30 was considered positive if any expression was reported, and when available, stratified as ≥10% or <10% of the total lymphocyte population. RESULTS The CD30+ PTCL cohort consisted of 194 patients with a median age of 68 years at diagnosis and a male (65%) predominance. Nodal PTCL-TFH (65%) was the most common histology. Most had stage III-IV disease (89%) with a high-intermediate to high-risk IPI score of 3-5 (54%). 18% had an ECOG of ≥2, 45% had ≥2 extranodal sites, and 43% had bone marrow involvement, although biopsies were not performed in all patients. CD30 expression in ≥10% of malignant T cells was observed in 55% of all quantitatively reported cases. Frontline therapy consisted of BV-based (36%), etoposide-based (30%), CHOP (27%), and novel-CHOP (7%). Baseline characteristics and CD30 expression were similar between treatment groups. The ORR was 72% (64% CR, 8% PR), with no differences observed by treatment or histology. On multivariate analysis (MVA), a high LDH was associated with lower CR (OR 2.84, p=0.003). For the patients who demonstrated a CR to frontline therapy, 61% underwent ASCT. With a median follow-up of 26.1 months (IQR 12.3-51.6), the median PFS and OS were 11.4 (9.8-14.2) and 47 (32-60.3) months, respectively. The 2-year PFS and OS were 34.9% (28.1-41.7) and 62% (54.5-68.6), respectively. PFS and OS were similar for PTCL-NOS compared to PTCL-TFH, and AITL fared similarly to non-AITL PTCL-TFH. By treatment, novel-CHOP demonstrated the most favorable PFS (median 41.9 months) and OS (median 68.1 months). Survival curves overlapped continuously with all other treatment regimens and was not statistically significant. For patients <60, PFS and OS were equivocal with BV-based (n=17) compared to etoposide-based (n=26) regimens. On MVA, stage III/IV disease conferred an inferior PFS (HR 2.00, p=0.018) as did an IPI score of 3-5 for OS (HR 2.15, p=0.001). Neither histology nor frontline treatment impacted PFS or OS. The chosen frontline treatment also had no survival impact in key subgroup analyses including patients <60 (n=56) or with CD30-expression ≥10% (n=43). For patients with CR to frontline therapy, ASCT demonstrated a significant PFS benefit (HR 0.59, p=0.028) but no statistically significant difference in OS benefit (HR 0.58, p=0.073). CONCLUSION These data provide valuable insight into the lesser-represented patient population from the pivotal ECHELON-2 trial. In this cohort of CD30+ (≥1%) non-ALCL PTCL, there was no clearly superior standard frontline regimen. The number of patients with quantitively reported CD30 expression was too small for definitive conclusions in the ≥10% CD30+ cohort and retrospective pathology review is ongoing. ASCT for patients in CR offered superior outcomes, supporting this strategy regardless of the frontline regimen, recognizing the limitations of non-randomized, retrospective analyses. Novel-CHOP regimens demonstrated encouraging survival, and clinical trials should maintain priority over standard regimens for patients with CD30+ (1-10%) PTCL-NOS and PTCL-TFH.

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: The treatment of older patients with advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is challenging and outcomes remain poor compared to younger patients (pts). A subgroup analysis of older pts (aged ≥ 60 years) enrolled in the SWOG S1826 study showed the Nivolumab-AVD regimen was better tolerated and improved progression free survival (PFS) compared to concurrent brentuximab vedotin-AVD (Bv-AVD). The sequential administration of Bv before and after AVD chemotherapy (seq Bv-AVD-Bv) is a commonly used approach to minimize the toxicity of Bv-AVD in older pts based on the tolerability and efficacy shown in a phase II study (Evens, et al. J Clin Oncol 2018). There is limited data on clinical outcomes with seq Bv-AVD-Bv in the real-world setting. We report our multicenter study of sequential Bv-AVD-Bv administration in older patients with cHL. Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 40 older pts with cHL treated with sequential Bv-AVD-Bv in 6 cancer centers. Descriptive statistics were used to depict patient demographics and disease characteristics prior to treatment initiation. Responses to therapy were assessed using the Lugano criteria. Response evaluable patients were those who received at least one cycle of chemotherapy with AVD. PFS and overall survival (OS) were estimated using log-rank testing with the Kaplan Meier curves. Results: The majority (n=23, 57.2%) of patients were male; median age was 72.5 years (range, 57-86 years); 10 (25%) pts were Hispanic, and 18 (45%) pts were Caucasian; performance status by ECOG was 0-2 in 33 (82.5%) pts. In terms of disease characteristics 19 (47.5%) pts had cHL NOS, 10 (25%) had nodular sclerosing subtype; stage III/IV in 35 (87.5%), stage II in 5 (12.5%) pts; B- symptoms in 21 (52.5%); extranodal disease in 19 (47.5%), with bone marrow involvement in 10 (25%) pts. Among the 38 response-evaluable patients the ORR and CR rates were 97.4% and 71.1%, respectively. Bv dose reductions or interruptions were reported in 14 (35.9%) pts. Treatment discontinuation (Td) occurred in 16 (40%) pts. The most common any grade adverse events were hematological toxicities (HT) in 28 (70%) pts and peripheral neuropathy in 24 (60%) pts. Forty-five percent of patients experienced grade 3 or higher HT. The overall incidence of grade 2 or higher peripheral neuropathy was 15%. The main reasons for treatment discontinuation were toxicity (n=9) and disease progression (n=4). During treatment, 1 (2.5%) pt reported loss of basic activities of daily living (ADLs) and 5 (12.5%) had loss of instrumental ADLs (iADLs). G-CSF prophylaxis was used in most (n=33, 82.5%) pts. At a median follow up of 25.7 months (range, 2.6 - 58.9) the 2 years PFS was 62.6% (95% CI: 46.1-79.1) and the 2 years OS was 83.3% (95% CI: 67-99.6). On univariate analysis, the median PFS correlated with the depth of response (CR: not reached; PR: 11.4 months; SD/PD: 3.9 months; P=0.0001); and with treatment discontinuation (No Td: not reached; Td: 21.6 months; P=0.007). There was no correlation between age, sex, institution, B- symptoms, bone marrow involvement, ADL/iADLs, or disease stage with treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: Sequential Bv-AVD-Bv in older patients with cHL can help minimize the toxicity associated with the concurrent administration of Bv-AVD. This sequential approach has shown comparable efficacy in real-word setting as seen in clinical trials. Our findings suggest seq Bv-AVD-Bv remains a feasible option for older fit patients with cHL outside clinical trials. Further randomized studies in older cHL pts are needed.

Abstract Little is known about risk factors for central nervous system (CNS) relapse in mature T-cell and natural killer cell neoplasms (MTNKNs). We aimed to describe the clinical epidemiology of CNS relapse in patients with MTNKN and developed the CNS relapse In T-cell lymphoma Index (CITI) to predict patients at the highest risk of CNS relapse. We reviewed data from 135 patients with MTNKN and CNS relapse from 19 North American institutions. After exclusion of leukemic and most cutaneous forms of MTNKNs, patients were pooled with non-CNS relapse control patients from a single institution to create a CNS relapse–enriched training set. Using a complete case analysis (n = 182), including 91 with CNS relapse, we applied a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator Cox regression model to select weighted clinicopathologic variables for the CITI score, which we validated in an external cohort from the Swedish Lymphoma Registry (n = 566). CNS relapse was most frequently observed in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (25%). Median time to CNS relapse and median overall survival after CNS relapse were 8.0 and 4.7 months, respectively. We calculated unique CITI risk scores for individual training set patients and stratified them into risk terciles. Validation set patients with low-risk (n = 158) and high-risk (n = 188) CITI scores had a 10-year cumulative risk of CNS relapse of 2.2% and 13.4%, respectively (hazard ratio, 5.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.50-18.26; P = .018). We developed an open-access web-based CITI calculator (https://redcap.link/citicalc) to provide an easy tool for clinical practice. The CITI score is a validated model to predict patients with MTNKN at the highest risk of developing CNS relapse.

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.

AbstractPlasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare entity, commonly associated with immunosuppressed states such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or solid organ transplant. The clinical course is characterized by high relapse rates and a poor prognosis, leading some clinicians to recommend aggressive frontline therapy. However, a specific review of limited stage (LS) PBL patients is not available to evaluate outcomes and justify treatment recommendations. We performed a retrospective review of LS PBL cases to provide insight into this rare disease. Our cohort consisted of 80 stage I or II PBL patients from 13 US academic centers. With a median follow up of 34 months (1–196), the 3‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the entire cohort were 72% (95% CI 62, 83) and 79% (95% CI 70, 89), respectively. The 3‐year PFS and OS of patients treated with frontline chemotherapy alone was 65% (95% CI 50, 84) and 71% (95% CI 56, 89), respectively, compared to 85% (95% CI 72, 100) and 96% (95% CI 89, 100), respectively, in patients treated with combined frontline chemotherapy with radiation consolidation. Our data demonstrate favorable outcomes in LS PBL with no improvements in outcome from aggressive frontline treatment including Hyper‐CVAD or auto‐SCT consolidation. Multivariate regression analysis (MRA) demonstrated improved PFS for patients receiving EPOCH based frontline therapy versus CHOP (HR: 0.23; p = 0.029). Frontline chemotherapy followed by radiation consolidation versus chemotherapy alone appeared to be associated with improved relapse and survival outcomes but did not show statistical significance in MRA.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system (CNS) relapse (CNSr) in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) occurs uncommonly (estimated incidence 5%) but carries a high morbidity and mortality. Studies have identified risk factors for CNSr such as high tumor burden and extranodal (EN) disease. However, most focus on B-cell NHL with minimal data in T-cell lymphomas (TCL), which are significantly less common and more heterogenous. The few small series of CNSr in TCL report a median overall survival (OS) less than 3 months (mo) with incidence ranging from 2.6-9%. To better define CNSr in TCL, we performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of TCL patients with CNSr and herein describe clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment of CNSr. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study using data from 9 US academic centers with IRB approval at individual sites. We included adult patients diagnosed with a mature T-cell neoplasm as per the 2016 WHO classification between 1/1/2009-1/1/2019, who were found to have CNSr at any time after initial diagnosis, and collected patient, disease, and treatment characteristics at time of initial diagnosis as well as at CNSr. Patients with a diagnosis of a precursor T-cell malignancy or with CNS disease identified at initial TCL diagnosis (TCLd) and/or prior to first-line systemic treatment were excluded. Results In this analysis, we report the outcomes of 75 patients (male n=45, female n=30). At TCLd, the median age was 59 years (range 20-81), and 61% of patients (n=46) had an IPI score of at least 3, 92% (n=69) had EN involvement with 37% (n=28) involving at least 2 EN sites, and 59% (n=44) had BM involvement. The most common pathologic diagnoses were peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (PTCL, NOS; 24%, n=18), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL; 17%, n=13), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL; 17%, n=13), and mycosis fungoides (MF; 12%, n=9) (Figure 1A). First-line systemic therapy for TCL included anthracyclines for 72% (n=54). Autologous and allogenic transplants were performed prior to CNSr in 12% (n=9) and 8% (n=6) of patients, respectively. Prior to CNSr, 48% (n=36) had non-CNS relapse. Some form of CNS prophylaxis was used during initial systemic lymphoma therapy in 24% of patients (n=18), predominantly intrathecal methotrexate (IT MTX; n=16). Median time from TCLd to CNSr was 8.5mo, though this was significantly longer in MF (46.8mo [range 17.5-187.7]) versus PTCL, NOS (7.6mo [range 1.1-58.4], P=0.0002), AITL (21.2mo [range 2.0-61.6, P=0.008), and ATLL (7.3mo [range 0.7-46.4], P=0.0005) (Figure 1B). CNSr developed within 6mo of TCLd in 31% of patients (n=23) and within 12mo in 57% (n=43). Symptoms related to CNSr occurred in 71% of patients (n=53). CNSr patterns were 61% leptomeningeal (n=46), 21% parenchymal (n=16), and 17% both (n=13) with no significant survival difference between leptomeningeal or parenchymal disease alone (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78-2.70, P=0.28). Concomitant systemic relapse was observed in 59% of patients (n=44). The most common CNS-directed therapy for CNSr was IT MTX (56%; n=42), though multiple different IT and/or systemic regimens were used. Patients received a median of 1 line of CNS-directed treatment (range 0-5). The overall response rate to initial CNS directed treatment was 32% (16% CR, 16% PR). Median follow up after CNSr was 40.7mo. At last follow up, 83% had died (n=62). Median OS after CNSr was 4.6mo (range 0.1-68.7) (Figure 1C). Those with ATLL had the shortest median OS after CNSr (2.7mo) versus 6.3mo in MF (HR 3.69, 95% CI 1.44-9.42, P=0.005), 6.5mo in AITL (HR 2.16, 95% CI 0.92-5.06, P=0.054), and 4.8mo in PTCL, NOS (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.70-3.19, P=0.27) (Figure 1D). The most common cause of death was progressive lymphoma (77%; n=48). Conclusions This is to our knowledge the largest series of CNSr in TCL to date. Most CNSr occurred within 12mo, though CNSr occurred later in patients with MF. Although the prognosis after CNSr was generally poor, we found that median OS in CNSr was longer than previously reported, perhaps reflecting more effective treatments for CNS and systemic relapse, inclusion of MF, or lead time bias. Further analysis of the impact of different treatment strategies and outcomes in CNSr was limited by the small sample size and heterogeneity within our cohort, and future analyses in a larger cohort should focus on factors associated with outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Horwitz: ADC Therapeutics, Affimed, Aileron, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Forty Seven, Inc., Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium /Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trillium Therapeutics, and Verastem/SecuraBio.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma, Affimed, ADC Therapeutics, Astex, Merck, Portola Pharma, C4 Therapeutics, Celgene, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Myeloid Therapeutics, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Shoreline Biosciences, Inc, Takeda, Trillium Th: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Crispr Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tubulis: Consultancy; Verastem/Securabio: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Chavez: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merk: Research Funding; MorphoSys, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys, Bayer, Karyopharm, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie, TeneoBio, and Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Sokol: Dren Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Saeed: Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: research investigator; MEI Pharma Inc: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Other: investigator; MorphoSys AG: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy; sano-aventis U.S.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Other-TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Other-Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Other-Secura Bio, Inc.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mehta-Shah: Kiowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ono Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Olszewski: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; PrecisionBio: Research Funding; Celldex Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Allen: Epizyme: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Secure Bio: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Gerson: Abbvie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Landsburg: Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; ADCT: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: DSMB member; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schuster: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Svoboda: Atara: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barta: Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Seagen: Honoraria.