Porcu, Pierluigi

Abstract Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive leukemia with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Previous studies on T-PLL patients receiving an allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloSCT) are limited by small numbers with limited data on disease and transplant characteristics. Further, recent data from our large national cohort of patients demonstrated significant survival difference between TCL1A+ and TCL1A- T-PLL, and CD8+ T-PLL vs CD8- T-PLL. In this large multi-center series, utilizing comprehensive disease subtype and alloSCT clinical data, we evaluated prognostic and survival therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients that had an alloSCT with a particular focus on T-PLL disease subtypes. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 572 diagnosed with T-PLL at 21 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023, of which we performed a further evaluation on the169 that proceeded with alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Among n=169 alloSCT recipients with T-PLL, the median follow-up time was 20.9 months post-alloSCT (range: 0.2-182.9), the median age at transplant was 59 years (range: 35-77) and 52% were male. In evaluated patients (n=109), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 69%. As our recent analysis demonstrated significant differences in survival among specific subtypes of T-PLL, we evaluated outcomes in patients with CD4+CD8- T-PLL (n=90, 53%), CD4-CD8+ (n=17, 10%) T-PLL, and CD4+CD8+ T-PLL (n=52, 31%). 53% (87/164) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan and 45% (43/96) of known patients had minimal residual disease (MRD) at the time of transplant [defined as <5% T-PLL in marrow by flow, or +cytogenetics (e.g. TCL1A)] prior to alloSCT. At the time of alloSCT, 136 (80%) patients were in CR and 23 (14%) patients were in PR. Forty-nine (30%) had a myeloablative (MAC)conditioning regimen and 114 (70%) had a reduced intensity chemotherapy (RIC) conditioning regimen. Eighty (49%) patients had TBI as part of their regimen. The most common regimens were fludarabine (flu)/melphalan based regimens (n=44; 26.0%), flu/cyclophosphamide (cy) based regimens (n=33; 19.5%), flu/busulfan based regimens (n=22; 13.0%), flu/total body irradiation (TBI) (n=8; 4.7%), and cy/TBI (n=4; 2.4%). Across the whole cohort, the median OS and PFS post-alloSCT was 32.6 months (95% CI: 21.0-41.9) and 20.8 months (95% CI: 14.4-30.5) months while the 1-year cumulative incidences (CI) of NRM and relapse were 17% and 20%, respectively. The incidences of grade II-IV acute GVHD and cGVHD were 19% and 23%. There was no difference between patients with myeloablative conditioning (MAC) (n=49, 29%) when compared to patients that received reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) (n=114, 67%) in OS (33.1 vs 29.2; p=0.68) and PFS (20.2 vs 20.8; p=0.97). Patients that were MRD+ (n=31) had worse OS (22.2 vs 48.6; p=0.1) and PFS (14.1 vs 32.5; p=0.04) and higher rates of relapse (1-year relapse 20% vs 8%; p=0.08) than patients that were MRD- (n=50). PFS was improved in those who received alloSCT though only trended towards significance due to low numbers (HR 0.76, p=0.09). In subtype analysis, TCL1A+ T-PLL had significantly worse outcomes compared to TCL1A negative T-PLL. TCL1A+ disease had significantly worse OS (21.6 vs 63.1; p=0.01) and PFS (12.4 vs 50.7; p=0.01) compared to TCL1A-. Additionally, in TCL1A+ disease CI of NRM (24% vs 3%; p=0.02) and relapse (25% vs 12%; p=0.86) was higher vs TCL1A- PLL. CD4+CD8-, CD4-CD8+, and CD4+CD8+ disease had no difference in survival via either OS (28.0 vs 34.4 vs 21.0; p=0.17) or PFS (29.4 vs 23.5 vs 13.6; p=0.09) as well as no difference 1-year CI of NRM ( 11.6 vs 23.5 vs 26.2; p=0.35) and relapse (18.5 vs 23.5 vs 20.0; p=0.67).Conclusions: AlloSCT significantly improved outcomes for patients with T-PLL compared to those who did not proceed to alloSCT and remains he only curative therapy for those with T-PLL. OS, PFS, and CI relapse were significantly worse for patients with TCL1A+ subtype of T-PLL, or those with MRD positivity or PR prior to alloSCT. Novel strategies to decrease relapse such as post-alloSCT maintenance therapy to improve outcomes are urgently needed in these patients.

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.

Abstract Background: We recently clarified the use of consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as first remission consolidation therapy for high grade diffuse aggressive T and B non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)in patients with high-intermediate (HI) or High (H) age adjusted IPI disease (Stiff et al, NEJM 369:1681). After receiving CHOP or R-CHOP for 5 cycles responding patients were randomized to either 3 more induction cycles or 1 cycle followed by an ASCT using either a BCNU or TBI based preparative regimen. We found a PFS but not OS advantage for those randomized to transplant and no differential treatment effect for those with T-NHL patients as compared to B-NHL in the initial analysis of this study. In light of Phase II data suggesting a value of early ASCT for T-NHL, a lack of randomized ASCT trials for T-NHL and the inferior prognosis for T-NHL as compared to B cell disease, we further evaluated this sub group, since a post hoc analysis of the entire trial did find a survival advantage for those with H IPI disease. This then provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the role of ASCT consolidation for T-cell NHL in the setting of a prospective randomized trial. Method: Among the 370 eligible B-NHL and T-NHL patients with HI/H IPI disease treated on this trial, 40 had a T-NHL phenotype and were the subject of this analysis. Individual patient files were re-reviewed and those randomized after the first 5 cycles of CHOP were further analyzed for stage, IPI group, histology (centrally reviewed), and response to induction and consolidation and updated survival outcome. Results: Of the 40 T-NHL patients enrolled on study, 28 (70%) were randomized after induction therapy, a similar ratio to the entire trial (68%). Twelve were not randomized; 1 was ineligible for study, and of the eligible 11, 9 were HI IPI and 8 had peripheral T cell (PTCL-NOS). These 11 were not randomized due to patient choice in 2, and all of the remaining 9 pts progressed early: 2 after C1; 3 after C3, 1 after C4, and 3 after C5. For the 28 randomized, their median age was 50 and 19 were males. Of the group, 21/28 had B symptoms at diagnosis, 14 had stage IV disease, and 18 and 10 were in the HI and H IPI groups respectively. Histologies included 11 with PTCL-NOS, 7 angioimmunoblastic and 10 anaplastic large cell NHL. At randomization 13 were to continue CHOP and 15, ASCT. Of the 15 assigned to ASCT, 3 did not undergo transplant (2-refusals, 1- unable to mobilize); 7 received the BCNU-etoposide-cyclophosphamide and 5 the TBI-etoposide-cyclophosphamide preparative regimen. The 5 year estimates of PFS and OS for the randomized ASCT vs CHOP only groups (intent to treat) were 40% vs 38% (p=0.56) and 40% vs 45% (p=0.98) respectively. We found no difference in outcome based on IPI group, histology or stage of disease. Interestingly, only 1/7 patients who received BCV as the ASCT preparative regimen are long term survivors vs 4/5 receiving the TBI-based regimen. Conclusions: We did not observe a PFS/OS advantage for those with high-risk T-NHL in first remission randomized to ASCT following CHOP induction vs CHOP alone in this retrospective analysis. In addition, the 30% early drop out rate before randomization due primarily to early progression strongly suggests that more optimal induction regimens need to be developed for this disease. While the numbers are small the finding that TBI based preparative regimens might be associated with a higher PFS is of interest and deserves further study. Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888 and CA180819; Bristol-Myers Squibb. Contributions of Dr. Raymond R Tubbs, deceased, are gratefully acknowledged. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Porcu: miRagen: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; celgene: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; Millenium: Other: investigator in a clinical trial; Innate Pharma: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial. Winter:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Medivation: Other: Provision of investigational agent for clinical trial; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Kahl:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Smith:Juno: Consultancy; TGTX: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: on a DSMB for two trials ; Gilead: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Educational lecture to sales force; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Rimsza:NCI/NIH: Patents & Royalties: L.M. Rimsza is a co-inventor on a provisional patent, owned by the NCI of the NIH, using Nanostring technology for determining cell of origin in DLBCL.. Fisher:Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board.

This pathology PILOT study aims to define the role and feasibility of centralized pathology review in a cohort of 75 patients from different centers in the United States and Europe using digital slide scanning. The pathologic material from 75 patients who had been diagnosed with mycosis fungoides/Sézary syndrome and were clinically staged as IIb or above was retrieved from 11 participating centers. Each pathology reviewer was provided with the pathologic diagnosis (by the referring pathologist), and the following list of histopathologic criteria (presence or absence) from the initial report: epidermotropism, folliculotropism (FT), large cell transformation, syringotropism, and granulomas. Patients with advance stage were selected for this study as this is a population where there is significant variability in the diagnosis of pathologic prognostic and predictive biomarkers. The slides were digitally scanned with an Aperio scanner and consensus review of cases occurred when major or minor discrepancies between the referral diagnosis and central pathology review occurred. Among the 75 cases, 70 (93.3%) had a final consensus diagnosis between the 3 central review pathologists. The overall agreement between the consensus review and the referring pathologist was 60%. The overall agreement was also higher between the reviewers and consensus review, compared with the referring pathologist and consensus. 65.3% of cases had some type of discrepancy (major or minor) between the outside and consensus review. Major discrepancies were seen in 34 of 73 cases (46.6%; 73 cases indicated a yes or no response). Minor discrepancies were seen in 32 of 75 (42.7%) of cases. Most of the major discrepancies were accounted by a difference in interpretation in the presence or absence of large cell transformation or FT. Most minor discrepancies were explained by a different interpretation in the expression of CD30. We found digital slide scanning to be a beneficial, reliable, and practical for a methodical approach to perform central pathology review in the context of a large clinical prospective study.