Riska, Shaun M.

Abstract Background: Rural/nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) counties face known barriers to comprehensive cancer care compared with metropolitan (metro) counties, which may impact the outcomes for lymphoma patients. We evaluated the impact metro vs nonmetro status on outcomes after a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the context of clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors. Methods: Of 7724 participants enrolled in the prospective LEO cohort study from 2015-2020, 7610 (98.5%) had their county of residence at diagnosis assigned a RUCC (2013) code. We compared outcomes of participants from metro (defined as RUCC 1-3, which are central counties with ≥1 urban areas of ≥50,000) vs nonmetro counties (RUCC 4-9, which are counties with smaller urban areas as well as completely rural). We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from univariable and multivariable Cox models for associations of metro status with overall survival (OS). Cause of death (lymphoma [including treatment related], non-lymphoma, unknown) was assessed using a competing risk approach. Results: Compared with metro counties (N=6096), LEO participants from nonmetro counties (N=1514) were older (median age 64 vs 62 years; p<0.001), more likely to be non-Hispanic white (94% vs 75%; p<0.001) and married (84% vs 75%; p<0.001), and less likely to have completed graduate or professional school education (16% vs 27%; p<0.001). There were no notable differences (>5%) by metro status for sex, employment status, NHL subtype, stage, performance status, abnormal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), international prognostic index (IPI), number of comorbidities, time from diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) or participation in a clinical trial. Compared with LEO participants from metro counties, those from nonmetro counties had inferior OS at 5 years (74.5% vs 78.4%; HR=1.23, CI 1.10-1.37; p<0.001). The OS association only slightly attenuated after adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity and NHL subtype (HR=1.20, CI 1.07-1.34; p=0.002), and held in models that adjusted for clinical prognostic factors (stage, NHL subtype, IPI, DTI), socioeconomic status (SES; education, marital status), health status (comorbidity, frailty), or lifestyle factors (smoking, body mass index). Using a competing risk model, the cumulative incidence of death at 5 years due to lymphoma (16.9% vs 14.1%; p=0.002) and non-lymphoma (5.9% vs 3.9%; p=0.002) was higher for participants from nonmetro vs metro counties, respectively. For participants <65 years, nonmetro vs metro status had inferior OS (HR=1.40, CI 1.17-1.67; p<0.001). This association remained after adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity and NHL subtype (HR=1.36, CI 1.14-1.63; p<0.001), as well as after adjustment for clinical prognostic, SES, health status, or lifestyle factors. The cumulative incidence of death at 5 years due to lymphoma was higher in participants from nonmetro vs metro counties (15.1% vs 11.5%; p=0.002), while there was no difference by metro status for non-lymphoma related deaths (2.1% vs 1.7%; p=0.47). In contrast, for participants age 65+ years, there was no differences by metro status for OS (HR=1.04, CI 0.91-1.20; p=0.56). After adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity and NHL subtype, participants from nonmetro areas had inferior OS (HR=1.12, 0.97-1.29) although this was not statistically significant (p=0.13), and was attenuated in models adjusting for clinical, health status, or lifestyle factors. The cumulative incidence of death at 5 years due to lymphoma was no different in participants from nonmetro vs metro counties (18.9% vs 18.0%; p=0.37), while non-lymphoma related deaths were higher in nonmetro counties (9.9% vs 6.8%; p=0.017). Conclusion: LEO participants from nonmetro vs metro counties had inferior OS overall, although this was predominately observed for younger (<65 years) participants. These associations did not appear to be explained by demographic, NHL subtype, clinical, SES, health status, or lifestyle factors. Of particular note, the risk of death due to lymphoma was higher in nonmetro areas for participants <65 years but not those 65+ years, while the risk of death due to other causes was higher in nonmetro areas for participants 65+ years but not those <65 years. These findings require further study, particularly related to barriers to care, and suggest the potential need for age-specific strategies to optimize outcomes for NHL patients from nonmetro/rural areas.

Abstract Introduction The International Prognostic Index (IPI, NEJM, 1993) has guided risk stratification in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) for over three decades. Its simplicity and clinical utility have driven its widespread adoption, even in the era of precision medicine. However, the prognostic value of the IPI and its components may not be uniform across the age spectrum of LBCL patients. We evaluated the contemporary prognostic performance of the IPI in a large international cohort, focusing on age-stratified performance and the relative contributions of its individual components, grouped as patient- and disease-related factors. Methods We harmonized and pooled data from 6,941 patients with newly diagnosed systemic LBCL treated with R-CHOP-like regimens (R-CHOP, R-miniCHOP, DA-EPOCH-R, R-CHOEP, R-CHOP+X) with complete IPI data from three prospective cohorts: NiHiL (Czech Republic, n=4,590; 2010–2023), LEO (USA, n=1,789; 2015–2020), and MER (USA, n=562; 2010–2015). IPI components included age, ECOG performance status (PS) as patient-related, and Ann Arbor clinical stage, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and extranodal (EN) involvement as disease-related factors. Prognostic performance was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression models and C-statistics. Age-stratified analysis was performed for: ≤40 years (7%; n=492), 41–60 years (28%; n=1,909), 61–80 years (59%; n=4,080), and >80 years (7%; n=460). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results In the pooled cohort, the median age was 66 years (range 18–95). Compared to the original IPI cohort (n=3,273), our cohort was older (age >60 years: 66% vs 41%) but otherwise comparable: ECOG PS 2–4 (25% vs 24%), clinical stage III–IV (63% vs 66%), elevated LDH (60% vs 52%), and >1 EN involvement (32% vs 30%). In multivariable analysis, age (≤60 vs >60 years) was the strongest predictor of OS (HR=2.78; vs HR=1.96 in original IPI report), followed by ECOG PS (HR=2.07; vs 1.80), clinical stage (HR=1.50; vs 1.47), LDH (HR=1.41; vs 1.85, all P<0.01); EN involvement was not significant (P=0.50, HR=1.03 vs 1.48). Risk group distribution shifted from the original IPI: 28% were low-risk (0–1 factor; vs 35%), 23% low-intermediate (2; vs 27%), 24% high-intermediate (3; vs 22%), and 25% high-risk (4–5; vs 16%). Corresponding 2-year OS rates were 95%, 86%, 78%, and 63%, superior to those of the original IPI cohort (87%, 67%, 55%, 44%; pre-rituximab era). Age was associated with an increasing risk of mortality, with a more pronounced rise beyond 60 years. In a piecewise Cox model, the HR per year was 1.04 for ages ≤60 (linear), 1.05 for 61–69 (accelerated), and 1.06 for ≥70 years (exponential, all P<0.01). ECOG PS retained prognostic significance across age groups: HRs were 1.87 (P=0.06) for ≤40 years, 1.63 (P<0.01) for 41–60, 2.22 (P<0.01) for 61–80, and 1.43 (P<0.01) for >80 years. The strength of other IPI components declined with age. Clinical stage showed decreasing impact: HR 2.08 (P=0.09), 1.97 (P<0.01), 1.49 (P<0.01), and 1.31 (P=0.05). LDH was significant only up to age 80 years: HRs were 2.07 (P=0.04), 1.96 (P<0.01), 1.32 (P<0.01), and 1.21 (P=0.13). EN involvement was non-significant across all groups: HRs were 1.37 (P=0.34), 1.26 (P=0.05), 0.98 (P=0.74), and 1.06 (P=0.67). The IPI C-statistics was 0.676 overall and declined with age: ≤40 years (0.708), 41–60 years (0.683), 61–80 years (0.641), and >80 years (0.598). We next stratified the IPI factors into patient- (age, ECOG PS) and disease-related (clinical stage, LDH, EN involvement). In patients ≤40 years, disease-related factors outperformed patient-related (C-index 0.693 vs 0.602), as in the 41–60 group (C-index 0.677 vs 0.589). In patients aged 61–80, predictive values were comparable (0.613 vs 0.622). In >80-year-olds, both declined substantially (0.580 vs 0.568). Conclusion The IPI remains a valuable prognostic tool in LBCL, particularly among younger patients. However, its overall predictive accuracy declines with age. In patients ≤60 years old, prognosis is primarily driven by disease-related factors, suggesting a role for molecular classifiers to enhance risk stratification. In older patients, incorporation of additional patient-level factors, such as comorbidities and nutritional status could be considered. These findings underscore the need for more individualized prognostic tools for LBCL patients. Funding: NU21-03-00411, P50 CA97274, U01 CA195568, Charles University Haematology-Oncology Cooperatio Program.

Abstract Recent introduction of 2 different lymphoma classifications has raised concerns about consistency in diagnosis, management, and clinical trial enrollment. Data from a large cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice suggest that differences between the classifications will affect <1% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

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.

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.

Introduction: The use of standardized, evidence-based classification systems is crucial for the accurate diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Moreover, standardized classification facilitates research and epidemiologic studies and promotes consistency in communication among healthcare professionals. Since 2016, the revised 4 th edition of the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM4R) has been the global standard for diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies. With the emergence of new data, 2 new classification systems were developed and published in 2022: the 5 th edition of the WHO Classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). Both WHO-HAEM5 and ICC maintain a shared fundamental concept of disease classification that integrates clinical, pathologic, and molecular data. However, they differ on nomenclature, establishment of new entities, and/or diagnostic criteria for some disease categories. To evaluate the impact of these differences on real-world diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), we examined the diagnostic classification of NHL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Methods: Initiated in 2015, LEO is an ongoing prospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed NHL. Patients are enrolled at 8 major U.S. medical centers. Clinical, epidemiologic, pathologic, and treatment data are abstracted at baseline and active follow-up is conducted for all patients. Lymphoma subtype is coded for each case based on expert hematopathology re-review of the diagnostic pathology slides, the pathology report, biomarker data, and clinical data. Of note, NHL subtype distribution is similar to SEER data. We studied all patients enrolled in LEO between 7/1/2016 (the date LEO pathology review started using WHO-HAEM4R diagnostic codes) and 5/31/2020. WHO-HAEM4R diagnoses and additional clinicopathologic data, when relevant, were used to map cases into the corresponding WHO-HAEM5 and ICC diagnoses. Differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC were annotated for each case as: None - same disease entity; Minor - difference in nomenclature with similar diagnostic criteria; Major - difference in disease category and/or diagnostic criteria; or Unevaluable - insufficient data to assign WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis. Results: LEO enrolled 6143 patients during the study period. Of these, comparison between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC was evaluable in 5730 (93.3%). Unevaluable cases included those without a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis at enrollment (N=384; e.g., patients with a low-grade B-cell lymphoma that could not be definitively sub-classified) and those with a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis, but with insufficient clinicopathologic data to assign a specific WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis (N=29). Of the 5730 evaluable cases, 5376 (93.8%) showed no difference between WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis, 311 (5.4%) showed minor differences (nomenclature only), and 43 (0.8%) showed major differences (Table 1). The 43 major differences all involved B-cell NHLs; 20 (46.5%) were attributable to different approaches to classifying double-hit lymphomas, 21 (48.9%) to classification of splenic/leukemic B-cell lymphomas, and 2 (4.6%) to classification of B-cell lymphomas occurring at specific anatomic sites (Table 2). Conclusion: In a large, prospective lymphoma cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice at 8 major U.S. medical centers, major diagnostic differences in the classification of NHL using WHO-HAEM5 or ICC classification criteria were seen in 0.8%, whereas the remaining 99.2% of diagnoses were either the same or showed differences in nomenclature only. The existence of 2 concurrent classification systems presents potential for discrepancies in pathologic diagnosis, clinical practice, clinical trials, and other lymphoma research. Furthermore, some of the differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC are clinically and potentially therapeutically significant, and their resolution requires further study. Nevertheless, our findings argue that the proportion of patients affected would be small in real-world practice settings. This appears largely related to incidence rates of specific lymphoma subtypes, with major differences between the 2 classifications predominantly affecting rare entities, while there is general concordance on the most common forms of NHL.

e13535 Background: Pediatric patients (pts) receiving long-term vincristine treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) who carry two variant alleles of CEP72 rs924607 experience more severe peripheral neuropathy (PN) at lower cumulative vincristine doses. The objective of this retrospective pharmacogenetic analysis was to determine if pts homozygous for rs924607 have increased PN risk when receiving short-term vincristine treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: Caucasian pts with DLBCL randomized to either of two vincristine-containing regimens (R-CHOP or DA-EPOCH-R) on the CALGB 50303 (Alliance) trial were genotyped for germline rs924607 via TaqMan. Vincristine was administered intravenously 1.4 mg/m2 (2 mg cap) on day 1 of each R-CHOP cycle (1.4 mg/m2/cycle) or 0.4 mg/m2/day (no cap) on days 1-4 of each DA-EPOCH-R cycle (1.6 mg/m2/cycle). Dosing was repeated every 21 days for 6 treatment cycles, for a maximum cumulative vincristine dose of 8.4 (R-CHOP) or 9.6 (DA-EPOCH-R) mg/m2 over 18 weeks. The primary analysis compared risk of NCI CTCAE grade 3 or higher PN in rs924607 homozygous variant pts versus wild-type allele carriers using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for treatment received (R-CHOP vs. DA-EPOCH-R), age (continuous), and sex (male vs. female). A secondary analysis was conducted only in pts assigned to the DA-EPOCH-R arm. Results: Of 307 pts included in the analysis, 32 (10.4%) experienced grade 3+ PN. PN occurrence was nominally lower in homozygous pts (5/59 = 8.5%) than wild-type carriers (27/248 = 10.9%). In the primary analysis, homozygous pts did not experience PN earlier in treatment (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.04, (95% confidence interval: 0.39-2.75), one-sided p-value = 0.47). There was no significant difference between groups in dose-at-PN occurrence (homozygous (n = 5): 8.81 mg/m2 vs. wild-type carrier (n = 27):6.74 mg/m2, p > 0.05). The secondary analysis in pts on the DA-EPOCH-R arm (n = 147), in which the majority of PN events occurred (n = 27/32 = 84%), homozygous pts (n = 26) did not have significantly increased PN risk (HR = 1.30, p = 0.56). Conclusions: This retrospective analysis of the prospective CALGB 50303 trial did not find that pts homozygous for CEP72 rs924607 had increased PN risk during short-term vincristine treatment for DLBCL. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . ClinicalTrials.gov Id: NCT00118209.

5082 Background: We evaluated the association of germ-line variation in 10 candidate genes important in prostate cancer biology (NKX3-1, JAK2, SLCO2B1, STAT3, CYP19A1, HSD17B4, TRMT11, PRMT3, HSD17B12, NCOA4) with failure of AA in advanced prostate cancer patients. Methods: Patients (N=619) were enrolled for genotyping at the time of AA failure. Candidate genes were selected from the literature and previous pilot studies in smaller cohorts which had identified variation in TRMT11 and HSD17B12 to be associated with AA failure. Genes were tagged using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from HapMap with minor allele frequency of >5% and r2≥0.8. DNA was extracted from peripheral blood and genotyped using Illumina Veracode platform. The primary endpoint was time to failure on AA, defined as time from initiating continuous AA to two serial PSA increases over the nadir or clinical or imaging based progression, whichever came first. Principal component analysis was used for gene-levels tests. Association with the primary endpoint was assessed using proportional hazards regression models at the gene-level and at the SNP level. For SNP level results we estimated per allele (ordinal model) hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Cox regression, adjusted for Gleason score (GS). Results: We successfully genotyped 60 SNPs (from 10 genes) in 519 subjects. The median age of the cohort was 71 years (range 43, 92). The GS distribution was 51% subjects with GS≥8; 33% with GS=7 and 17% with GS<7. Median time to AA failure for the cohort was 2.3 years (IQ range: 1.0-4.5). In gene level analyses adjusting for GS, TRMT11 (p=0.004), HSD17B12 (p=0.016), and JAK2 (p=0.044) genes were associated with time to AA failure. Four of the 18 genotyped SNPs in JAK2 were associated with AA failure after adjustment for GS (Table). Conclusions: Variation in the JAK2 gene is significantly associated with time to AA failure. Validation is needed to develop these as predictive biomarkers for AA in advanced prostate cancer. [Table: see text]