Querfeld, Christiane

Importance Given that mycosis fungoides−cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (MF/CTCL) is chronic, there is a need for additional therapies with minimal short- and long-term adverse effects. Topical synthetic hypericin ointment, 0.25%, activated with visible light is a novel, nonmutagenic photodynamic therapy (PDT). Objectives To determine the efficacy and safety of topical synthetic hypericin ointment, 0.25%, activated with visible light as a nonmutagenic PDT in early-stage MF/CTCL. Design, Settings, and Participants This was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, phase 3 randomized clinical trial (FLASH study) conducted from December 2015 to November 2020 at 39 academic and community-based US medical centers. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with early-stage (IA-IIA) MF/CTCL. Interventions In cycle 1, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive hypericin or placebo to 3 index lesions twice weekly for 6 weeks. In cycle 2, all patients received the active drug for 6 weeks to index lesions. In cycle 3 (optional), both index and additional lesions received active drug for 6 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was index lesion response rate (ILRR), defined as 50% or greater improvement in modified Composite Assessment of Index Lesion Severity (mCAILS) score from baseline after 6 weeks of therapy for cycle 1. For cycles 2 and 3, open label response rates were secondary end points. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed at each treatment visit, after each cycle, and then monthly for 6 months. Data analyses were performed on December 21, 2020. Results The study population comprised 169 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [16.0] years; 96 [57.8%] men; 120 [72.3%] White individuals) with early-stage MF/CTCL. After 6 weeks of treatment, hypericin PDT was more effective than placebo (cycle 1 ILRR, 16% vs 4%; P = .04). The ILRR increased to 40% in patients who received 2 cycles of hypericin PDT ( P < .001 vs cycle 1 hypericin) and to 49% after 3 cycles ( P < .001 vs cycle 1 hypericin). Significant clinical responses were observed in both patch and plaque type lesions and were similar regardless of age, sex, race, stage IA vs IB, time since diagnosis, and number of prior therapies. The most common treatment-related AEs were mild local skin (13.5%-17.3% across cycles 1-3 vs 10.5% for placebo in cycle 1) and application-site reactions (3.2%-6.9% across cycles 1-3 vs 4% for placebo in cycle 1). No drug-related serious AEs occurred. Conclusion and Relevance The findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that synthetic hypericin PDT is effective in early-stage patch and plaque MF/CTCL and has a favorable safety profile. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02448381

Abstract Purpose: TTI-621 (SIRPα-IgG1 Fc) is a novel checkpoint inhibitor that activates antitumor activity by blocking the CD47 “don't eat me” signal. This first-in-human phase I study (NCT02663518) evaluated the safety and activity of TTI-621 in relapsed/refractory (R/R) hematologic malignancies. Patients and Methods: Patients with R/R lymphoma received escalating weekly intravenous TTI-621 to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). During expansion, patients with various malignancies received weekly single-agent TTI-621 at the MTD; TTI-621 was combined with rituximab in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) or with nivolumab in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. The primary endpoint was the incidence/severity of adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoint included overall response rate (ORR). Results: Overall, 164 patients received TTI-621: 18 in escalation and 146 in expansion (rituximab combination, n = 35 and nivolumab combination, n = 4). On the basis of transient grade 4 thrombocytopenia, the MTD was determined as 0.2 mg/kg; 0.1 mg/kg was evaluated in combination cohorts. AEs included infusion-related reactions, thrombocytopenia, chills, and fatigue. Thrombocytopenia (20%, grade ≥3) was reversible between doses and not associated with bleeding. Transient thrombocytopenia that determined the initial MTD may not have been dose limiting. The ORR for all patients was 13%. The ORR was 29% (2/7) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and 25% (8/32) for T-cell NHL (T-NHL) with TTI-621 monotherapy and was 21% (5/24) for DLBCL with TTI-621 plus rituximab. Further dose optimization is ongoing. Conclusions: TTI-621 was well-tolerated and demonstrated activity as monotherapy in patients with R/R B-NHL and T-NHL and combined with rituximab in patients with R/R B-NHL.

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.