Klánová, Magdalena

PURPOSE In large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), use of high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) to prevent CNS relapse (so-called CNS prophylaxis) remains controversial. International guidelines continue to recommend HD-MTX in patients deemed ultra high risk (UHR) because of a lack of robust data specific to these subgroups. This study was designed to examine the impact of HD-MTX specifically in UHR patients. METHODS Data from two previous retrospective analyses were combined to produce a cohort of UHR patients (≥1 of the following criteria: CNS international prognostic index score 5-6; testicular, renal/adrenal, or breast involvement; ≥3 extranodal sites), treated with or without HD-MTX. The primary outcome was CNS relapse rate (isolated or concurrent with systemic relapse) measured from diagnosis with additional landmark analysis of all responding patients with no progression event at 6 months. RESULTS Analyses were performed on 1,923 patients meeting UHR criteria. No significant difference in 3-year CNS relapse rate was observed between no HD-MTX (n = 1,051) versus HD-MTX patients (n = 872), including in multivariable analyses adjusting for baseline characteristics (3-year rate, 9.3% v 8.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.57]). Analyses restricted to isolated CNS relapse also confirmed no difference (5.9% v 5.7%; adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.53]). In the landmark analysis (no HD-MTX n = 782, HD-MTX n = 773), no difference in 3-year CNS relapse was observed (6.7% v 6.6%, adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.44]). CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the largest international comparative data set of patients with LBCL with UHR features showing no significant reduction in CNS relapse with HD-MTX in all UHR or in any individual subgroup. Despite inherent limitations of retrospective analyses, the data strongly support previous studies in suggesting HD-MTX prophylaxis has no meaningful benefit for most patients.

Abstract Introduction Although chemo-free regimens are increasingly used in elderly patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), most still receive conventional chemoimmunotherapy. Patients up to 75–80 years old are usually treated with full-dose R-CHOP, while 80+ patients receive the attenuated R-miniCHOP regimen as standard of care. Prior studies have shown that in patients aged 65+ years, R-CHOP was associated with improved survival based on propensity score matching (PSM) analysis (Al-Sarayfi, Am J Hematol, 2023), though this did not include comorbidity data. Furthermore, no formal studies have focused specifically on 80+ patients. We aimed to perform a PSM comparison of R-CHOP versus R-miniCHOP to better inform treatment decisions in this population. Methods We harmonized and pooled data from 237 LBCL patients receiving chemotherapy with rituximab (out of all 263 80+ patients) from the prospective LEO cohort (USA, n=147; 2015–2020) and NiHiL registry (Czech Republic, single center, n=116; 2010–2023). Of them, 205 (86%) receiving anthracycline(A)-based regimens were included. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, treatments, and outcomes were collected. PSM (1:1, caliper 0.2) was performed to compare R-CHOP and R-miniCHOP using age, ECOG performance status (PS), clinical stage, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and major comorbidities (heart disease, history of stroke, and other recent cancer) as matching variables. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS, defined as death attributed to lymphoma progression). Results Among 205 A-treated patients, median age was 83 years (range 80–99); 30% had ECOG PS 2–4, 67% clinical stage III–IV, 34% ≥2 involved extranodal sites, 59% elevated LDH, and 58% had International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores 3–5. Median follow-up was 5.5 years; median OS and EFS were 4.1 and 3.4 years, resp. A-based regimens comprised full-dose R-CHOP-like (n=79; 39%; R-CHOP n=74, DA-EPOCH-R n=5) and R-miniCHOP (n=126; 61%). Patients receiving R-CHOP-like regimens had more favorable baseline characteristics (median age 82 vs 83 years, P=0.04; ECOG PS 2–4: 16% vs 39%, P<0.01; IPI 3–5: 46% vs 66%, P=0.03) and a lower, though not statistically significant, comorbidity burden (mean 1.14 vs 1.39; heart disease 35% vs 45%, P=0.22; history of stroke 4% vs 6%, P=0.64; other cancer 6% vs 5%, P=0.87). R-CHOP-like regimens vs R-miniCHOP had superior OS (median 6.3 vs 3.4 years; HR=0.61, 95% CI 0.42–0.90; P=0.01) and EFS (median 5.3 vs 2.1 years; HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.40–0.83; P<0.01), with no significant difference in LSS (2-year 89% vs 82%, HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.39–1.54, P=0.46). To mitigate selection bias, we performed PSM on patients with available baseline characteristics treated with R-CHOP (n=69) and R-miniCHOP (n=121), resulting in 63 matched pairs. Matched cohorts were well-balanced on age (median 82 years in both cohorts; P=0.68), ECOG PS 2–4 (17% vs 19%; P=0.82), IPI 3–5 (52% vs. 59%; P=0.41), and comorbidity burden (mean 1.10 vs. 1.29; P=0.30). The presence of heart disease (40% in both cohorts), history of stroke (5% vs 6%), and cancer (5% vs 6%) were similar. Survival modestly favored R-CHOP, but differences were not significant: median OS 5.3 vs 3.5 years (HR=0.73; 95% CI 0.46–1.15; P=0.17), median EFS 3.8 vs 2.8 years (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.49–1.18; P=0.23), and 2-year LSS 88% vs 84% (HR=1.09; 95% CI 0.45–2.63; P=0.85). Treatment-related mortality was similar in both cohorts (16%). Among R-miniCHOP patients, survival outcomes did not differ between matched (n=63) and unmatched (n=63) groups (OS P=0.72; EFS P=0.23; LSS P=0.27). Unmatched (n=16) R-CHOP patients had a trend toward improved survival compared to matched (n=63) individuals (OS P=0.10; EFS P=0.049; LSS P=0.24). Conclusion This is the first PSM-based analysis comparing R-CHOP and R-miniCHOP in LBCL patients 80+ years old. Despite inherent limitations of a non-randomized design and limited number of matched patients, our findings – derived from two prospective cohorts – suggest that R-miniCHOP may offer outcomes comparable to R-CHOP, particularly with respect to LSS. While these results support R-miniCHOP as an appropriate frontline option, treatment decisions remain highly individualized. These data may help inform clinical decision-making and provide a basis for designing future trials targeting this population, where R-miniCHOP could serve as a comparator arm. Funding: NU21-03-00411, U01 CA195568.

Abstract Introduction Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is an indolent and heterogenous disease. Several prognostic models have been proposed to assess outcomes in MZL, including FLIPI, IPI (primarily designed for overall survival [OS]), and MZL-specific scores such as MALT-IPI (event-free survival [EFS]) and MZL-IPI (progression-free survival). FLIPI24 is a recently developed prognostic index for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) treated with first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy (IC), identifying a high-risk population with inferior survival and increased risk of lymphoma-related death. FLIPI24 has also demonstrated robust performance in the entire FL population, including patients under observation. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic utility of FLIPI24 in patients with MZL and to compare its performance with other established indices (FLIPI, MZL-IPI, IPI, MALT-IPI). Methods We pooled harmonized data from newly diagnosed MZL patients with complete available FLIPI24 variables (age, white blood cell count [WBC], hemoglobin [HGB], serum lactate dehydrogenase [LDH], and beta-2-microglobulin [B2M] levels) treated with 1L IC. Data were collected from three prospective international cohorts: NiHiL (Czech Republic; n=897; enrolled 2005–2023), LEO (USA; n=62; 2015–2020), and MER (USA; n=32; 2010–2015), forming a pooled cohort of 991 1L IC-treated patients. The analysis was then extended to include all newly diagnosed MZL patients (n=2,116), regardless of treatment. The primary endpoint in the 1L IC-treated cohort was EFS at 24 months (EFS24), and for all MZL patients, it was OS. Secondary endpoints included OS24 for 1L IC treated cohort, lymphoma-related mortality by FLIPI24 risk groups, and comparative prognostic performance of FLIPI, IPI, and MALT-IPI, by C-statistics; performance of MZL-IPI was assessed on a subgroup of NiHiL patients with available data (n=877 all MZL, n=485 1L IC-treated). Results Among the 991 1L IC-treated patients, the median age at diagnosis was 66 years (range 22–94); 47% were male; 11% had ECOG performance status ≥2, 68% clinical stage III–IV, 42% elevated LDH, 40% IPI 3–5, 42% FLIPI 3–5, and 62% MALT-IPI 2–3. The median B2M level was 2.8 mg/L, WBC 7.0 × 10⁹/L, and HGB 13.1 g/dL. MZL subtypes were: 64% extranodal (EMZL), 22% nodal (NMZL), and 14% splenic (SMZL). Most common 1L IC regimens were R-CVP (46%), R-CHOP-like (32%), R-chlorambucil (9%), and B-R (9%). FLIPI24 stratified patients into low- (18%), intermediate- (37%), and high-risk (45%) groups. High-risk patients were older (median 54 vs 65 vs 71 years for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively; P<0.01), had more frequent adverse baseline features, and were more likely to have the SMZL subtype (2% vs 7% vs 25% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively; P<0.01). After a median follow-up of 7.2 years, EFS24 was 89%, 85%, and 65% (P<0.01) across low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups; OS at 2 years was 98%, 97%, and 79%; and OS at 5 years was 96%, 91%, and 62%, resp. (P<0.01). The 5-year cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related death was 13% in high-risk vs 6% in low-/intermediate-risk groups. FLIPI24 showed better prognostic accuracy for EFS compared with FLIPI, MZL-IPI, IPI and MALT-IPI (C-index: 0.640 vs 0.630, 0.622, 0.620 and 0.603, resp.), as well as for OS (C-index: 0.710 vs 0.672, 0.641, 0.663, 0.652, resp.). Prognostic performance was consistent across MZL subtypes. In the extended cohort of 2,116 newly diagnosed MZL patients (47% receiving IC, 17% rituximab monotherapy, 11% radiotherapy, 8% surgery, 2% antibiotics; 15% observed), FLIPI24 stratified patients into low- (24%), intermediate- (39%), and high-risk (37%) groups. OS at 2 year was 99%, 97%, and 83%, at 5 years it was 96%, 91%, and 62%, resp. (P<0.01). The 5-year cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related death was 12% in high-risk vs 4% in low-/intermediate-risk patients. FLIPI24 outperformed other indices (OS C-index: 0.754 vs MZL-IPI 0.654, FLIPI 0.700, MALT-IPI 0.694, IPI 0.699). Conclusion FLIPI24 demonstrates strong and consistent prognostic performance across all MZL subtypes, identifying ~40% of patients as high-risk with significantly worse survival and increased lymphoma-related mortality. The FLIPI24 outperforms FLIPI, MZL-IPI, IPI, and MALT-IPI in predicting outcomes and may serve as a practical tool to guide risk-adapted management and selection of patients for novel therapies in MZL. Funding: NU21-03-00411, P50 CA97274, U01 CA195568.

Abstract Introduction The LEO Comorbidity Index (LCI), comprising ten equally weighted comorbidity categories (respiratory, cardiovascular, digestive, hepatic, renal, autoimmune, diabetes, cancer history, HIV, and stroke), has demonstrated prognostic utility in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphomas. However, its predictive accuracy may vary with increasing age, due to age-related rises in comorbidity burden and physiological vulnerability. To investigate these dynamics, we evaluated the age-stratified predictive performance of LCI in patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), with a focused analysis on individuals aged 80+ years. We also examined which specific comorbidities most strongly influenced overall survival (OS) and developed a simplified, clinically applicable index tailored to this population. Methods We first included adults ≥40 years with newly diagnosed LBCL and recorded comorbidities from the LEO registry (USA, 2015–2020; n=1,652) to assess age-stratified predictive performance of LCI using the C-index. Next, we focused on patients 80+ years (n=263), pooled from the LEO cohort (n=147) and NiHiL registry (restricted to General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic, 2010–2023; n=116). Comorbidities were collected from patient self-reports (LEO) and/or medical records (LEO/NiHiL). Univariate and multivariate Cox models were used. The primary endpoint was OS. Results Among the total LBCL population (n=1,652), LCI predictive performance improved by age category with C-index for patients <65 of 0.584, 65–79 years 0.579, and ≥80 years 0.647, indicating stronger discrimination in the 80+ group. Subsequent analysis focused on patients aged 80+ years (n=263; median age 83). Within this cohort, 34% had ECOG performance status (PS) 2–4, 66% stage III–IV disease, 59% elevated lactate dehydrogenase, 35% >1 extranodal site involved, and 58% International Prognostic Index (IPI) score of 3–5. A total of 377 comorbidities were reported, averaging 1.43 per patient (1.22 in LEO; 1.61 in NiHiL). LCI distribution was: 0 points in 24% (n=62), 1 point in 33% (n=88), and 2–5 points in 43% (n=113). Higher LCI scores had worse ECOG PS 2–4: 19% (LCI=0), 33% (LCI=1), and 43% (LCI ≥2; P=0.01), and inferior OS (median 6.9 years LCI=0, 3.0 years LCI=1, and 2.8 years LCI≥2, resp.; P=0.02). Presence of ≥1 comorbidity was associated with shorter OS compared to no comorbidities (HR=1.67, P=0.01). The LCI was an independent predictor of OS after adjusting for age (HR=1.18, P=0.01, C-index 0.623), IPI (HR=1.16, P=0.03, C-index 0.628) as well as for recently proposed SENIOR-IPI (HR=1.14, P=0.049, C-index 0.665). When evaluating individual comorbidities, heart disease (HR=1.54, P=0.01), stroke (HR=1.89, P=0.03), and recent malignancy (HR=1.99, P=0.02) were independent predictors of OS. Based on these findings, we developed a simplified LCI (sLCI) for use in 80+ patients incorporating only the three comorbidities (1 point each). Patients were categorized as sLCI: 0 (49%, n=129), 1 (44%, n=115), and 2–3 points (7%, n=19). sLCI scores 0, 1, 2–3 were associated with ECOG PS 2–4 27%, 37%, and 63%, respectively (P=0.01) and inferior OS: median 5.3 years (0), 2.5 years (1), and 1.4 years (2–3; P<0.01). sLCI remained an independent and strong predictor of OS after adjusting for age (HR=1.71, P<0.01, C-index 0.636), IPI (HR=1.66, P<0.01, C-index 0.635), and SENIOR-IPI (HR=1.60, P<0.04, C-index 0.659). The results were consistent in both NiHiL and LEO cohorts and remained significant among patients treated with anthracyclines (sLCI adjusted for age: HR=1.58, P<0.01, C-index 0.607; for IPI: HR=1.53, P=0.01, C-index 0.623; for SENIOR-IPI: HR=1.51, P=0.01, C-index 0.633). Conclusion Comorbidity burden becomes increasingly prognostic with higher age in LBCL patients. In the 80+ individuals, comorbidities – particularly heart disease, recent cancer, and stroke – have an independent impact on OS. While the original LCI captures the impact of broadly defined comorbidities, its prognostic utility attenuates in the 80+ patients, likely reflecting limited relevance of indolent chronic conditions in this population's constrained survival horizon. The sLCI, focused on the most prognostically relevant comorbidities, offers practical risk stratification. Incorporation of sLCI into clinical decision-making – alongside other prognostic indices – could better identify high-risk individuals and guide treatment strategies. Funding: NU21-03-00411, U01 CA195568.

PURPOSE CNS progression or relapse is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. There is no consensus regarding the optimal approach to CNS prophylaxis. This study was designed to determine whether high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is effective at preventing CNS progression in patients at high risk of this complication. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age 18-80 years with aggressive B-cell lymphoma and high risk of CNS progression, treated with curative-intent anti–CD20-based chemoimmunotherapy, were included in this international, retrospective, observational study. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and cumulative risks of CNS progression were calculated according to use of HD-MTX, with time to CNS progression calculated from diagnosis for all patients (all-pts) and from completion of frontline systemic lymphoma induction therapy, for patients in complete response at completion of chemoimmunotherapy (CR-pts). RESULTS Two thousand four hundred eighteen all-pts (HD-MTX; n = 425) and 1,616 CR-pts (HD-MTX; n = 356) were included. CNS International Prognostic Index was 4-6 in 83.4% all-pts. Patients treated with HD-MTX had a lower risk of CNS progression (adjusted HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.90]; P = .014), but significance was not retained when confined to CR-pts (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.42 to 1.30]; P = .29), with 5-year adjusted risk difference of 1.6% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.4; all-pts) and 1.4% (95% CI, –1.5 to 4.1; CR-pts). Subgroups were underpowered to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of HD-MTX in individual high-risk clinical scenarios; however, there was no clear reduction in CNS progression risk with HD-MTX in any high-risk subgroup. CONCLUSION In this large study, high-risk patients receiving HD-MTX had a 7.2% 2-year risk of CNS progression, consistent with the progression risk in previously reported high-risk cohorts. Use of HD-MTX was not associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in risk of CNS progression.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.

Background Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in adults. R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) remains the standard of care for newly diagnosed DLBCL, with cure rates of 60-70%. However, more effective front-line options are needed to further improve outcomes, particularly in high-risk patients (Sehn LH, Gascoyne RD. Blood 2015;125:22). Approximately 15-20% of treatment-naïve patients with DLBCL have CD20-low expressing tumors, while CD19 is expressed in >90% of DLBCL. CD20-low DLBCL is associated with poor response to rituximab-based regimens (Johnson NA, et al. Blood 2009;113:3773; Prevodnik VK, et al. Diagnostic Pathol 2011;6:33). CD19 is a B-lymphocyte lineage-specific surface antigen that is widely expressed in mature B-cell malignancies, including DLBCL. CD19 functions as a positive regulator of B-cell receptor signaling and is important for B-cell activation and proliferation, and is, therefore, an attractive therapeutic target in addition to CD20. Tafasitamab (MOR208) is a humanized anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody with an engineered constant region (Fc) that enhances Fc-γ receptor binding affinity on effector cells, thereby enhancing antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) and phagocytosis (ADCP). Preliminary data in DLBCL cell lines suggest that combined targeting of CD19 and CD20 with tafasitamab and rituximab, respectively, could have synergistic cytotoxic effects. Monotherapy with tafasitamab has shown clinical activity and acceptable safety in a Phase I study in relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (NCT01161511) and in a Phase IIa study in R/R NHL (NCT01685008). In patients with R/R DLBCL, treatment with single agent tafasitamab until progression led to a 26% objective response rate (ORR) with several long-term responses (Jurczak W, et al. Ann Oncol 2018; 29:1266). Preclinical in vitro and in vivo data have demonstrated increased combinatorial antitumor effects with tafasitamab and the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide (LEN). In the Phase II, single-arm L-MIND study (NCT02399085) in patients with R/R DLBCL, treatment with tafasitamab/LEN achieved an ORR of 60%, a complete response (CR) rate of 42.5% and a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 12.1 months (Salles GA, et al. ICML 2019; Abstr 124). This combination received breakthrough therapy designation by the US Food and Drug Administration. Study design and methods First-MIND is a Phase Ib, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial of tafasitamab/R-CHOP or tafasitamab/LEN/R-CHOP in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL (Figure 1). Patients must be aged ≥18 years, treatment naïve, with histologically confirmed DLBCL not otherwise specified and have intermediate- to high-risk disease (International Prognostic Index 2-5). Key exclusion criteria include known double- or triple-hit lymphoma, and transformed or composite lymphoma. Treatment consists of six 21-day cycles of tafasitamab (12 mg/kg intravenously [IV], on Days [D] 1, 8 and 15) in addition to R-CHOP (Arm A) or tafasitamab (12 mg/kg IV, on D1, 8 and 15) and LEN (25 mg orally, on D1-10) in addition to R-CHOP (Arm B). The trial includes a safety run-in phase and a main phase. In the safety run-in phase, 12 patients will be enrolled in each arm. If no unexpected safety signals suspected to be related to the addition of tafasitamab ± LEN to R-CHOP are observed, an additional 18 patients will be enrolled in each arm in the main phase. The primary objective of the trial is to assess safety; secondary objectives include evaluation of efficacy (ORR and PET-assessed CR rate at end of treatment, PFS, overall survival, event-free survival, time to next anti-lymphoma treatment), long-term safety and pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of tafasitamab in each arm. Exploratory objectives will include the assessment of biomarkers in peripheral blood (natural killer [NK] cell count, cell-free circulating tumor DNA) and tumor tissue (DLBCL cell of origin, NK cell or macrophage count/gene expression profile, CD19 and CD20 expression) that may be relevant to the mechanism of action and/or response to study treatment. As this is a Phase Ib study to primarily explore safety, no formal statistical hypothesis is considered for the sample size calculation; approximately 60 patients will be recruited across Europe and the US. Disclosures Burke: Gilead: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. André:Celgene: Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Takeda Millenium: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Amgen: Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants. Cheson:Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Epizyme: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Symbios: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Duell:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Nowakowski:Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rosenwald:MorphoSys: Consultancy. Salles:Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis, Servier, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kite, MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Autolus: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Educational events; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Educational events; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Staber:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda-Millenium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Trněný:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Westin:Novartis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Juno: Other: Advisory Board; Unum: Research Funding; Curis: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Kite: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; 47 Inc: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Brugger:MorphoSys: Employment; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Fingerle-Rowson:MorphoSys AG: Employment. Klanova:MorphoSys AG: Employment. Würth:MorphoSys AG: Employment. Truemper:Janssen Oncology: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding.