Martin, Peter

7520 Background: With goal of simplifying clinical trials in lymphomas, we reported that bone marrow biopsies are irrelevant for response assessment in most patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) on trials (Rutherford JCO 2023). We then investigated impact of imaging frequency in FL clinical trials. We hypothesized that progression free survival (PFS) would not be different when imaging is performed less frequently than required by trials. Methods: We identified all trials through Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology that enrolled untreated pts with FL from 2008-2016. We considered 2 imaging schedules: protocol specified (control) vs relaxed (X) in which response assessments at every other required time point were omitted. For each trial, we estimated PFS using Kaplan Meier methods for the 2 schedules then determined difference in PFS between schedules as % change from control schedule in 2 year (yr) PFS rate. We performed simulation studies to approximate impact of less frequent imaging on PFS estimation using 50901 (low-intermediate risk FL) and 50904 (intermediate-high risk FL, control arm). We assumed exponential distribution for PFS, where rate parameter was calculated based on observed median PFS with uniform censoring distribution. Protocols for 50901 and 50904 mandated imaging every 4 months (mos) for 2 yrs then every 6 mos (S0). We ran 1000 iterations of 100 observations using 3 tumor assessment follow up schedules: every 6 mos for 2 yrs then yearly (S1), every 8 mos for 2 yrs then yearly (S2), or yearly (S3) for simulated progression times. We calculated deviation of PFS using simulated schedules from truth (S0). Results: Across 5 FL trials, median percent change of schedule X from control schedule in estimated 2yr PFS was 2.1% (0.0-30.8%) and in estimated 4yr PFS was 0.9% (-8.6-25.7%). Disparate result in 50901 is due to small shift in events with low number of pts at risk for progression. Simulation study results by trial were: for 50901, true median PFS 1.9 yrs and average median PFS for S1, S2, and S3 of 2.05, 2.11, and 2.21 yrs; for 50904 (control arm), true median PFS 4.1 yrs and average median PFS for S1, S2, and S3 of 4.16, 4.12, and 4.05 yrs. Conclusions: Our findings support decreased frequency of imaging studies in FL clinical trials, which would improve resource use and decrease pt burden. We plan a larger analysis to confirm results. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT00553501 , NCT01145495 , NCT01190449 , NCT01286272 , NCT01829568 .[Table: see text]

Abstract Cancer clinical trial eligibility criteria may create patient populations studied in trials that do not reflect the patient populations treated in the real-world setting. Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent lymphoma with heterogeneous presentations across a broad range of individuals, resulting in many acceptable management strategies. We evaluated how first-line clinical trial eligibility criteria impacted the demographic makeup and outcomes of patients with FL for whom systemic therapy might be considered. We compared the characteristics of 196 patients with FL from a single institution to eligibility criteria from 10 first-line FL trials on clinicaltrials.gov. Next, we tabulated eligibility criteria from 24 first-line FL protocols and evaluated their impact on 1198 patients with FL with stages II to IV disease from the prospective Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort studies. We found that 39.8% and 52.7% of patients with FL might be excluded from clinical trials based on eligibility criteria derived from clinicaltrials.gov and protocol documents, respectively. Patients excluded because of renal function, prior malignancy, and self-reported serious health conditions tended to be older. Expanding stage requirement from III-IV to II-IV, and platelet requirement from ≥150 000 to ≥75 000 increased population size by 21% and 8%, respectively, in MER and by 16% and 13%, respectively, in LEO, without impacting patient demographics or outcomes. These data suggest that management of older individuals with FL may not be fully informed by recent clinical trials. Moreover, liberalizing stage and platelet criteria might expand the eligible population and allow for quicker trial accrual without impacting outcomes.

PURPOSE Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) are performed before/after therapy to confirm complete response (CR) in patients with lymphoma on clinical trials. We sought to establish whether BMB add value in assessing response or predict progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) outcomes in follicular lymphoma (FL) subjects in a large, multicenter, multitrial cohort. METHODS Data were pooled from seven trials of 580 subjects with previously untreated FL through Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) and SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) completing enrollment from 2008 to 2016. RESULTS Only 5/580 (0.9%) had positive baseline BMB, CR on imaging, and subsequent positive BMB ( P < .0001). Therefore, BMB were irrelevant to response in 99% of subjects. A sensitivity analysis of 385 FL subjects treated on an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study was included. In the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group cohort, 5/385 (1.3%) had BMB that affected response assessment. Since some subjects do not undergo confirmatory BMB, we performed a landmark survival analysis from first radiologic CR with data from 580 subjects from Alliance and SWOG. Of subjects with CR on imaging (n = 187), PFS and OS were not significantly different among those with negative BMB to confirm CR (n = 47) versus those without repeat BMB (n = 140; PFS: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.94, log-rank P = .686; OS: hazard ratio, 0.59, 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.53, log-rank P = .276). CONCLUSION We conclude that BMB add little value to response assessment in subjects with FL treated on clinical trials and we recommend eliminating BMB from clinical trial requirements. BMB should also be removed from diagnostic guidelines for FL except in scenarios in which it may change management including confirmation of limited stage and assessment of cytopenias. This would reduce cost, patient discomfort, resource utilization, and potentially remove a barrier to trial enrollment.

Abstract Recent first-line randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have shown negative results, which may be due in part to onerous eligibility criteria limiting enrollment of poor-risk patients who require immediate treatment. We conducted a Delphi-method survey with lymphoma experts in the United States to define recommendations for essential and potentially unnecessary enrollment criteria for modern first-line DLBCL RCTs aimed at increasing clinical diversity of ensuing study groups. We first tabulated enrollment criteria from 19 DLBCL RCTs spanning the rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) era to identify common eligibility criteria from prior DLBCL RCTs for inclusion in the Delphi-method survey. We tabulated 451 total eligibility criteria comprising 51 criterion categories across 19 first-line DLBCL RCTs in the R-CHOP era. We then surveyed lymphoma clinical trial experts representing 8 academic medical centers in the United States regarding essential and unnecessary eligibility criteria for modern DLBCL RCTs. Seventeen of 29 invited clinical investigators completed the round-1 questionnaire (response rate, of 58.6%), 15 of 17 round-1 participants (88.2%) completed the round-2 survey, and all round-1 participants reviewed finalized recommendations for eligibility criteria for modern first-line DLBCL RCTs. We defined consensus recommendations for 31 modernized eligibility criteria including threshold values for 10 quantitative eligibility criteria aimed at facilitating enrollment of a clinically diverse study population in first-line DLBCL RCTs designed to improve standard-of-care therapy.

Abstract Background: Differences in outcomes between clinical trial and real-world populations in follicular lymphoma (FL) may be partially explained by differences in characteristics between clinical trial and real-world patients. We hypothesized that certain eligibility criteria may be responsible for populations with distinct demographic/clinical characteristics. In this study, we compiled a list of eligibility criteria from front-line FL trials and evaluated their impact on the potentially eligible FL patients derived from two national cohort studies. We also evaluated whether criteria were duplicative and whether liberalizing criteria might enlarge the pool of eligible patients. Methods: Eligibility criteria were abstracted from 21 first-line clinical trials in FL in the FLASH database. We identified FL patients in two prospective cohort studies: Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patients included and excluded by various eligibility criteria. Chi-square tests and two-sample t-tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. To study the relative impact of individual criteria, we used a step-wise approach to quantify the number of additional patients excluded with each individual criterion after applying other criteria. Results: Eligibility criteria included in at least one-third of studies included stage (present in all 21 trials), renal function (18), HIV/AIDS status (17), performance status (16), history of other malignancies (16), hepatic function (16), and cardiac function (15), other serious health conditions (13), pregnancy status (10), neuro/psych function (10), age (10), metabolic disease status (9), CNS involvement (9), birth control (8), pulmonary function (8), WBC count (8), HBV status (8), platelet count (7), measurable disease (7), HCV status (7), active infection status (7), and CD20 status (7). We included 738 patients with newly diagnosed FL undergoing first-line therapy from MER and 703 patients from LEO. In MER, the median age was 60 years; 87% were White vs 2% non-White, 80% were non-Hispanic vs 2% Hispanic, and 68% were stage III/IV. In LEO, the median age was 60 years; 88% were White vs 11% non-White, 87% were non-Hispanic vs 11% Hispanic, and 67% were stage III/IV. Exclusion criteria impacting more than 10% of patients included stage (31 in LEO vs 29% in MER), self-reported serious health conditions (17 vs 31%), prior cancer diagnosis (14 vs 11%), performance status (10%), and platelet count (10%). Patients excluded due to the following criteria tended to be older: renal function (median 70 vs 60 years in MER), prior malignancy (67 vs 58 years), and self-reported serious health conditions (66 vs 58 years). This pattern was consistent in LEO (Table). No eligibility criteria significantly impacted race/ethnicity. Given the potential for multiple eligibility criteria to exclude the same patients, we used a step-wise approach to evaluate the impact of individual criteria on patients remaining after exclusion by the larger group of criteria, and whether liberalizing criteria impacted patient numbers and/or demographics. We found that only self-reported serious health conditions significantly impacted numbers (excluding 43% of patients), whereas hematologic parameters and performance status excluded only 5 and 1% of patients, respectively, with no impact on age or race/ethnicity. We also found that liberalizing stage requirement from III-IV to II-IV could increase enrollment by 14% in MER (12% in LEO), and liberalizing platelet requirement from ≥150,000 to ≥100,000 could increase enrollment by 11% (15% in LEO). Moreover, liberalizing eligibility criteria had no impact on age or race/ethnicity of the patient pool or on EFS (Figure). Conclusions: We found that excluding patients with prior malignancies, poor renal function, and self-reported serious health conditions appears to inadvertently exclude older patients. Other serious health conditions appeared to exclude a significant number of patients but did not impact patient demographics. Liberalizing certain criteria, including stage and platelet requirement, could potentially increase trial accrual, but would not likely correct the older patient deficit. These findings may serve in developing consensus eligibility criteria for future first-line FL trials. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Flowers: Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; Biopharma: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; EMD: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Iovance: Research Funding; Guardant: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; Ziopharm: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; 4D: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Adaptimmune: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas: CPRIT Scholar in Cancer Research: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Link: MEI: Consultancy; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Friedberg: Acerta: Other: DSMC ; Bayer: Other: DSMC ; Novartis: Other: DSMC . Cohen: Genentech, Takeda, BMS/Celgene, BioInvent, LAM, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Loxo/Lilly: Research Funding; Janssen, Adaptive, Aptitude Health, BeiGene, Cellectar, Adicet, Loxo/Lilly, AStra ZenecaKite/Gilead: Consultancy. Kahl: AbbVie, Acerta, ADCT, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie, Adaptive, ADCT, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kite, MEI, Pharmacyclics, Roche, TG Therapeutics, and Teva: Consultancy. Lossos: Lymphoma Research Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; NCI: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; NIH grants: Research Funding; University of Miami: Current Employment. Nastoupil: Bayer: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: DSMC, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Honoraria, Research Funding; Denovo Pharma: Other: DSMC; Caribou Biosciences: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Honoraria. Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Genentech: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Cerhan: NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Genentech: Research Funding. Martin: ADCT: Consultancy.

AbstractBecause there have been a dvances in frontline treatment for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) over the last 2 decades, we sought to characterize the changes in frontline treatment patterns and their association with outcomes. Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from September 2002 through June 2015 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study, and clinical characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes were compared between patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2009 (Era 1) compared with 2010 to 2015 (Era 2). Patient age, sex, and simplified MCL International Prognostic Index (sMIPI) score were similar between the 2 groups. In patients age 65 years or younger, there was less use of rituximab plus hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (R-Hyper-CVAD) (16.1% vs 8.8%) but more use of rituximab plus maximum-strength cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-maxi-CHOP) alternating with rituximab plus high-dose cytarabine (R-HiDAC), also known as the Nordic regimen, and R-CHOP alternating with rituximab plus dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin (R-DHAP) (1.1% vs 26.4%) and less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens (64.5% vs 35.2%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 12.1%) in Era 2 (P &lt; .001). These changes were associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; 5-year EFS, 34.3% vs 50.0%; P = .010) and overall survival (OS; 5-year OS, 68.8% vs 81.6%; P = .017) in Era 2. In patients older than age 65 years, there was less use of R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like therapy (39.0% vs 14.3%) and nonstandard systemic therapy (36.6% vs 13.0%) but more use of R-bendamustine (0% vs 49.4%). These changes were associated with a trend for improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.4% vs 37.5%; P = .051) in Era 2. The shift from R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens to R-bendamustine was associated with improved EFS (5-year EFS, 25.0% vs 44.6%; P = .008) in Era 2. Results from this prospective cohort study provide critical real-world evidence for improved outcomes with evolving frontline patterns of care in patients with MCL.