Nowakowski, Grzegorz S.

Abstract Background In the current Canadian treatment landscape for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) guides the choice of salvage treatment. CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies have improved outcomes in patients with chemorefractory DLBCL, but access is limited to eligible patients. This subanalysis of the RE-MIND2 observational retrospective cohort study investigated treatment patterns for R/R DLBCL in Canada. Patients and methods Data from patients enrolled in RE-MIND2 treated between 2010 and 2020 at 2 Canadian centers were retrospectively collected from health records. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze baseline characteristics, treatment initiated, and duration of treatment by line of therapy. Results One hundred and nine patients were included; 74.2% of patients were eligible for ASCT as 2L therapy, and 45.4% received transplants. ASCT eligibility for third- (3L) and fourth-line (4L) therapy declined to 17.1% and 5.9%, respectively. Patients received a wide variety of treatments in 3 and 4L. CAR-T therapy became available in 3 and 4L by the end of 2019. Median durations of treatment were <2.6 months in all lines of therapy; median time to next treatment ranged from 3.4 months in 4L to 5.3 months in 2L. Conclusion Results of our study support that ASCT-ineligible patients have a poor prognosis with conventional salvage chemotherapy. Before the availability of novel immunotherapies, no apparent standard of care was observed for Canadian patients with R/R DLBCL who were ineligible for or did not receive ASCT, especially after 2L treatment.

ABSTRACT Anaplastic lymphoma kinase‐positive large B‐cell lymphoma (ALK+ LBCL) is a rare, aggressive subtype of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma with poor outcomes using standard chemotherapy. In this multi‐institutional retrospective study, we analyzed 39 cases of ALK+ LBCL identified at six US academic centers from 2002 to 2024, with treatment including conventional cytotoxic regimens in frontline and biologically informed and nonchemotherapy‐based strategies in the relapsed setting. Ninety‐two percent of patients received frontline anthracycline‐based chemotherapy; 43% received intensified regimens, and 15% underwent upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite these approaches, outcomes remained poor. At a median follow‐up of 5.4 years, median event‐free survival (EFS) was 0.6 years (95% CI, 0.4–0.9), and median overall survival (OS) was 1.5 years (95% CI, 1.3–NR). One‐ and five‐year EFS rates were 28% and 17%, while corresponding OS rates were 72% and 42%, respectively. Advanced stage and high IPI scores were associated with inferior outcomes. Twelve patients received ALK inhibitors, with alectinib showing more durable responses than crizotinib. Lenalidomide and immune checkpoint inhibitors also demonstrated activity, including durable complete responses. Five patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation, with three achieving sustained remission. In conclusion, our findings highlight the limited benefit of chemotherapy, even when intensified or followed by ASCT, and support the integration of biologically targeted therapies, which may have contributed to improved OS in our cohort compared to historical outcomes. Prospective, collaborative studies are needed to better understand disease biology and define optimal use of modern therapies in this rare lymphoma.

Abstract Twenty percent of patients with follicular lymphoma relapse early with poor outcomes; however, the molecular mechanisms underlying this aggressive behavior are unknown. Using a multiomic approach, we show that patients with follicular lymphoma with elevated IRF4 expression (IRF4hi) have increased transformation risk, dysregulated immune signaling, and a suppressive tumor microenvironment. Loss- and gain-of-function experiments in IRF4hi lymphoma cells, along with chromatin profiling, demonstrate that IRF4 impairs their interaction with T cells by repressing antigen presentation and co-receptor gene modules while promoting the expression of cytokines that antagonize T-follicular helper cell and regulatory T-cell functions. Additionally, IRF4 rewires tumor metabolism and restricts glucose availability to immune cells. Silencing of IRF4 inhibits tumor cell growth and restores immune surveillance mechanisms, thus representing a promising target for therapy. Our data suggest that IRF4hi lymphoma cells co-opt a developmental mechanism used to exit the germinal center response in promoting a more aggressive cancer via engagement of multiple immune-evasive mechanisms. Significance: We show that IRF4 controls immune and metabolic signaling with functional effects on the cross-talk between B and T cells, resulting in a suppressive immune microenvironment when IRF4 is overexpressed in lymphoma. This underscores the importance of IRF4 as a pivotal therapeutic target to restore antitumor immunosurveillance for IRF4-associated lymphomas.

LBA1551 Background: Traditional cancer therapy is primarily delivered in clinical settings, imposing logistical, emotional, and financial burdens, particularly on rural and underserved patients. While international studies have demonstrated the safety of home-based chemotherapy, no randomized U.S. trials have evaluated this approach. Mayo Clinic’s CCBW program aims to expand access to high-quality cancer care by providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, command center and paramedic support. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates feasibility and impact of home-based versus in-clinic cancer directed therapy on patient preference, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Adult patients (ECOG 0-2) receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy at Mayo Clinic Florida were randomized 1:1 after confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic to receive (1) home-based care for 24 weeks or (2) in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks. Target accrual is 200 patients. A planned interim analysis after 50 enrollments assessed accrual, data completeness, technical challenges, safety, and study outcomes. The primary endpoint is patient ratings of their overall cancer care experience (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) at 8 weeks. 200 patients provide 80% power to detect a 0.45 standard deviation difference in mean ratings between arms with a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (α=0.05) and 20% missing data rate. Secondary endpoints are patient preference, comfort with home infusions, treatment worthwhileness, functional/symptom assessments (EORTC QLQ-F17, PRO-CTCAE, GP5), grade ≥3 AEs, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Cost is a tertiary endpoint. The trial is IRB-approved (#23001719) and registered (NCT05969860). Results: Enrollment began 8/23/23. As of 2/21/25, 52 patients (26 per arm) were enrolled and 36 started protocol treatment. Common cancers were breast (38%), colorectal (21%), prostate (19%), and multiple myeloma (14%). 64% (28/44) of patients were female; 84% identified as White, 14% as Black, and 2% as multiple races. Median distance to clinic was 20 miles (range 2-66). After 8 weeks, patients in both arms rated their overall cancer care experience highly (mean [SD]=9.69 [0.85] versus 9.54 [0.66] for home-based vs. in-clinic care, n=26). After 24 weeks, 73% preferred home-based care, 18% had no preference, and 9% preferred in-clinic care; 100% felt comfortable with home infusions. No grade ≥3 AEs related to location of care have occurred. Conclusions: Early findings support the feasibility, safety, and high patient acceptability of home-based cancer therapy. No safety concerns related to care location were observed and most patients preferred home-based treatment. Ongoing accrual and analysis will assess clinical outcomes and cost implications. Clinical trial information: NCT05969860 .

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .