Nowakowski, Grzegorz S.

2085 Background: Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma with no approved treatments for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients, representing a critical unmet need. MyD88 mutations in ~70% of PCNSL patients drive Interleukin-1 receptor associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) activation, promoting NF-κB signaling, inflammation, and tumor progression. Emavusertib, a potent oral IRAK4 inhibitor, crosses the blood-brain barrier and shows preclinical synergy with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi), re-sensitizing BTKi-resistant cell lines. This study evaluates the molecular and pharmacokinetic (PK) data associated with responses to emavusertib + ibrutinib combination therapy in R/R PCNSL patients. Methods: The safety, clinical activity, and potential biomarkers of emavusertib in R/R PCNSL are being investigated in the ongoing open-label, Phase 1/2 TakeAim Lymphoma trial (NCT03328078). Pre-dose and 1.5-hour post-dose plasma samples were collected on Cycle 3 Day 1, Cycle 5 Day 1 and Cycle 7 Day 1. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were obtained via a lumbar puncture within 1.5 hrs of collection of the post-dose plasma PK sample on Cycle 3 Day 1. Mutation analysis was based on patients’ molecular pathology reports provided by trial sites. Sequencing of archival tissues, CSF and plasma are in progress. Results: As of 06 December 2024, CSF concentration data were available for 7 PCNSL patients. The mean emavusertib concentration in CSF was 81.3 ng/ml (54.7-104.0) in patients receiving 100 mg emavusertib BID (n = 4). In patients receiving 200 mg emavusertib BID (n = 3), the mean emavusertib concentration in CSF was higher at 175.7 ng/ml (114.8-209.4), which is 2.2X the mean value in patients who received 100 mg emavusertib BID (p-value = 0.02). All 7 patients received 560 mg ibrutinib QD, and the ibrutinib concentrations in the CSF were consistent with findings from previously published clinical studies. MyD88 mutation status was available for 7 patients of which all had prior exposure to BTKi regimens. Among these, 6 patients had MyD88 mutation of which 4 patients had responded (3 complete responses and 1 partial response) to emavusertib + ibrutinib combination with duration of response (DOR) up to 18.9 months with data collection ongoing. Conclusions: Preliminary CNS pharmacokinetic data demonstrates that emavusertib concentration in CSF increases with increasing emavusertib dose. Patients with MyD88 mutations showed expected promising preliminary efficacy to emavusertib + ibrutinib combination and may overcome BTKi resistance. Enrollment in this trial is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03328078 .

7075 Background: Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) is a rare, aggressive peripheral T-cell lymphoma arising primarily from γδ T-cells. It carries a poor prognosis and resists conventional chemotherapy. Most reports on HSTCL are case-based. This study comprehensively analyzes a large cohort, evaluating treatment strategies and survival outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included patients (pts) with pathologically confirmed HSTCL diagnosed between 2000-2024, consecutively seen at Mayo Clinic MN. Clinical, pathological, genomic, and treatment-related data were extracted when available. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics. Time-to-event analyses, including Kaplan-Meier estimates, median overall survival (OS), and survival time estimates were conducted from the date of diagnosis. Results: A total of 20 patients with newly diagnosed HSTCL were included, with a median age of 57 years (range: 35-71). The cohort was predominantly male (70%) and non-Hispanic (93%). Molecular data was available for five patients, revealing abnormalities in STAT5B, MLL3 deletion, TP53, EZH2, TERT, and NF1 E291D . The median follow-up was 27.6 months (m) with a median OS of 17.6 m (95% CI: 11.2 - NA). First-line treatment was anthracycline-based in 68% of pts and non-anthracycline-based in 32%, with higher response rates in the latter group (50% vs.83%). Although non-anthracycline regimens showed a trend toward improved 3-year OS (100% vs. 29%) the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Achieving a complete response to first-line therapy was also associated with a trend towards a better 3-year OS compared to refractory disease (80% vs. 50%, p = 0.17). Most pts (79%) underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), primarily allogeneic, with only one receiving autologous HSCT. First-line therapy before HSCT was evenly distributed between anthracycline (55%) and non-anthracycline (45%) regimens. HSCT recipients had significantly higher 3-year OS than non-recipients (83% vs. 33%, p = 0.017). Notably, the patient with a TP53 mutation has remained in remission for over a year post-allogeneic HSCT. Conclusions: HSTCL predominantly affects younger pts, with nearly half dying within a year. Allogeneic HSCT, rarely used in other NHL subtypes, improved survival. Non-anthracycline regimens and achieving CR trended toward better outcomes. Our study, leveraging a sizable cohort, highlights the need for targeted research and novel therapies to improve HSTCL management. Summary of survival outcomes in HSTCL. Characteristics Median OS (y) 3-Year OS (95% CI) 1.48 [0.93- NA] 46% [0.26 - 0.81] Transplant Transplant NA [NA - NA] 83% [0.58 - 1.00] No Transplant 1.02 [0.93 - NA] 33% [0.07 - 1.00] Treatment Anthracycline Based 1.02 [0.36 - NA] 29% [0.11 - 0.73] Non-Anthracycline Based 4.61 [NA- NA] 100% [1.00 - 1.00]

7073 Background: The Optimized HLH Inflammatory (OHI) index (Zoref-Lorenz et al., Blood , 2022), based on serum soluble CD25 (sCD25) and ferritin, is a prognostic tool identifying inflammation in the hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) spectrum and early mortality risk. Prior studies were retrospective and enriched with HLH-suspected cases. We hypothesized that the OHI index would predict outcomes in unselected diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: 670 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients from a prospective cohort (2002–2015) were analyzed: 335 for discovery and 335 for validation. Pre-treatment serum sCD25 and ferritin levels were quantified via ELISA, and we evaluated original thresholds (sCD25 ≥ 3,900 U/mL; ferritin ≥ 1,000 ng/mL) and developed DLBCL-optimized thresholds (using receiver operator curves) for predicting 500-day mortality. We also evaluated event-free survival (EFS), EFS at 24 months (EFS24), and overall survival (OS). Results: The median age was 64, and 51% were male. Using original thresholds, 4.2% (n=14) of patients were OHI+, with a 5.6-fold higher risk of 500-day mortality (95% CI 1.6–17; p<0.001). Optimized thresholds identified 23.6% (n=78) as OHI+ with a 9.2-fold higher 500-day mortality risk (95% CI 4.0–24; p<0.001). Optimized OHI+ also had a higher risk of EFS24 failure and inferior EFS and OS (Table). OHI+ patients had higher rates of B symptoms (35% vs. 20%; p=0.027), elevated LDH (76% vs. 34%; p<0.001), worse performance status (ECOG ≥2: 38% vs. 12%; p<0.001), and advanced-stage disease (Stage IV: 57% vs 38%; p<0.001), though IPI scores (3–5) were not significantly different (44% vs 36%; p=0.28). Adjusting for age and IPI, OHI+ independently predicted 500-day mortality (OR=5.0; CI 1.9–13; p=0.001), EFS24 failure (OR=3.2; CI 1.5–6.5; p=0.0018), and inferior long-term EFS (HR=2.2; CI 1.1–4.3; p=0.030) and OS (HR=2.0; CI 1.0–4.0; p=0.040) at a median follow up of 9.8 years in living patients. In validation, optimized OHI predicted 500-day mortality, EFS24 failure, and long-term OS and EFS (Table). Cytokine profiling revealed elevated inflammatory markers in OHI+ patients, including IL1a (p=0.008), CCL2 (p=0.03), CXCL10 (p<0.001), and CXCL9 (p<0.001), reflecting systemic hyperinflammation. Conclusions: The OHI index is a powerful predictor of early and long-term outcomes in DLBCL patients. Optimized thresholds identify a larger OHI+ group, highlighting hyperinflammation’s critical role in poor outcomes. These findings support its use in routine management and clinical trial design for novel therapies. Odds ratios or hazard ratios and p-values for optimized OHI+ and DLBCL prognosis. Outcome Discovery Validation OR for 500-day mortality 9.2; p<0.001 4.0; p=0.002 OR for EFS24 failure 5.2; p <0.001 6.3; p<0.001 HR for OS 2.3; p<0.001 1.8; p=0.006 HR for EFS 2.4; p<0.001 2.5; p<0.001

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is clinically heterogeneous, and gene expression profiling has identified at least two biologically distinct DLBCL subtypes defined by their cell of origin (COO): germinal center B cell (GCB) and activate B cell (ABC) or non-GCB. We evaluated a variety of putative DLBCL risk factors for etiologic heterogeneity by the COO in a clinic-based study of newly diagnosed DLBCL cases (N = 638) and frequency-matched controls (N = 2,253). Methods: The COO was determined on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, with DLBCL classified as GCB (N = 283), non-GCB (N = 188), or undetermined/missing (N = 167; mainly because of lack of tissue). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: We identified heterogeneity by the COO for low socioeconomic status (SES), which was only associated with non-GCB DLBCL (OR = 1.88 for low vs. average SES; 95% CI, 1.08–3.27); alcohol use, which was only associated with GCB DLBCL (OR = 0.48 for former drinkers; 95% CI, 0.29–0.80 and OR = 0.47 for current drinkers; 95% CI, 0.32–0.71); and borderline heterogeneity for the regular use of regular/extra-strength aspirin, which was only associated with non-GCB DLBCL (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.85). In contrast, there was no significant heterogeneity by the COO for family history, medical history, or other lifestyle factors. Conclusions: Although requiring confirmation, most risk factors for DLBCL did not show etiologic heterogeneity by the COO, with some notable exceptions including alcohol use, SES, and perhaps regular use of regular/extra-strength aspirin showing associations. Impact: Mechanistically, these findings suggest that most of the DLBCL risk factors evaluated here influence lymphomagenesis prior to differentiation into COO subtypes, with selected factors acting later.

ABSTRACT Rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R‐GemOx) is a commonly used chemoimmunotherapy regimen for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but there are limited real‐world data. In a multicenter retrospective study from a cohort of eight US academic centers (LEO CReWE), we evaluated 183 patients with R/R DLBCL and high‐grade B cell lymphoma treated with R‐GemOx, including subgroups treated without intent for consolidation with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy ( n = 100), those utilizing R‐GemOx as a bridge to ASCT or CAR T ( n = 83), and those aged 70 and older ( n = 71). Overall response rates (ORRs) for all patients treated with R‐GemOx were 45% with a complete response (CR) rate of 29%. The median event‐free survival (EFS) was 2.3 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 13.5 months. Patients receiving R‐GemOx without intent for ASCT or CAR T had ORR and CR rates of 33% and 18%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 2.0 and 9.5 months, respectively. Patients receiving R‐GemOx as a bridge to ASCT or CAR T had ORR and CR rates of 57% and 36%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 3.5 and 17.4 months, respectively. Patients receiving R‐GemOx aged 70 and older had ORR and CR rates of 53% and 33%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 2.2 and 13.9 months, respectively. These data provide a benchmark for R‐GemOx in the rapidly evolving landscape of R/R DLBCL therapies.

Key Points Studies on GFR assessment in people with cancer are needed. In this study, the creatinine–cystatin C equations performed better than other equations, and this was observed in solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support to the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in people with cancer. Background GFR assessment is important in clinical practice with implications for diagnosis, prognostication, and drug dosing. People with cancer are at risk of imprecision in GFR estimation. This cross-sectional study evaluated the performance of various creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in comparison with measured GFR (mGFR) in people with cancer. Methods We retrieved data for all adult patients who had mGFR by urinary iothalamate clearance between 2011 and 2023 at Mayo Clinic and use of an electronic health record diagnosis code for cancer within 2 years before mGFR. The CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), European Kidney Function Consortium, and Cockcroft–Gault equations were computed, along with performance metrics (bias, precision, and root mean square error [RMSE]. Confidence intervals were generated by bootstrapping, and analysis were stratified by solid and hematological cancers. Results From all adults with cancer and mGFR, 1145 had both creatinine and cystatin C available within 7 days of mGFR. Among all equations, the creatinine–cystatin C CKD-EPI equation provided the best performance, with small bias (median, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 3.8) and higher precision (RMSE, 14.5) compared with creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations (RMSE varying from 16.6 to 20), and this was also true in solid and hematological cancers. The creatinine–cystatin European Kidney Function Consortium equation had a similar performance to CKD-EPI, Cockcroft–Gault showed worst precision (30% of people with errors above 30%), and cystatin C CKD-EPI equation was the most biased, prone to underestimation of mGFR. Conclusions In our cohort of patients with mGFR and cancer, the CKD-EPI creatinine–cystatin C equation performed best for GFR assessment, and this was true for both solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support for the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations instead of creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations in people with cancer. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2025_03_25_CJASNMar20.3.3252025.mp3

PURPOSE In patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), brentuximab vedotin (BV) as monotherapy or combined with either lenalidomide (Len) or rituximab (R) has demonstrated efficacy with acceptable safety. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of BV + Len + R versus placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. METHODS ECHELON-3 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 trial comparing BV + Len + R with placebo + Len + R in patients with R/R DLBCL. Patients received BV or placebo once every 3 weeks, Len once daily, and R once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). A prespecified interim analysis was performed after 134 OS events, with two-sided P = .0232 as the efficacy boundary. RESULTS Patients (N = 230) were randomly assigned to receive BV + Len + R (n = 112) or placebo + Len + R (n = 118). Two patients in the placebo arm did not receive treatment. With a median follow-up of 16.4 months, the median OS was 13.8 months with BV + Len + R versus 8.5 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.89]; two-sided P = .009). The median PFS was 4.2 months with BV + Len + R versus 2.6 months with placebo + Len + R (hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73]; two-sided P < .001). The ORR was 64% ([95% CI, 55 to 73]; two-sided P < .001) with BV + Len + R and 42% (95% CI, 33 to 51) with placebo + Len + R; complete response rates were 40% and 19%, respectively. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of patients in both arms. In both arms, the most common treatment-emergent AEs were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, and anemia. CONCLUSION BV + Len + R demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with R/R DLBCL.

Introduction Age correlates with survival in patients (pts) with DLBCL, which has a median age at diagnosis of 67 y. Recent therapeutic advances, including bispecifics and cell therapy, have promising efficacy, but safety and accessibility continue to be limited for older pts. The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) with brentuximab vedotin (BV) + lenalidomide (Len) + rituximab (R; BV+Len+R) vs placebo+Len+R in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Here, we present safety and efficacy in pts aged ≥65 y. Methods In ECHELON-3, pts were randomized 1:1 to receive BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with R (375 mg/m2) q3w and Len (20 mg) once daily. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was required in all cycles. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. Other secondary endpoints included detailed safety and tolerability. This subgroup analysis comprises pts aged ≥65 y. P values are descriptive. Results A total of 155 pts aged ≥65 y were enrolled from April 2021 to November 2023 and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=79) or placebo+Len+R (n=76). The median age was 75 y (range, 65-89 y); 54% of pts were male, 59% were White, and 19% were Asian. Twenty-three percent and 54% had Ann Arbor stage III and IV disease, respectively, and 64% had high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index scores (3-5) at enrollment. The most common DLBCL subtype was DLBCL not otherwise specified (58%). Twenty-nine percent of pts had transformed DLBCL. Approximately half (49%) of pts had primary refractory disease, and 81% had disease refractory to their most recent prior line of therapy. Seventy percent of pts had &lt;1% CD30 expression via IHC; 48% of cases had germinal center B-cell origin. Prior CAR-T was reported in 21.9% of pts. At a median follow-up of 16.8 mo (95% CI, 14.3-19.5 mo), median OS was 15.9 mo (95% CI, 11.7 mo-not estimable [NE]) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 mo (95% CI, 5.5-11.5 mo) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.540; 95% CI, 0.351-0.830; P=.0043). Median PFS was 5.7 mo (95% CI, 4.1-12.7 mo) with BV+Len+R vs 2.8 mo (95% CI, 1.9-4.1 mo) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.478; 95% CI, 0.318-0.718; P=.0003). ORR was 70.9% (95% CI, 59.6%-80.6%) with BV+Len+R vs 46.1% (95% CI, 34.5%-57.9%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0020); complete response (CR) rate was 45.6% vs 19.7%, respectively. Median time to CR was 1.61 mo with both BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R (range, 1.2-7.3 vs 0.7-4.6 mo, respectively). Median duration of CR was 18.9 mo (95% CI, 12.4 mo-NE) with BV+Len+R vs 5.4 mo (95% CI, 2.8 mo-NE) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.416; 95% CI, 0.139-1.250). In total, 154 pts were evaluable for safety analysis (75 pts in placebo+Len+R group). The median number of cycles was 5 (range, 1-34) vs 3 (range, 1-31) in the BV+Len+R and placebo+Len+R groups, respectively. The percentage of pts with any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar between groups (97% with BV+Len+R and 99% with placebo+Len+R); grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 89% of pts in the BV+Len+R group and 76% in the placebo+Len+R group. Serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to death were reported more frequently in the BV+Len+R group (62% and 13%, respectively) than the placebo+Len+R group (47% and 8%, respectively). More pts discontinued study treatment due to TEAEs in the BV+Len+R group than the placebo+Len+R group (20% vs 8%). In total, 39% of pts on BV+Len+R had a peripheral neuropathy event vs 27% of pts on placebo+Len+R; however, the majority of cases were grade 1 (22% and 17%, respectively). Additional information on older pts will be presented. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes in pts aged ≥65 y, which is consistent with the overall ECHELON-3 population (median age 74 y; 70.5% of pts aged ≥65 y in BV+Len+R group). Differences in some safety endpoints are likely attributable to longer duration of treatment in the BV+Len+R group. No clinically meaningful safety trends in pts aged ≥65 y were identified. These results suggest that BV+Len+R may be an effective treatment option in older pts with R/R DLBCL.

Introduction Patients (pts) with progressive disease after ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy are unlikely to derive additional benefit from current salvage immunochemotherapies, and survival declines significantly with each subsequent treatment. Pts with refractory disease following second-line therapy have worse outcomes, with reported overall response rates (ORRs) of 1% to 14% and overall survival (OS) of 5 months (Blood. 2017;130[16]:1800-1808). While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has become a preferred strategy in the second- and third-line settings, pts with R/R disease following CAR-T experience dismal survival, with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS as low as 3 and 5 months, respectively, and no agreed standard of care post CAR-T (Blood. 2022;140[24]:2527-2529). The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) was conducted in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or CAR-T. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, refractory disease, or prior CAR-T. Methods In these subgroup analyses of ECHELON-3, eligible pts had 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, disease refractory to the last prior therapy, or prior exposure to CAR-T. Pts could qualify for ≥1 subgroup and were analyzed separately. Refractory disease was defined as stable or progressive disease as best overall response to last line of treatment or relapse ≤6 months from the end of treatment. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with rituximab (R; 375 mg/m2) q3w and lenalidomide (Len; 20 mg) once daily. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. P values are descriptive. Results In total, 230 pts were enrolled in ECHELON-3 from April 2021 to November 2023, with a median follow-up of 16.4 months (range, 0.1-31.5 months). Overall, 94 pts with 2 prior lines of systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=48) or placebo+Len+R (n=46). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-not estimable) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.8 months) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.557; 95% CI, 0.317-0.977; P=.0388). Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-12.6 months) with BV+Len+R vs 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.0 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.462; 95% CI, 0.279-0.764; P=.0020). ORR was 68.8% (95% CI, 53.7%-81.3%) with BV+Len+R vs 43.5% with placebo+Len+R (95% CI, 28.9%-58.9%; P=.0216); complete response (CR) rate was 52.1% vs 13.0%, respectively. Additional data for pts by lines of therapy received will be presented. In total, 194 pts with disease refractory to the most recent systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=98) and placebo+Len+R (n=96). Median OS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.8-16.3 months) with BV+Len+R vs 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.5 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.566; 95% CI, 0.396-0.808; P=.0015). Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.4 months) with BV+Len+R vs 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.6 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.363-0.712; P&lt;.0001). ORR was 59.2% (95% CI, 48.8%-69.0%) with BV+Len+R vs 29.2% (95% CI, 20.3%-39.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P&lt;.0001); CR rate was 34.7% vs 11.5%, respectively. Overall, 67 pts who received prior CAR-T were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=32) and placebo+Len+R (n=35). Median OS was 15.6 months with BV+Len+R vs 4.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.2-0.75). Median PFS was 3.0 months with BV+Len+R vs 1.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76). ORR was 65.6% (95% CI, 46.8%-81.4%) with BV+Len+R vs 25.7% (95% CI, 12.5%-43.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0014); CR rate was 37.5% vs 11.4%, respectively. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes, including CR and OS, in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, disease refractory to prior treatment, or prior CAR-T. This treatment benefit was generally consistent with that observed in the overall ECHELON-3 study population. Therefore, BV+Len+R has the potential to address an unmet need for effective and tolerable therapy in heavily pretreated pts, as described above.