Kahl, Brad S.

7012 Background: DLBCL with expression of MYC and BCL2 (double expressor lymphoma, DEL), has an adverse prognosis. Venetoclax, an inhibitor of BCL2, was previously studied in combination with R-CHOP. A051701 is a phase II/III randomized trial of chemoimmunotherapy +/- venetoclax in DEL and double hit lymphoma cohorts. Here we report initial phase II results from the DEL cohort. Methods: Patients (pts) age ≥ 18 years (y) with untreated DEL were randomized 1:1 to R-CHOP (Arm 1) or R-CHOP-venetoclax (Arm 2). DEL was defined as MYC expression ≥40% and BCL2 expression ≥50%, without double hit cytogenetics. Enrollment was based on local pathology results that were centrally confirmed. Venetoclax 800 mg was given orally days 4-8 of cycle 1 and days 1-5 of subsequent cycles for up to 6 cycles. All cycles were supported by GCSF or peg-GCSF. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with 84% power to detect a HR of 0.518 corresponding to 2y PFS rate of 65% in Arm 1 and 80% in Arm 2 (1-sided α=0.20). Results: 119 DEL pts were enrolled: 60 Arm 1; 59 Arm 2. Analyses were performed for the modified intent-to-treat population, defined as eligible pts with confirmed DEL histology (n=113; 56 Arm 1, 57 Arm 2). Median age was 64 y (range 22-85); baseline demographic factors were well balanced except for advanced stage (more common in Arm 1; (77% vs 60%, p=0.051). Most pts were non-germinal center B cell-like by immunohistochemistry (Arm 1 72%, Arm 2 58%), high-intermediate/high risk IPI (Arm 1 54%, Arm 2 51%) and ECOG performance status 0-1 (Arm 1 95%, Arm 2 86%). BCL2 rearrangements were detected in 25% and 33% of pts on Arm 1 and Arm 2, respectively. Most pts completed therapy per protocol (84% Arm 1, 75% Arm 2). Median follow up is 27 months (m). No difference in PFS was observed with 12-m PFS estimates of 77% in Arm 1, 76% in Arm 2 [HR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.48 – 2.01), p=0.95]. The end of treatment (EOT) overall and complete response rates among patients with an EOT assessment were 87.5% and 70% in Arm 1, and 90% and 82% in Arm 2. Overall survival (OS) was not statistically significantly different with 12-mo OS estimates of 94% in Arm 1 and 79% in Arm 2 [HR = 1.27 (95% CI: 0.57 – 2.79), p=0.56]. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred more frequently in Arm 2 (42% vs 76%). The most commonly increased grade ≥3 AEs included neutropenia (20% vs 47%), anemia (4% vs 25.5%), thrombocytopenia (5.5% vs 24%), febrile neutropenia (7% vs 16%) and fatigue (0% vs 11%). No grade 5 AEs on treatment were reported on Arm 1, and 3 were reported on Arm 2 (lung infection and sudden death NOS, both possibly related; respiratory failure, unlikely related). Conclusions: Adding venetoclax to R-CHOP in DEL pts did not improve PFS and resulted in increased toxicity. The study did not meet its primary endpoint in phase II, and so did not proceed to phase III. Clinical trial information: NCT03984448 .

7006 Background: Rituximab maintenance (RM) after first-line (1L) bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in MCL did not improve progression-free survival in the MAINTAIN trial (Rummel et al, ASCO 2016) but was associated with improved survival outcomes in a North American observational study (Martin et al, JCO 2023). We sought to examine the potential benefit of RM after BR using a large observational cohort from 26 US academic centers. Methods: Patients with MCL who received 1L BR (without stem cell transplant) outside of clinical trials were included. At the landmark of 3 months after the end of BR, patients who achieved a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to BR and had no evidence of progressive disease (PD) or second-line (2L) therapy were deemed eligible for RM. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from landmark to progression, relapse, retreatment, or death. EFS2 was defined as time from landmark to progression, relapse, or retreatment following 2L therapy or death. RM was not considered a line of therapy for either endpoint. OS was defined as time from landmark to death. Survival analysis was done with Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models adjusting for sex and simplified MIPI. Results: Among 796 patients who received 1L BR in 2007-2020, 693 achieved a CR or PR. At the 3-month post-BR landmark, 613 had no evidence of PD, among whom 318 (52%) received RM and 295 did not. The RM group was younger (median age 70 vs 72, p = 0.010) and more predominantly male (78% vs 69%, p = 0.047). There was no statistical difference in stage, simplified MIPI, histology (blastoid or pleomorphic vs classic), Ki-67, TP53 alteration, complex karyotype, year of BR start, or best response to BR between the two groups. The median follow-up after the 3-month post-BR landmark was 61.3 months (95% CI 62.6-70.4). The median number of doses of RM was 10 (IQR 5-12). RM was associated with improved EFS (median 47.1 vs 29.7 months, adjusted HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.73), EFS2 (median 89.1 vs 48.3 months, adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50-0.81), and OS (median 136.1 vs 74.3 months, adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.75) (all p values < 0.001). In patients with CR to 1L BR (n=527), 271 (51%) received RM, for a median of 11 (IQR 6-12) doses. In this subgroup, RM was associated with improved EFS (median 60.6 vs 31.5 months, adjusted HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.71), EFS2 (median 89.1 vs 48.3 months, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48-0.81), and OS (median 136.1 vs 75.6 months, adjusted HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.79) (all p values < 0.001). Analysis in patients with PR to 1L BR was limited by the sample size (n=86, 47 received RM). The numeric differences in median EFS (20.8 vs 11.5, log-rank p = 0.370), EFS2 (48.9 vs 30.3, log-rank p = 0.210) and OS (87.3 vs 46.9, log-rank p = 0.067) were not statistically significant. Conclusions: In this large multicenter study, RM after 1L BR was associated with improved EFS and OS, supporting its use in routine practice for patients with newly diagnosed MCL.

Abstract To investigate the cellular and molecular mechanisms associated with targeting CD30-expressing Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and immune checkpoint modulation induced by combination therapies of CTLA4 and PD1, we leveraged Phase 1/2 multicenter open-label trial NCT01896999 that enrolled patients with refractory or relapsed HL (R/R HL). Using peripheral blood, we assessed soluble proteins, cell composition, T-cell clonality, and tumor antigen-specific antibodies in 54 patients enrolled in the phase 1 component of the trial. NCT01896999 reported high (&gt;75%) overall objective response rates with brentuximab vedotin (BV) in combination with ipilimumab (I) and/or nivolumab (N) in patients with R/R HL. We observed a durable increase in soluble PD1 and plasmacytoid dendritic cells as well as decreases in plasma CCL17, ANGPT2, MMP12, IL13, and CXCL13 in N-containing regimens (BV + N and BV + I + N) compared with BV + I (P &lt; 0.05). Nonresponders and patients with short progression-free survival showed elevated CXCL9, CXCL13, CD5, CCL17, adenosine–deaminase, and MUC16 at baseline or after one treatment cycle and a higher prevalence of NY-ESO-1-specific autoantibodies (P &lt; 0.05). The results suggest a circulating tumor-immune-derived signature of BV ± I ± N treatment resistance that may be useful for patient stratification in combination checkpoint therapy. Significance: Identification of multi-omic immune markers from peripheral blood may help elucidate resistance mechanisms to checkpoint inhibitor and antibody–drug conjugate combinations with potential implications for treatment decisions in relapsed HL.

Abstract Although initial therapy of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is not standardized, bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is commonly used in older patients. Rituximab (R) maintenance after induction is often used. Thus, the open-label, randomized phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E1411 trial was designed to test 2 questions: (1) does addition of bortezomib to BR induction (BVR) and/or (2) addition of lenalidomide to rituximab (LR) maintenance improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with treatment-naïve MCL? From 2012 to 2016, 373 previously untreated patients, 87% aged ≥60 years, were enrolled in this trial. At a median follow-up of 7.5 years, there is no difference in the median PFS of BR compared with BVR (5.5 vs 6.4 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.16). There were no unexpected additional toxicities with BVR treatment compared with BR, with no impact on total dose/duration of treatment received. Independent of the induction treatment, addition of lenalidomide did not significantly improve PFS, with median PFS in R vs LR (5.9 vs 7.2 years; HR, 0.84; 90% CI, 0.62-1.15). Most patients completed the planned 24 cycles of LR at the scheduled dose. In summary, adding bortezomib to BR induction does not prolong PFS in treatment-naïve MCL, and LR maintenance was not associated with longer PFS compared with R alone after BR. Nonetheless, the &gt;5-year median PFS outcomes in this prospective cooperative group trial indicate the efficacy of BR followed by R maintenance as highly effective initial therapy for older patients with MCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01415752.

Abstract Patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) that fail to achieve a complete response (CR) or who relapse early after anthracycline-containing immunochemotherapy (IC) have a poor prognosis and are commonly considered to have “primary refractory disease.” However, different definitions of primary refractory disease are used in the literature and clinical practice. In this study, we examined variation in the time to relapse used to define refractory status and association with survival outcomes in patients with primary refractory LBCL in a single-center prospective cohort with validation in an independent multicenter cohort. Patients with newly diagnosed LBCL were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiological Resource cohort (MER; N = 949) or the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort (LEO; N = 2755) from September 2002 to May 2021. Primary refractory LBCL was defined as no response (stable disease [SD]) or progressive disease (PD) during, or by the end of, frontline (1L) IC (primary PD; PPD); partial response at end of treatment (EOT PR); or relapse within 3 to 12 months after achieving CR at EOT to 1L IC (early relapse). In the MER cohort, patients with PPD had inferior overall survival (OS; 2-year OS rate: 15% MER, 31% LEO) when compared with other subgroups considered in defining primary refractory disease, EOT PR (2-year OS rate: 38% MER, 50% LEO) and early relapse (2-year OS rate: 44% MER, 58% LEO). Among patients receiving 1L IC with curative intent, we identified that patients with PPD are the key subgroup with poor outcomes. We propose a definition of primary refractory LBCL as SD or PD during, or by the end of, 1L treatment.

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) are essentially different manifestations of the same disease that are similarly managed. A number of molecular and cytogenetic variables with prognostic implications have been identified. Undetectable minimal residual disease at the end of treatment with chemoimmunotherapy or venetoclax-based combination regimens is an independent predictor of improved survival among patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL. The selection of treatment is based on the disease stage, presence or absence of del(17p) or TP53 mutation, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region mutation status, patient age, performance status, comorbid conditions, and the agent’s toxicity profile. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with CLL/SLL.

Abstract Although it is evident that standard-dose whole-brain radiotherapy as consolidation is associated with significant neurotoxicity, the optimal consolidative strategy for primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is not defined. We performed a randomized phase 2 clinical trial via the US Alliance cancer cooperative group to compare myeloablative consolidation supported by autologous stem cell transplantation with nonmyeloablative consolidation after induction therapy for PCNSL. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial to be initiated that eliminates whole-brain radiotherapy as a consolidative approach in newly diagnosed PCNSL. Patients aged 18 to 75 years were randomly assigned in a 1:1 manner to induction therapy (methotrexate, temozolomide, rituximab, and cytarabine) followed by consolidation with either thiotepa plus carmustine and autologous stem cell rescue vs induction followed by nonmyeloablative, infusional etoposide plus cytarabine. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 113 patients were randomized, and 108 (54 in each arm) were evaluable. More patients in the nonmyeloablative arm experienced progressive disease or death during induction (28% vs 11%; P = .05). Thirty-six patients received autologous stem cell transplant, and 34 received nonmyeloablative consolidation. The estimated 2-year PFS was higher in the myeloablative vs nonmyeloablative arm (73% vs 51%; P = .02). However, a planned secondary analysis, landmarked at start of the consolidation, revealed that the estimated 2-year PFS in those who completed consolidation therapy was not significantly different between the arms (86% vs 71%; P = .21). Both consolidative strategies yielded encouraging efficacy and similar toxicity profiles. This trial was registered at www.clininicals.gov as #NCT01511562.

AbstractTo address the current and long‐term unmet health needs of the growing population of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/). A total of 7735 newly diagnosed patients aged 18 years and older with NHL were prospectively enrolled from 7/1/2015 to 5/31/2020 at 8 academic centers in the United States. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 18–99). Participants came from 49 US states and included 538 Black/African‐Americans (AA), 822 Hispanics (regardless of race), 3386 women, 716 age <40 years, and 1513 rural residents. At study baseline, we abstracted clinical, pathology, and treatment data; banked serum/plasma (N = 5883, 76.0%) and germline DNA (N = 5465, 70.7%); constructed tissue microarrays for four major NHL subtypes (N = 1189); and collected quality of life (N = 5281, 68.3%) and epidemiologic risk factor (N = 4489, 58.0%) data. Through August 2022, there were 1492 deaths. Compared to population‐based SEER data (2015–2019), LEO participants had a similar distribution of gender, AA race, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHL subtype, while LEO was underrepresented for patients who were Asian and aged 80 years and above. Observed overall survival rates for LEO at 1 and 2 years were similar to population‐based SEER rates for indolent B‐cell (follicular and marginal zone) and T‐cell lymphomas, but were 10%–15% higher than SEER rates for aggressive B‐cell subtypes (diffuse large B‐cell and mantle cell). The LEO cohort is a robust and comprehensive national resource to address the role of clinical, tumor, host genetic, epidemiologic, and other biologic factors in NHL prognosis and survivorship.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. In 2003, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group initiated a randomized phase III clinical trial (E4402) comparing two different rituximab dosing strategies for patients with previously untreated low–tumor burden follicular lymphoma. Rituximab-responsive patients (n = 299) were randomly assigned to either a retreatment rituximab (RR) strategy or a maintenance rituximab (MR) strategy. Each dosing strategy was continued until treatment failure. The primary end point of the study was time to treatment failure (TTF). In the original report, there was no difference in TTF between the two dosing strategies. Here, we report on the long-term outcomes for secondary end points of time to first cytotoxic therapy, duration of response, and overall survival (OS). At 7 years, 83% of MR patients had not required first chemotherapy compared with 63% of RR patients (hazard ratio, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.76]). At 7 years, 71% of MR remained in their first remission compared with 37% of RR patients. Despite the improved first remission length with MR, there was no difference in OS at 10 years (83% v 84%). With mature long-term data, we confirm that prolonged maintenance rituximab does not confer an OS advantage in low–tumor burden follicular lymphoma.

Introduction: The use of standardized, evidence-based classification systems is crucial for the accurate diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Moreover, standardized classification facilitates research and epidemiologic studies and promotes consistency in communication among healthcare professionals. Since 2016, the revised 4 th edition of the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM4R) has been the global standard for diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies. With the emergence of new data, 2 new classification systems were developed and published in 2022: the 5 th edition of the WHO Classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). Both WHO-HAEM5 and ICC maintain a shared fundamental concept of disease classification that integrates clinical, pathologic, and molecular data. However, they differ on nomenclature, establishment of new entities, and/or diagnostic criteria for some disease categories. To evaluate the impact of these differences on real-world diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), we examined the diagnostic classification of NHL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Methods: Initiated in 2015, LEO is an ongoing prospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed NHL. Patients are enrolled at 8 major U.S. medical centers. Clinical, epidemiologic, pathologic, and treatment data are abstracted at baseline and active follow-up is conducted for all patients. Lymphoma subtype is coded for each case based on expert hematopathology re-review of the diagnostic pathology slides, the pathology report, biomarker data, and clinical data. Of note, NHL subtype distribution is similar to SEER data. We studied all patients enrolled in LEO between 7/1/2016 (the date LEO pathology review started using WHO-HAEM4R diagnostic codes) and 5/31/2020. WHO-HAEM4R diagnoses and additional clinicopathologic data, when relevant, were used to map cases into the corresponding WHO-HAEM5 and ICC diagnoses. Differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC were annotated for each case as: None - same disease entity; Minor - difference in nomenclature with similar diagnostic criteria; Major - difference in disease category and/or diagnostic criteria; or Unevaluable - insufficient data to assign WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis. Results: LEO enrolled 6143 patients during the study period. Of these, comparison between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC was evaluable in 5730 (93.3%). Unevaluable cases included those without a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis at enrollment (N=384; e.g., patients with a low-grade B-cell lymphoma that could not be definitively sub-classified) and those with a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis, but with insufficient clinicopathologic data to assign a specific WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis (N=29). Of the 5730 evaluable cases, 5376 (93.8%) showed no difference between WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis, 311 (5.4%) showed minor differences (nomenclature only), and 43 (0.8%) showed major differences (Table 1). The 43 major differences all involved B-cell NHLs; 20 (46.5%) were attributable to different approaches to classifying double-hit lymphomas, 21 (48.9%) to classification of splenic/leukemic B-cell lymphomas, and 2 (4.6%) to classification of B-cell lymphomas occurring at specific anatomic sites (Table 2). Conclusion: In a large, prospective lymphoma cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice at 8 major U.S. medical centers, major diagnostic differences in the classification of NHL using WHO-HAEM5 or ICC classification criteria were seen in 0.8%, whereas the remaining 99.2% of diagnoses were either the same or showed differences in nomenclature only. The existence of 2 concurrent classification systems presents potential for discrepancies in pathologic diagnosis, clinical practice, clinical trials, and other lymphoma research. Furthermore, some of the differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC are clinically and potentially therapeutically significant, and their resolution requires further study. Nevertheless, our findings argue that the proportion of patients affected would be small in real-world practice settings. This appears largely related to incidence rates of specific lymphoma subtypes, with major differences between the 2 classifications predominantly affecting rare entities, while there is general concordance on the most common forms of NHL.