Thiéblemont, Catherine

SummaryZUMA‐1 (NCT02348216) examined the safety and efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi‐cel), an autologous CD19‐directed chimaeric antigen receptor (CAR)‐T cell therapy, in refractory large B‐cell lymphoma. To reduce treatment‐related toxicity, several exploratory safety management cohorts were added to ZUMA‐1. Specifically, cohort 6 investigated management of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) with prophylactic corticosteroids and earlier corticosteroid and tocilizumab intervention. CRS and NE incidence and severity were primary end‐points. Following leukapheresis, patients could receive optional bridging therapy per investigator discretion. All patients received conditioning chemotherapy (days −5 through −3), 2 × 106 CAR‐T cells/kg (day 0) and once‐daily oral dexamethasone [10 mg, day 0 (before axi‐cel) through day 2]. Forty patients received axi‐cel. CRS occurred in 80% of patients (all grade ≤2). Any grade and grade 3 or higher NEs occurred in 58% and 13% of patients respectively. Sixty‐eight per cent of patients did not experience CRS or NEs within 72 h of axi‐cel. With a median follow‐up of 8·9 months, objective and complete response rates were 95% and 80% respectively. Overall, prophylactic corticosteroids and earlier corticosteroid and/or tocilizumab intervention resulted in no grade 3 or higher CRS, a low rate of grade 3 or higher NEs and high response rates in this study population.

Background: Pts with high-risk LBCL have poor outcomes with R-CHOP chemoimmunotherapy (Sathyanarayanan, et al. ASH 2016. #106), and ≈50% of pts will not achieve long-term disease remission (Coiffier, et al. ASH Ed Program. 2016), highlighting unmet need for new therapies. Axi-cel, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, was approved for treatment of adults with R/R LBCL after ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapies based on the pivotal study, ZUMA-1 (Neelapu SS, et al. NEJM. 2017). ZUMA-12 is a Phase 2, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study of axi-cel as part of first-line therapy in pts with high-risk LBCL. Here, we present interim efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) results from ZUMA-12. Methods: Eligible adults (≥ 18 y) met 2 criteria for high-risk LBCL: i) double- or triple-hit lymphoma by fluorescent in situ hybridization per investigator or LBCL with IPI score ≥ 3; and ii) positive interim PET per Lugano Classification (Cheson, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014; Deauville score [DS] 4 or 5) after 2 cycles of an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and anthracycline containing regimen, which served as a dynamic risk assessment. Pts with PMBCL were not eligible. Pts underwent leukapheresis (≥ 2 wks after prior systemic therapy) and optional non-chemotherapy bridging at investigator discretion, followed by conditioning chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2/d and fludarabine 30 mg/m2/d for 3 d) and a single axi-cel infusion (target dose, 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed complete response (CR) rate per Lugano. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), frequency of adverse events (AEs), and levels of CAR T cells and cytokines in blood and serum. Results: As of July 15, 2020, 31 pts have been enrolled and treated, and as of January 24, 2020, in a planned interim analysis, 15 pts were treated with axi-cel with ≥ 3 mos of follow-up. Median age was 60 y (range, 39 - 86), 67% of pts were male, 73% had ECOG of 1, 40%/60% had DS4/5; 60% had double- or triple-hit status per investigator, and 67% had IPI score ≥ 3. Baseline characteristics were largely comparable to ZUMA-1 Cohort 1 except for lower median tumor burden in ZUMA-12 (ZUMA-1: 3897 mm2 vs ZUMA-12: 1610 mm2). Of 12 response-evaluable pts (pts with centrally confirmed high-risk LBCL who received axi-cel), the investigator-assessed ORR was 92% (95% CI, 62% - 100%) with a CR rate of 75% (95% CI, 43% - 95%); 75% of pts had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Of 15 pts treated (safety analysis set), the investigator-assessed ORR was 93% (95% CI, 68% - 100%) with a CR rate of 80% (95% CI, 52% - 96%); 86% of pts had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Of 15 safety-evaluable pts, 80% experienced Grade ≥ 3 AEs. The most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs (≥ 25% of pts) were white blood cell count decreased (40%), anemia (27%), and encephalopathy (27%). Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 20% and 27% of pts, respectively. All CRS and 10/11 NEs of any grade resolved (causally unrelated Grade 1 tremor was ongoing in 1 pt at data cutoff). Median time to onset of CRS was 4 d (range, 1 - 8), with median duration of 5 d (range, 2 - 12). Median time to onset of NEs was 9 d (range, 2 - 44), with median duration of 10 d (range, 1 - 40). Grade ≥ 3 infection was reported in 27% and Grade ≥ 3 neutrophil count decreased was reported in 20%. No Grade 5 AEs occurred. Despite similar assessment schedule and methodology, median peak CAR T cell levels were greater in ZUMA-12 vs ZUMA-1 Cohort 1 (131 cells/µL [range, 10 - 555] vs 32 cells/µL [range, 1 - 1514]). Median CAR T cell expansion (AUC0-28) was also greater in ZUMA-12 (1124 cells/µL × d [range, 147 - 4261]; ZUMA-1: 357 cells/µL × d [range, 5 - 11,507]). Median time to peak levels of CAR T cells in blood was 7 d after infusion. PK were similar in pts with double- or triple-hit lymphoma and IPI score ≥ 3. Updated safety, efficacy, and PK results will be reported, along with product characteristics and levels of key cytokines. Conclusion: ZUMA-12 is the first study evaluating CAR T cell therapy as first-line therapy in high-risk LBCL, which notably was defined by both histology and/or IPI and dynamic risk assessment with PET scan. Axi-cel demonstrated significant clinical benefit, with high ORR and CR rates and a manageable safety profile in pts for whom there is an unmet medical need. The study also provides new insights into the pharmacology of CAR T cell therapy for pts exposed to fewer prior therapies. Disclosures Neelapu: Pfizer: Other: personal fees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; N/A: Other; Adicet Bio: Other; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: personal fees; Allogene Therapeutics: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties; Precision Biosciences: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Cell Medica/Kuur: Other: personal fees; Incyte: Other: personal fees; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Other; Calibr: Other. Dickinson:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oluwole:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Herrera:Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Thieblemont:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Bayer: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Hospira: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding. Ujjani:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lin:Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riedell:Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Kekre:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. de Vos:Bayer: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Yang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Milletti:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership . Goyal:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Kawashima:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership . Chavez:Merck: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.

Background: The combination of lenalidomide+rituximab (R2) recently showed superior efficacy vs R-placebo in patients (pts) with R/R iNHL (Leonard et al. J Clin Oncol 2019). Based on these AUGMENT study results, R2 was approved by the US FDA for treatment of adult pts with previously treated follicular lymphoma (FL) or marginal zone lymphoma (MZL). Advanced age at diagnosis is a risk factor in pts with iNHL. We performed post-hoc subgroup analyses by age from AUGMENT and data here focus on pts age ≥ 70 y. Methods: AUGMENT (NCT01938001) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase III study of R2 vs R-placebo in pts with FL grade 1-3a or MZL previously treated with ≥ 1 systemic therapy with R/R disease but not refractory to rituximab. Pts were randomized 1:1 to R2 or R-placebo. R2 was oral lenalidomide 20 mg/d, d1-21/28 for 12c plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in c1 and d1 of c2-5. R-placebo was rituximab+placebo on the same schedule. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per 2007 IWG response criteria (without PET) as assessed by IRC (central review). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), time to next anti-lymphoma treatment (TTNLT) and safety. Post-hoc analyses were performed by dividing pts into age < 70 y and ≥ 70 y subgroups, the latter group considered unfit for chemotherapy. Results: Of 358 pts randomized (R2, n = 178; R-placebo, n = 180), 267 pts were age < 70 y (R2, n = 131; R-placebo, n = 136), and 91 pts were age ≥ 70 y (R2, n = 47; R-placebo, n = 44). Baseline characteristics including histology, disease status, and prior treatments are shown in the table and were similar across treatment arms in pts ≥ 70 y. At a median follow-up of 28.3 mo, the study met its primary endpoint of PFS, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34-0.62; P < 0.0001) in the overall population. R2 had superior PFS vs R-placebo in both < 70 and ≥ 70 y subgroups, with HR of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.29-0.59) and HR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.37-1.18), respectively. In pts ≥ 70 y, median PFS with R2 vs R-placebo was 24.9 vs 14.3 mo; ORR/CR was 81%/26% vs 59%/16%; and TTNLT was not reached in either arm. Efficacy results for all pts and those < 70 y are reported in the table; notably in pts receiving R2, mPFS was longer in pts < 70 y vs ≥ 70 y (39.4 mo [95% CI, 22.9-NE] vs 24.9 mo [95% CI, 16.4-NE]). In pts ≥ 70 y, any-grade adverse events (AEs) with a ≥ 10 % difference between R2 vs R-placebo included neutropenia (63% vs 11%), constipation (33% vs 16%), cough (33% vs 16%), leukopenia (26% vs 2%), anemia (24% vs 9%), pyrexia (24% vs 9%), pruritus/pruritus generalized (24% vs 2%), muscle spasms (22% vs 11%), rash/rash maculopapular (22% vs 5%), headache (20% vs 9%), thrombocytopenia (17% vs 2%), dyspepsia (13% vs 2%), influenza (13% vs 2%), back pain (7% vs 18%), and nasopharyngitis (4% vs 16%). Also, tumor flare was reported in 9% vs 0% of pts, respectively. In pts ≥ 70 y, 75% of R2 pts vs 36% of R-placebo pts had ≥ 1 grade 3/4 AE, mainly due to neutropenia (50% vs 7%). All other grade 3/4 AEs occurred in < 10% of pts ≥ 70 y in both treatment arms. One grade 5 AE occurred in pts ≥ 70 y (R-placebo arm). In the R2 arm, the median number of treatment cycles was 12 for both the < 70 y vs ≥ 70 y subgroups; however, fewer older pts completed 12 cycles of lenalidomide (76% vs 57%), and more started lenalidomide at the lower dose of 10 mg (6% vs 35%) because of low creatinine clearance, respectively. In the R2 < 70 y and ≥ 70 y subgroups, the average daily dose of lenalidomide was 17.9 mg/d (range, 5.6-20.0) and 14.4 mg/d (range 4.2-20.0), and median relative dose intensity was 95% and 86%, respectively. Conclusions: Similar to the results in the original population, R2 showed superior efficacy vs rituximab monotherapy (plus placebo) as measured by the primary end point of PFS and secondary end points of ORR and CR in pts with R/R FL grade 1-3a and MZL irrespective of age. The efficacy and safety profiles of R2 and R-placebo in pts ≥ 70 y were similar to those reported in the overall population. Older pts treated with R2 vs R-placebo had superior mPFS (24.9 vs 14.3 mo). They were more likely to start lenalidomide at a lower dose and had lower median dose intensity which may have contributed to their shorter mPFS vs younger pts receiving R2. These data show that R2 maintained efficacy improvements vs R-placebo in pts ≥ 70 y, despite higher unfit status and lower overall lenalidomide treatment/exposure. Thus, R2 is an effective and available treatment option for pts with iNHL, including those with advanced age. Disclosures Trněný: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria. Leonard:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Izutsu:Chugai, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Symbio, Ono, Bayer, Solasia, Zenyaku, Incyte, Novartis, Sanofi, HUYA Bioscience, MSD, Astellas Amgen, Abbvie, ARIAD, Takeda, Pfizer: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin, Eisai, Takeda, MSD, Chugai, Nihon Medi-physics, Janssen, Ono, Abbvie, Dainihon Sumitomo, Bayer, Astra Zeneca, HUYA Japan, Novartis, Bristol-Byers Squibb, Mundi, Otsuka, Daiichi Sankyo, Astellas, Asahi Kasei: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Eisai, Symbio, Chugai, Zenyaku: Research Funding; Eisai, Chugai, Zenyaku: Honoraria. Fowler:TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Thieblemont:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Kyte: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Zinzani:Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kalambakas:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Czuczman:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fustier:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wu:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gribben:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION: EMZL is a heterogeneous disease with variable risk for relapse and progression. Based on age ≥70 years, stage III-IV and elevated LDH, Thieblemont et al (Blood. 2017) developed the MALT-IPI to identify high-risk patients. In this index, disease characteristics (stage and LDH) account for 66% while a disease nonspecific characteristic (age) for 33% of the index score. We reported (Am J Hematol. 2019) that EMZL with multiple mucosal sites (MMS) at diagnosis is characterized by shorter survival and increased incidence of higher grade transformation. To better recognize disease-attributable high-risk patients, we developed a new EMZL prognosis score chiefly based on patient's disease characteristics. METHODS: The revised (R)-MALT-IPI was developed using a retrospective data set of 405 EMZL patients treated at the University of Miami (UM) from 1995 to 2017. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of the potential prognostic variables on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and to develop the new index R-MALTI-IPI based on PFS. Model validation was performed in two independent cohorts of EMZL patients from the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) database (n=297) and the IELSG-19 study (n=400) used for the development of MALT-IPI. Performance of various prognostic indices was compared using AIC statistics, and concordance c-statistics by Harrell (CH) and by Gonen and Heller (CGH). RESULTS: Among the candidate variables tested in univariable analysis, the following were statistically significant predictors of shorter PFS: age >60, age ≥70, anemia (Hb<12g/dL), stage III-IV, ECOG PS ≥2, elevated serum LDH, number of extranodal sites >1, number of nodal sites >4, and presence of MMS at diagnosis, defined as EMZL with ≥2 different extranodal sites excluding spleen and bone marrow. A stepwise Cox regression analysis yielded a multivariable model with four independent predictors of shorter PFS: age >60 (HR=1.53, p=0.010), elevated LDH (HR=1.73, p=0.004), stage III-IV (HR=2.03, p=0.0003) and presence of MMS (HR=2.78, p<0.0001). Based on this, a new index R-MALT-IPI was developed with scores ranging from 0 to 5, calculated as a sum of 1 point for age >60, elevated LDH, stage III-IV, and 2 points for MMS. The R-MALT-IPI defined 4 risk groups: low-risk (score 0 (35%), reference group), low-medium risk (score 1 (39%), HR=1.91, p=0.005), medium-high risk (score 2 (13%), HR=3.77, p<0.0001), and high-risk (score 3+ (13%), HR=8.54, p<0.0001). When compared with MALT-IPI, R-MALT-IPI better stratifies and separates high risk patients (26%) into medium-high risk and high-risk patients with a median PFS of 5.8 years (2.9-9.1) and 1.8 years (1.3-2.6) respectively, compared to 2.6 years (1.8-4.7) in the high-risk MALT-IPI patients (16.8%). The R-MALT-IPI index also distinguished patients with different OS. For validation, we analyzed R-MALT-IPI index performance in independent Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER and IELSG-19 cohorts. Both R-MALT-IPI and MALT-IPI were useful in distinguishing PFS and OS in all the cohorts. In the UM training cohort, the concordance c-statistics' values for the two indices were similar: for PFS, CH=0.6893 and CGH=0.6611 for R-MALT-IPI, and CH=0.6551 and CGH=0.6367 for MALT-IPI; for OS, CH=0.7017 and CGH=0.6813 for R-MALT-IPI, and CH=0.7029 and CGH=0.67715 for MALT-IPI. In the validation cohorts, the concordance c-statistics' values for the two indices were also similar, but slightly lower than in the UM cohort for PFS. When comparing medium-high to high-risk R-MALT-IPI groups, there was a reduction of 4 years in median PFS in the UM cohort, and reduction in median EFS of 5.6 years in the MER cohort, an important difference between these risk groups identified by the R-MALT-IPI index. CONCLUSIONS: R-MALT-IPI is a new index for EMZL centered principally on disease characteristics. Overall, there is a similar prediction of PFS (EFS) by R-MALT-IPI and MALT-IPI indexes; however, R-MALT-IPI better recognizes a high-risk group accounting for 13% of EMZL patients with short median PFS and thus obviates the waiting period needed to recognize patients with shorter EFS24. Collaborative studies addressing best treatment approach for these high-risk EMZL patients are eagerly needed. Disclosures Alderuccio: Agios: Other: Immediate family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Immediate family member; OncLive: Consultancy; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Immediate family member; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member. Thieblemont:Cellectis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyte: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding. Zucca:Kite, A Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Grant, Research Funding; AstraZenaca: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celltrion Helathcare: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Other: Travel Grant. Lossos:NIH: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Scientific: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background:Lenalidomide plus rituximab (R2) has established efficacy and a tolerable safety profile in patients with previously untreated and relapsed/refractory (R/R) indolent NHL. This includes patients with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who are generally treated in a similar manner to follicular lymphoma (FL).Aims:Primary results for the AUGMENT study in R/R FL grade 1–3a and MZL showed significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) for R2 over R/placebo in the overall population and in the subgroup analyses, with the exception of the MZL subgroup. Given the small sample size for MZL patients, post hoc analyses of baseline characteristics and univariate/multivariate analyses of PFS were conducted to examine possible explanations for these results.Methods:The phase III AUGMENT study randomized patients 1:1 to R2 (lenalidomide PO 20 mg/day (d), d1–21/28 X12 cycles plus rituximab IV 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and d1 of cycles 2–5) or rituximab‐placebo (R/placebo; same dosing schedule). PFS by 2007 IWG (without PET) was the primary endpoint. Post hoc Cox regression models were used for univariate analysis of one risk factor and multivariate analyses including treatment arm and significant risk factors (P < 0.05) from the univariate analyses.Results:A total of 63/358 (18%) MZL patients were part of the overall study population, including n = 14/16 MALT, n = 9/6 splenic, and n = 8/10 nodal MZL subtypes for respective R2 and R/placebo arms. Numerical differences between treatment arms for baseline demographics and disease characteristics for MZL patients favoring the R/placebo arm were: fewer R2 patients had an ECOG score of 0 (55% R2 vs 72% R/placebo), and more R2 (vs R/placebo) patients were older (≥65 y: 68% vs 59%; ≥70 y: 42% vs 38%), were refractory to the last prior regimen (13% vs 3%), had Ann Arbor stage IV disease at enrollment (65% vs 41%), high‐risk MALT‐IPI score (50% vs 19%), elevated LDH (29% vs 19%), B symptoms (13% vs 3%), and high tumor burden per GELF criteria (65% vs 56%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs for MZL patients receiving R2 vs R/placebo, respectively, were neutropenia (47% vs 16%), pneumonia (3% vs 13%), and leukopenia (10% vs 0). A total of 5 deaths occurred in the R2 arm (most associated with progression of disease; 2 deaths occurred early at 3 and 13 days after randomization [one prior to receiving R2 and one 2 days after treatment initiation]) and 2 in the R/placebo arm. Despite worse prognostic features, best response was improved with R2 (vs R/placebo) with ORR = 65% vs 44% (P = 0.13) and CR = 29% vs 13% (P = 0.13), although neither were statistically significant. Improved response rates did not translate into a survival advantage for R2. Median PFS for MZL patients was 20.2 mo R2 vs 25.2 mo R/placebo (HR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47–2.13; P = 1.0). Univariate analyses showed that several baseline factors were prognostic for MZL patients (P < 0.05): Ann Arbor stage IV, elevated LDH, and unfit for chemotherapy (Table). Multivariate analyses adjusting for the imbalance in these 3 significant prognostic factors showed an adjusted PFS HR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.20–1.28) favoring the R2 arm, similar to the PFS HR in the overall population (HR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34–0.63). The univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors impacted PFS results for MZL patients.Summary/Conclusion:Overall, these findings suggest that the PFS results in MZL patients were negatively impacted by the imbalance in baseline prognostic factors and more aggressive disease in the R2 over the R/placebo arm.image

We recently defined event‐free survival at 24 months (EFS24) as a clinically relevant outcome for patients with DLBCL. Patients who fail EFS24 have very poor overall survival, while those who achieve EFS24 have a subsequent overall survival equivalent to that of the age‐ and sex‐matched general population. Here, we develop and validate a clinical risk calculator (IPI24) for EFS24. Model building was performed on a discovery dataset of 1,348 patients with DLBCL and treated with anthracycline‐based immunochemotherapy. A multivariable model containing age, Ann Arbor stage, normalized serum LDH, ALC, ECOG performance status, bulky disease, and sex was identified. The model was then applied to an independent validation dataset of 1,177 DLBCL patients. The IPI24 score estimates the probability of failing to achieve the EFS24 endpoint for an individual patient. The IPI24 model showed superior discriminatory ability (c‐statistic = 0.671) in the validation dataset compared to the IPI (c‐statistic = 0.649) or the NCCN‐IPI (c‐statistic = 0.657). After recalibration of the model on the combined dataset, the median predicted probability of failing to achieve EFS24 was 36% (range, 12–88%), and the IPI24 showed an EFS24 gradient in all IPI groups. The IPI24 also identified a significant percentage of patients with high risk disease, with over 20% of patients having a 50% or higher risk of failing to achieve EFS24. The IPI24 provides an individual patient level probability of achieving the clinically relevant EFS24 endpoint. It can be used via electronic apps. Am. J. Hematol. 91:179–184, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Abstract Background. The salivary gland is one of the most common sites involved by nongastric, extranodal marginal zone lymphomas of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT). A large series of patients with long-term follow-up has not been documented. This multicenter, international study sought to characterize the clinical characteristics, treatment, and natural history of salivary gland MALT lymphoma. Methods. Patients with biopsy-confirmed salivary gland MALT lymphoma were identified from multiple international sites. Risk factors, treatment, and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Results. A total of 247 patients were evaluated; 76% presented with limited-stage disease. There was a history of autoimmune disorder in 41%, with Sjögren disease being the most common (83%). Fifty-seven percent of patients were initially treated with local therapy with surgery, radiation, or both; 37 of patients were treated with systemic therapy initially, with 47% of those receiving rituximab; and 6% of patients were observed. The median overall survival (OS) was 18.3 years. The median progression-free survival (PFS) following primary therapy was 9.3 years. There was no difference in the outcomes between patients receiving local or systemic therapy in first-line management. On multivariate analysis, age &lt;60 years and low to intermediate international prognostic index were associated with improved OS and PFS; Sjögren disease was associated with improved OS. Conclusion. Salivary gland MALT lymphoma has an excellent prognosis regardless of initial treatment, and patients with Sjögren disease have improved survival. Risks for long-term complications must be weighed when determining initial therapy. Implications for Practice: Patients with salivary gland extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) have an excellent prognosis, particularly those with associated Sjögren's disease. A wide range of available therapies may provide similar durable rates of disease control and survival. Therefore, an important goal in selection of therapy should be to minimize morbidity from treatment. When determining initial therapy for these patients, practitioners should consider the potential side effects and long-term toxicities of treatment.