Flament, Jocelyne

Abstract Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Three scoring systems incorporating simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the International Prognostic Index (IPI), revised IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We evaluated 2124 DLBCL patients treated from 1998 to 2009 with frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; or variant) across 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials to determine which scoring system best discriminates overall survival (OS). Median age was 63 years, and 56% of patients were male. Five-year OS estimates ranged from 54% to 88%, from 61% to 93%, and from 49% to 92% using the IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI, respectively. The NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest- and lowest-risk groups and best discriminated OS (concordance index = 0.632 vs 0.626 [IPI] vs 0.590 [R-IPI]). For each given IPI risk category, NCCN-IPI risk categories were significantly associated with OS (P ≤ .01); the reverse was not true, and the IPI did not provide additional significant prognostic information within all NCCN-IPI risk categories. Collectively, the NCCN-IPI outperformed the IPI and R-IPI. Patients with low-risk NCCN-IPI had favorable survival outcomes with little room for further improvement. In the rituximab era, none of the clinical risk scores identified a patient subgroup with long-term survival clearly <50%. Integrating molecular features of the tumor and microenvironment into the NCCN-IPI or IPI might better characterize a high-risk group for which novel treatment approaches are most needed.

7544 Background: Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients (pts) newly diagnosed with aggressive BCL. Three scoring systems based on simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the international prognostic index (IPI), revised-IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We studied BCL pts treated with R-CHOP to determine which scoring systems best identifies subgroups with poor outcomes that might benefit from new approaches. Methods: Individual pt data from 7 multicenter trials (1998-2009) of pts with BCL (86% DLBCL) treated front-line with R-CHOP (or variant) were analyzed to determine whether IPI, R-IPI, or NCCN-IPI best discriminated overall survival (OS). The concordance index (c-index) from a proportional hazards model, stratifying on trial and induction therapy, quantified predictive accuracy of each scoring system. Results: 2561 pts (median age 63 yrs, 56% male) were classified into IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI risk groups (Table). With a median follow-up of 5 yrs, NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest and lowest risk groups at 1, 3, and 5 yrs, and best discriminated OS (c-index = 0.631, Table). Conclusions: In an independent and large cohort of pts, NCCN-IPI performs best in risk-stratifying pts with aggressive BCL, readily distinguishing pts at high and low risk for treatment failure using clinical parameters (5-yr OS between 48 and 92%). Improvement over the simpler IPI appears incremental, and IPI may remain a valuable alternative. Work integrating molecular features of the tumor into the (NCCN-) IPI is in progress to define high risk groups where targeted novel approaches are needed most. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with DLBCL who receive first-line anthracycline based immunochemotherapy and remain in remission at 2 years have excellent outcomes with overall survival (OS) in one study that was comparable to the age and sex matched general population in cohorts from the US and France (Maurer et al, JCO 2014). To evaluate whether these findings are robust and generalizable, we assessed OS stratified by progression-free survival at 24 months (PFS24) using individual patient data from pts with DLBCL enrolled in 14 multi-center, international randomized clinical trials as part of the SEAL consortium. Methods: Central data alignment was performed by the SEAL statistics and data center. All enrolled patients treated with rituximab-containing anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy as part of initial induction therapy were included in this analysis using an intent-to-treat approach. PFS was defined as time from initiation of first-line therapy to progression or death. PFS24 was defined as being alive and progression-free 24 months (731 days) after initiation of therapy. Overall survival from PFS24 was defined as time from achieving PFS24 until death due to any cause. OS was compared to each patient's age-, sex-, and country- matched general population using expected survival and standardized mortality ratios (SMR). Country-level population rate tables were obtained from www.mortality.org where available. A per-study average rate table was used when country information was unavailable. OS beyond 9 years from treatment initiation was only available the time of analysis from two trials (13% of cohort) and thus follow-up from PFS24 was restricted to the first 7 years after PFS24 for this analysis. Results: Fourteen studies with 7975 patients were included in the SEAL database. 5853 (73%) received rituximab as part of induction therapy and used in this analysis. Median age was 62 years (range 18-92) with 56% >60 years, 54% were male, 57% had elevated LDH, 63% had stage III/IV disease, 13% had ECOG PS 2-4, and IPI was 0-1 in 36%, 2 in 25%, 3 in 23%, and 4-5 in 16%. At a median follow-up of 4.4 years, 1337 (23%) had disease progression, 1489 patients (25%) had died, and 5101 patients were evaluable for PFS24. 1423 (28%) of evaluable patients failed to achieve PFS24. These patients had poor outcomes after progression with median OS of 7.2 months (95% CI 6.8-8.1), 5-year OS of 19%, and SMR of 32.1 (95% CI: 30.0-34.4). Outcome was excellent (median unreached) in the 3678 patients who were progression-free at 24 months, with subsequent OS after achieving PFS24 approaching the age and sex matched general population (Figure). The observed vs. expected OS at 3, 5, and 7 years after achieving PFS24 was 93.1% vs. 94.4%, 87.6% vs. 89.5%, and 80.0% vs. 83.7%, respectively, the SMR was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09-1.37). In subset analyses examining pts achieving PFS24, adverse prognostic characteristics at baseline (elevated LDH, advanced stage, ECOG PS 2-4, high IPI) were associated with greater decrement in OS from the general population based expected survival (Table). Conclusions: PFS24 from the start of initial therapy stratifies DLBCL pts into populations with distinct outcomes. DLBCL pts treated with rituximab containing anthracycline-based immunotherapy on large randomized clinical trials who are alive without progression at 24 months from start of initial therapy have excellent outcomes with survival that is marginally lower but clinically indistinguishable from the age-, sex-, and country-matched background population for at least 7 years after achieving PFS24. Further follow-up time will be needed to assess any long-term impact of late relapse and survivorship issues in this population. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Cunningham:Amgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun:Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Roche France: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Merli:Roche: 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; Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herbrecht:Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flament:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding. Coiffier:MorphoSys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background OSis the gold standard primary efficacy endpoint for evaluating treatment strategies for DLBCL. Because current standard of care first-line regimens with rituximab plus chemotherapy produce median OS > 8 years, an endpoint assessed earlier would accelerate the evaluation of new therapies and potentially allow patients (pts) to more rapidly benefit from study results. The SEAL group formally evaluated PFS as a surrogate endpoint for OS in first-line therapy for DLBCL. Methods Through a systematic literature search and input from lymphoma experts on the SEAL committee, we identified multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated active treatment and enrolled at least 100 pts with previously untreated DLBCL or aggressive non Hodgkin lymphoma by WHO/REAL classification, published after January 1, 1995. Studies which enrolled only early stage (I or II) pts and studies that could not provide individual pt data (IPD) were excluded from surrogacy analysis. Potential surrogate candidates for OS included: 1) PFS, defined as the time from initiation of induction treatment to progressive disease, relapse or death due to any cause, and 2) PFS rate at 24 months after initiation of induction treatment (PFS24). These endpoints were derived consistently for all studies based on IPD. Surrogacy was evaluated by the correlation between surrogate candidates and OS. Pt-level correlation was measured by the rank correlation coefficient (ρ) and global odds ratio for PFS and PFS24, respectively, estimated by the Copula model. Trial-level correlation was evaluated by the correlation between trial-specific treatment effects on surrogate candidates and OS with two commonly used trial-level R2s: R2WLS (Sargent et al JCO 2005) and R2Copula (Burzykowski et al J R Stat Soc C 2001 and Burzykowski et al J R Stat Soc A 2004). For the R2 measures, a value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation. We pre-specified that if either trial-level R2 was >=0.80 and its 95% confidence interval (CI) excluded 0.60, the candidate would meet criteria for surrogacy. Results Thirteen of 14 studies collected to date in the SEAL database met all inclusion criteria. IPD for 7507 pts (median age 63 years, 54% male, 46% ECOG performance status 0, 8% IPI 0, 50% IPI 1-2, 64% stage III/IV, median follow-up time of 52 months) were analyzed. Among 13 studies, one tested maintenance treatment only and two tested both induction and maintenance regimens. One study included four treatment arms. Thus at the trial level, 17 two-arm comparisons were formed: 14 comparisons comparing induction regimens and 3 comparing maintenance; 15 comparisons involved rituximab. Longer PFS was highly correlated with longer OS at the pt level (ρ= 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86), as was PFS24 (Global odds ratio = 61.1, 95% CI 52.6-69.6). The Table shows trial-level correlations, and the Figure shows trial-level association between estimated treatment effects (log(HR) [hazard ratio]) on PFS and OS. The trial-level correlation between PFS and OS was strong and met the pre-specified surrogacy criteria, with R2WLS of 0.83 (95% CI 0.58-0.94) and R2Copula of 0.85 (95% CI 0.72-0.99). Sensitivity analyses including only comparisons including rituximab or only induction regimens showed consistent results. The overall trial-level correlation between PFS24 and OS was reduced slightly, with R2WLS of 0.77 (95% CI 0.49-0.92) and R2Copula of 0.78 (95% CI 0.59-0.96). Performance of PFS24 was improved when restricting analysis to only including induction studies (see table). Conclusion This large IPD pooled-analysis demonstrates that PFS duration met the pre-specified criteria as a robust surrogate endpoint for OS, and can be considered as a surrogate endpoint for OS for frontline DLBCL trials evaluating immunochemotherapy. The earlier endpoint of PFS24 showed promise as a potential surrogate and further validation is warranted. Figure Figure. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Flowers:Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Cunningham:Merrimack: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding. Pfreundschuh:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche France: Research Funding. Merli:Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: 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. Herbrecht:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flament:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Coiffier:MorphoSys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding.

Purpose Overall survival (OS) is the definitive and best-established primary efficacy end point to evaluate diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) therapies, but it requires prolonged follow-up. An earlier end point assessed post-treatment would expedite clinical trial conduct and accelerate patient access to effective new therapies. Our objective was to formally evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) and PFS at 24 months (PFS24) as surrogate end points for OS in first-line DLBCL. Patients and Methods Individual patient data were analyzed from 7,507 patients from 13 multicenter randomized controlled trials of active treatment in previously untreated DLBCL, published after 2002, with sufficient PFS data to predict treatment effects on OS. Trial-level surrogacy examining the correlation of treatment effect estimates of PFS/PFS24 and OS was evaluated using both linear regression ( R2WLS) and Copula bivariable ( R2Copula) models. Prespecified criteria for surrogacy required either R2WLS or R2Copula ≥ 0.80 and neither < 0.7, with lower-bound 95% CI > 0.60. Results Trial-level surrogacy for PFS was strong ( R2WLS = 0.83; R2Copula = 0.85) and met the predefined criteria for surrogacy. At the patient level, PFS strongly correlated with OS. The surrogate threshold effect had a hazard ratio of 0.89. Surrogacy was consistent across comparisons with or without rituximab and with rituximab maintenance trials. Trial-level surrogacy for PFS24 was relatively strong ( R2WLS = 0.77; R2Copula = 0.78) but did not meet prespecified criteria. At the patient level, PFS24 significantly correlated with OS. The surrogate threshold effect had an odds ratio of 1.51. Conclusion This large pooled analysis of individual patient data supports PFS as a surrogate end point for OS in future randomized controlled trials evaluating chemoimmunotherapy in DLBCL. Use of this end point may expedite therapeutic development with the intent of bringing novel therapies to this patient population years before OS results are mature.

This commentary describes the progress of the SEAL [Surrogate Endpoints for Aggressive Lymphoma] research group and invites collaboration in sharing data to continue building a large database of individual patient data from multiple clinical trials in DLBCL.