Hilal, Talal

Abstract Background: In R/R DLBCL/FL, T-cell engager therapy (TCET) using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) or bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are promising options. Patients (pts) with R/R disease post TCET experience dismal outcomes with overall survival (OS)< 5 months (mos). Lonca, an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) targeting CD19 (FDA approved for R/R DLBCL and beneficial in R/R FL) has been increasingly used post-TCET. RWDA of Lonca is limited, especially regarding: 1) impact of CD19 expression on activity, 2) adverse events (AEs) in non-clinical trial setting, and 3) impact of sequencing Lonca and TCET. Thus, we conducted a RWDA of Lonca efficacy and toxicity in R/R DLBCL and FL pre- and post-TCET. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of R/R DLBCL or FL pts ≥18 years who received Lonca from 2017 to 2025 at 10 US academic sites. Demographic, pathological, treatment, and AEs were collected. Efficacy outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. CD19 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or flow cytometry (FC) prior to Lonca administration was correlated to outcomes. Results: Among 120 pts (DLBCL n= 101, FL n=19), all but 2 pts received Lonca monotherapy. At a median follow-up of 6.1 mos, median PFS and OS were 2.6 mos and 6.7 mos, respectively for the entire cohort. For DLBCL, median age was 66 years (18-89). Median prior lines of therapy (LOT) were 4 (1-11). ORR was 37.7% (CR: 17%, PR: 20.7%), SD: 6%, and PD: 56%. Median PFS was 2.1 mos, and median OS was 5.8 mos. For FL, median age was 62 years (28-88). Median prior LOT was 6 (2-8). ORR was 49.4% (CR: 28%, PR: 21.4%), SD: 14%, and PD: 35.7%. Median PFS was 6.7 mos, and median OS was 6.8 mos. OS by best response (entire cohort) was 11.3 mos and 11.8 mos in those who had CR and PR, respectively, 10.6 mos in SD and 3.5 mos in those with PD. Lonca LOT (2nd-12th line) was not associated with improved OS (p=0.58). Bulky disease (>7.5 cm) was not associated with worse OS (p=0.07). PD to Lonca was associated with PD at 2nd line treatment (OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 1.7–10.9) and 3rd-line treatment (OR: 4.2; 95% CI: 1.5–11.5), elevated lactate dehydrogenase (OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2–2.9), and each subsequent increase of extranodal sites >1 prior to Lonca (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.04–2.1). Among pts with available CD19 status prior to Lonca administration, 28 were FC-positive and 22 were IHC-positive. Of the CD19 FC-positive pts (n=23), 22% (5/23) achieved CR, 26% (6/23) had PR, 8% (2/23) had SD, and 43% (10/23) developed PD. Of the CD19 IHC-positive pts (n=20): 15% (3/20) achieved CR, 20% (4/20) had PR, 5% (1/20) had SD, and 60% (12/20) developed PD. Among all CD19-negative pts (n=7), two achieved CR, one had SD, and four with PD. Any grade AE was seen in 84% of pts. Any grade ≥3 (G3) AE was seen in 62% of pts. Notable G3 AEs included: anemia (35%), lymphopenia (34%), neutropenia (21.6%), thrombocytopenia (20%), infection (17%), fatigue (9%), peripheral edema (5%), pleural effusion (4%), photosensitivity (2.5%), and pruritus (2.5%). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 17% (n=21) of pts. Fifty-five pts (50 DLBCL, 5 FL) received both Lonca and CD19 directed CART (Pre-Lonca n=54; Post-Lonca n=1). There was no significant difference in PFS or OS between pts who received CART and those who did not (PFS: 2.7 mos vs 3 mos; OS: 7.4 mos vs 5 mos). BsAb was used in 41 pts (34 DLBCL, 7 FL) (Pre-Lonca n=30; Post-Lonca n=11). No significant difference in PFS or OS was observed between pts who received BsAb pre- or post-Lonca. There was also no significant difference in PFS between pts who received a BsAb (2.2 mos) and those who did not (2.9 mos), nor in OS.Conclusion: In this large RWDA of Lonca, pts who achieved any form of clinical response experienced a significantly longer OS than previously reported for heavily pre-treated pts. Lonca was predominantly administered after TCET; however, there was no significant difference in efficacy between pts who received CART and BsAbs and those who did not. CD19 positivity and earlier utilization of Lonca did not appear to have an impact on response rates. Our findings support a role for Lonca in the treatment of R/R DLBCL pts not candidates for TCET. This RWDA highlights the need to further investigate the sequencing of Lonca in R/R DLBCL and FL.

Abstract Background In patients with myelofibrosis (MF) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has traditionally included a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX). We conducted a retrospective study comparing the safety and efficacy of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based GVHD prophylaxis to CNI-based regimens. Methods This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. Patients with myelofibrosis who underwent allo-HCT after 2016 at Mayo Clinic in Arizona and Florida were included. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Overall survival (OS) was defined from transplant to death, and progression-free survival (PFS) from transplant to relapse or death. OS and PFS were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; univariate differences were assessed with log-rank tests. The cumulative incidence of acute and chronic GVHD and time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were analyzed using competing risk models, with death as a competing event; differences were tested using Gray's test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). Results A total of 110 patients were included. 53 patients received PTCy-based prophylaxis (43 PTCy/Tac/MMF, 1 PTCy/CSA/MMF, 9 PTCy/Siro/MMF), while 57 received non-PTCy regimens (54 Tac/MTX +/- 39 T-cell depletion, 2 CSA/MMF, 1 Tac/MMF). Median age at transplant was 63 (range: PTCy 40-76; others 38-74) years in both groups; 59 were male (58.5% PTCy vs 49.1% others). Median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and HCT–Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) in patients receiving PTCy vs non-PTCy were 90 vs 80 and 1 vs 3, respectively. Conditioning intensity was similar: 22.6% myeloablative vs 21.7%, and 77.4% reduced-intensity vs 76.7% in PTCy and non-PTCy, respectively (p=1.000). Stem cell source was peripheral blood in all patients except one in the non-PTCy group who received bone marrow. 58 patients had primary MF (54.7% PTCy vs 50.9% others), and 52 had secondary MF (45.3% PTCy vs 49.1% others), including essential thrombocythemia (28.3% PTCy vs 31.6% others), polycythemia vera (17.0% vs 15.8%), and MPN-NOS (0% vs 1.8%). Median follow-up was 26.2 months (95% CI: 20.7-52.7) in the PTCy and 60.6 months (95% CI: 53.1-70.6) in the non-PTCy cohort. CD3 and CD33 donor chimerism ≥95% at day +100 was 66.7% and 86.7% in PTCy vs 63.6% and 92.7% in others, respectively (p=0.50); day +100 driver molecular mutations were present in 32.1% of PTCy and 32.0% of others (p>0.99). Rates of acute GVHD grades ≥2 and ≥3 were not statistically significant, in the PTCy group (37.7% vs 49.1% p=0.229 and 17.0% vs 22.8% p=0.445, respectively). Chronic GVHD (any grade) occurred in 42.3% of PTCy vs 38.2% of others (p=0.664), while moderate-to-severe cGVHD was lower with PTCy (21.2% vs 27.3% p=0.461). Platelet engraftment was significantly delayed in the PTCy group (median 33 vs 21 days, p=0.030). Median time to neutrophil engraftment was also delayed in the PTCy group (20 vs 17 days, adjusted p=0.025). Age-adjusted HR for time to platelet engraftment was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.41–0.90; p=0.014), and for neutrophil engraftment 0.65 (95% CI: 0.44–0.95; p=0.025), indicating significantly delayed hematopoietic recovery with PTCy. Graft failure occurred in 9.4% vs 5.3% (p = 0.48); primary 7.5% vs 3.5%, secondary 1.9% vs 1.8% in PTCy vs non-PTCy groups, respectively. Relapse or progression occurred in 11.3% of PTCy vs 17.5% of others (p=0.355); four patients in the non-PTCy group progressed to AML post-transplant, versus none in the PTCy group (p=0.119). 1-year TRM was 22.6% in the PTCy group and 14.0% in the non-PTCy group, p = 0.324. Median OS was 72.8 months in the PTCy group (95% CI: 49.9 months, upper limit not estimable [NE]) and 93.4 months in the non-PTCy group (95% CI: 48.5 months, upper limit NE), although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.739). After adjusting for age and HCT-CI, there were no significant differences in PFS (adjusted HR 1.37; 95% CI: 0.73–2.56; p=0.331) or OS (adjusted HR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.64–2.51; p=0.498). Conclusions In myelofibrosis patients undergoing allo-HCT, PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis showed similar rates of grade ≥2 acute and moderate-severe chronic GVHD compared to non-PTCy regimens. Engraftment was significantly delayed, while OS and PFS were comparable. PTCy appears to be a safe and viable alternative to CNI-based prophylaxis.

Abstract Background Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare but aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma with limited prospective data to guide optimal therapy. This study evaluates real-world treatment patterns and survival outcomes using a large national cohort. Methods We analyzed data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients diagnosed with PCNSL between 2004 and 2020. Baseline demographics and treatment characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to identify independent predictors of overall survival (OS). Results A total of 14,450 patients with PCNSL were included; 14,439 had first-line treatment data available, and 13,390 had survival data. Median age at diagnosis was 67 years (range 18-90), 49.2% were female, and 6.6% were African American. Chemotherapy alone was the modality of treatment for 81.6% (n=11,787), 12.2% (n=1,769) received chemoradiation, 3.8% (n=545) received chemotherapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) but no radiation, and 2.4% (n=348) received radiation only. The median follow-up time was 73.5 months (95% CI 71.4-75.6), and the median OS for the group was 17.4 months (95% CI 16.2-18.6). Survival differed significantly by age group (median OS: <65 yrs, 46.1 months [95% CI 41.7 -50.6]; 65-79 yrs, 12.5 months [95% CI 11.2-13.7]; ≥80 yrs, 3.2 months [95% CI 2.9-3.5]; p<0.001), by year of diagnosis (median OS: 2004-2009, 11.0 months [95% CI 9.9-12.1]; 2010-2015, 20.0 months [95% CI 17.4-22.6], 2016-2020, 29.7 months [95% CI 26.0-33.4]; p<0.001), and by frontline treatment strategy (p<0.001). Patients treated with chemotherapy followed by ASCT had the longest median OS (not reached), while those receiving radiation alone had the poorest outcomes with a median OS of 3.9 months (95% CI 3.2-4.7); chemoradiation patients had a median OS of 31.8 months (95% CI 27.5-36.1), and chemotherapy only patients had a median OS of 13.9 months (95% CI 12.7-15.1)(p<0.001). African American patients had an inferior outcome with a median OS of 10.2 months [95% CI 7.2-13.1], compared to “other” races with a median OS of 36.9 months [95% CI 27.6-46.1] (p<0.001), although this is more similar to the median outcome for white patients (17.0 months [95% CI 15.8-18.3]). Treatment at an academic center (25.7 vs 11.0 months) and a high case-volume center (defined as >median number of cases per facility) (18.6 vs 10.5 months), and lower Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (CDS) (defined as CDS 0-1) (21.7 vs 6.8 months) were also associated with superior OS (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, increasing age ( 65-79 y.o HR 1.60 [1.52-1.1.68], ≥80 y.o HR 2.95 [2.75-3.17]), CDS≥2 (HR 1.36 [1.28-1.44]), and African American race (HR 1.12 [1.02-1.24]) were adverse predictors of OS (all p<0.001), while treatment strategy (ASCT [HR 0.17], chemoradiation [HR 0.53], chemotherapy only [HR 0.68] compared to radiation alone), more recent year of diagnosis (2010-2015 [HR 0.81], 2016-2020 [0.70]), and treatment at an academic center [HR 0.81] remained predictors of superior OS (all p<0.001). Conclusion In this large national cohort of patients with PCNSL, treatment with chemotherapy followed by ASCT was associated with the most favorable survival outcomes. Patients treated with chemoradiation or multi-agent chemotherapy also demonstrated improved survival compared to those receiving radiation monotherapy or single-agent chemotherapy alone, respectively. Age, comorbidities, race, and treatment at academic centers were also significant independent predictors of OS. These findings highlight substantial disparities in outcomes and underscore the importance of optimizing treatment strategies, improving access to high-intensity therapies, and supporting timely referral to academic or high case-volume centers, particularly for younger and medically fit patients.

Introduction Registrational trials are clinical trials which are used to justify regulatory approval of a new medication by the FDA. However, clinical trials may not be designed around patient-centred outcomes, like overall survival (OS) or quality of life. This disconnect raises concerns about whether current trial designs are truly aligned with the long-term needs and priorities of patients. A comprehensive analysis of trial designs and endpoints is necessary to ensure that future oncological therapies deliver meaningful clinical improvements. Our objective was to describe types of clinical trial design and primary endpoints used for registrational trials, and their trends over time. Research design and methods In this cohort study, the HemOnc database was used to identify registrational trials supporting cancer drug approval from 2004 through 2023. Clinical trial design (escalation, de-escalation, in-class switch, out-of-class switch) and primary endpoint (OS; time-to-event including progression-free survival; response-based endpoint) were characterized. Results Escalation trial designs were more common than in-class switches or out-of-class switches. De-escalation and mixed designs were exceedingly rare. The most common primary endpoint was a composite time-to-event endpoint. Conclusion Most clinical trials leading to FDA approval for cancer-directed therapies employ escalation designs with composite time-to-event endpoints. Designs reflecting paradigm shifts in therapy (in-class switches and out-of-class switches) are sparsely used. This approach raises the concern that trials may increase therapeutic toxicity without delivering meaningful improvements in OS or quality of life.

Abstract Purpose: Polatuzumab vedotin (polatuzumab) was approved for up-front treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in combination with chemoimmunotherapy (Pola-R-CHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, when stratified by cell of origin (COO), polatuzumab seems to have greater efficacy in activated B-cell than germinal center B-cell (GCB) subtype disease. Most studies of polatuzumab used RNA expression to assess COO, whereas in routine clinical practice, the immunohistochemistry-based Hans algorithm is used. Experimental Design: To assess the impact of COO by immunohistochemistry on polatuzumab efficacy, we conducted a multicenter real-world study of adults with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) receiving polatuzumab from 2015 to 2024, split by receipt of polatuzumab in first-line versus relapsed/refractory settings. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to polatuzumab-based treatment in GCB versus non-GCB relapsed/refractory LBCL. Results: Of 740 patients, 305 received polatuzumab in the first-line setting and 435 in the relapsed/refractory setting. In the relapsed/refractory cohort, the ORR in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL was 59.7% versus 36.3% [OR, 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.77–3.84; P < 0.0001], with a complete response rate of 35.7% versus 17.7% (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.66–4.02; P < 0.0001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients with non-GCB versus GCB COO (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.5–0.83; P = 0.0006). In the first-line cohort, ORR, complete response rate, and progression-free survival were similar in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL, as hypothesized based on outcomes in the Pola-R-CHP arm of POLARIX, suggesting that the addition of polatuzumab overcomes the adverse risk of non-GCB COO in patients receiving R-CHOP. Conclusions: Based on these data, COO classification by the Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of polatuzumab efficacy in LBCL, informing real-world treatment decisions.

Abstract Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) treatment for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) induces high initial response rates, but most patients relapse. Low disease burden (often defined as <5% blasts in the bone marrow) is associated with better outcomes. CAR HEMATOTOX (HT) is a score using prelymphodepletion hematologic and inflammatory parameters to predict outcomes in lymphoma. Here, we assess its prognostic utility in a large multicenter adult B-cell ALL cohort. Patients who received brexucabtagene autoleucel across 33 centers in North America were included as part of the Real-World Outcomes Collaborative of CAR-T in Adult ALL (ROCCA) consortium. An independent cohort of 61 patients with ALL treated with an investigational CD19 CAR-T therapy at 1 center was also described. Among 199 ROCCA consortium patients, 43 (22%) patients with HTlow scores had lower rates of delayed neutrophil recovery than those with HThigh scores (26% vs 52%, P = .002) and fewer severe infections (2.5% vs 18.8%, P = .011). They also had higher response rates, overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS), as well as lower nonrelapse mortality and cumulative incidence of relapse. The survival differences remained significant after multivariable adjustment for disease burden and other covariates. In the investigational cohort of 61 patients, patients with HTlow scores had improved OS and EFS, as well as higher peak CAR-T expansion. In summary, CAR HT score is a prognostic factor independent of disease burden in adult ALL. HTlow score is associated with superior outcomes after CD19 CAR-Ts and higher CAR-T expansion in a single-center cohort. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01044069 and #NCT01860937.

Autologous Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have demonstrated substantial efficacy in patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies; however, their implementation has been constrained by regulatory barriers. Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), were initially implemented to mitigate risks associated with cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and other treatment-related toxicities. On 27 June 2025, the FDA removed REMS requirements for all approved B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and CD19-directed autologous CAR T-cell therapies, citing that current product labeling sufficiently communicates safety information. Key regulatory changes include the elimination of site certification and tocilizumab stocking requirements, a reduction in the recommended post-infusion proximity period from four weeks to two weeks, increased flexibility regarding monitoring locations, and a shortened driving restriction from eight weeks to two weeks. This review examines the rationale for the REMS requirements for CAR T-cell therapies, synthesizes contemporary safety data from clinical trials and real-world practice, and explores the implications of this regulatory shift for access to care, particularly in rural and underserved populations. The removal of REMS requirements may facilitate broader implementation of CAR T-cell therapies and alleviate logistical and institutional barriers, offering the potential to expand access while preserving patient safety.

Abstract Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare systemic histiocytic neoplasm, with cardiac morbidities, including cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and cardiac conditions, playing a significant yet poorly understood role in the disease burden. This study evaluated the prevalence, characteristics, and prognosis of ECD in patients with (ECD-C) and without cardiac involvement (ECD-noC) and compared the burden of cardiac morbidities with matched controls. Patients diagnosed with ECD between 1990 and 2021 at a tertiary center were included, with cardiac involvement centrally assessed using radiographic studies. Cardiac morbidities were compared with a control group without ECD, matched for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking history. Among 104 patients with ECD, 39 (37%) had cardiac involvement. Patients with ECD-C had higher rates of hypertension (67% vs 46%), hyperlipidemia (67% vs 40%), heart failure (36% vs 8%), and pericardial effusion (28% vs 2%) than those with ECD-noC. Compared with the matched non-ECD cohort, patients with ECD had higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (20% vs 7%), heart failure (18% vs 4%), and antihypertensive drug use (55% vs 40%). Notably, patients with ECD-C had inferior progression-free survival (PFS) from frontline therapy compared with patients with ECD-noC (5-year PFS, 28.3% vs 70.5%). These findings highlight the burden of CV risk factors and cardiac conditions in ECD, even without a clinical diagnosis of ECD-C. Importantly, this cardiac morbidity burden is substantial for patients with ECD-C compared with ECD-noC. Our findings highlight the need for comprehensive cardiac risk assessment and management strategies to improve patient outcomes.