Hernandez‐Ilizaliturri, Francisco J.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

The treatment landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) has significantly evolved in recent years. Targeted therapy with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors and BCL-2 inhibitors has emerged as an effective chemotherapy-free option for patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL. Undetectable minimal residual disease after the end of treatment is emerging as an important predictor of progression-free and overall survival for patients treated with fixed-duration BCL-2 inhibitor-based treatment. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the updates to the NCCN Guidelines for CLL/SLL specific to the use of chemotherapy-free treatment options for patients with treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory disease.

LBA7564 Background: Patients with r/r B-NHL have a dismal prognosis. DIAL (Dual Immunomodulation in Aggressive Lymphoma) was a multi-center randomized phase II study testing the efficacy of nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) plus varlilumab (CD27 agonist) in this population. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg IV every 2 weeks for 4 months, 480 mg IV monthly thereafter; group 1) alone or combined with varlilumab (3 mg/kg IV monthly; group 2). Cross-over (group 1 to 2) was allowed for progression. Primary endpoint was overall response (ORR) per LYRIC criteria. A sample size of 48 patients per arm would provide 80% power to detect increase in ORR from 25% to 45% using a one-sided test (p = 0.15). Pre-specified interim analysis occurred after half of the patients completed first radiologic assessment. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Exploratory endpoints included tumor genomic assessment and immune profiling of blood and tumor. Results: 53 patients were enrolled (27 in group 1; 26 in group 2). Interim analysis included 24 patients from each arm. Mean age was 65.2 years, 34 (70.8%) were male, and 36 (75%) received prior CAR-T cell therapy. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were observed in 8 (33.3%) and 7 (30.4%) of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Common AEs (> 5%) of any grade included fatigue, lymphopenia, diarrhea, rash. There were no treatment-associated deaths. Toxicity profile was similar between arms. Table summarizes efficacy outcomes. ORR was achieved in 6 patients (12.5%), not statistically different between arms; 4 responses were complete. Seven patients crossed over (1 responded after crossing). Median OS (8.6 vs 7.3 months; p = 0.39) and PFS (2.7 vs 1.4 months; p = 0.06) were similar between arms. Subgroup analysis of patients with prior CAR-T cell therapy showed similar ORR (5/36; 14%), not statistically different between arms. Correlative analysis results will be presented at conference. The trial met futility criterion on interim analysis and enrollment ceased based on pre-specified stopping rule. Conclusions: Dual immunomodulatory therapy did not enhance anti-tumor activity in patients with aggressive B-NHL compared to nivolumab alone. Response rates were low and consistent with previous data using PD-1 inhibitors in this population. Prior therapy with CAR-T cell does not seem to sensitize patients to PD-1 blockade. Toxicity profile was acceptable and dual therapy did not increase the rate of AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT03038672. [Table: see text]

e18790 Background: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 with a diagnosis of cancer have increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared to patients without cancer. However, little is known regarding outcomes of patients with COVID-19 and cancer in the setting of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Given the unique risks of this population, we sought to understand COVID-19 outcomes using registry data. Methods: This is a descriptive research study utilizing the CCC19 registry, an international multi-institutional registry with healthcare provider-reported cases of patients with cancer and COVID-19. Between March 2020-December 2021, 116 persons with HIV (PWH) and 10,642 persons without HIV (PWOH) with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified as eligible for the analysis. Results: Median follow-up time for both groups was 90 days, with interquartile range (IQR) 30-180 days. Most PWH were actively receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, with 71% (n = 82) having named drug information available; bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir was the most common ART (n = 25). PWH were of younger age (median 57.5 yrs [IQR 46.5-63.25] vs 65 yrs [IQR 55-74]), male (81% vs 47%), and either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic (71% vs 34%) compared to PWOH. 12% of PWH (n = 14) were current smokers compared to 6% of PWOH (n = 638), and more than half in each group were never smokers (51% of PWH and 53% of PWOH). The following comorbidities were identified in PWH vs PWOH: cardiovascular (16% vs 20%), pulmonary (16% vs 20%), renal (15% vs 14%), and diabetes mellitus (18% vs 27%). A higher proportion of PWH had hematologic malignancy compared to PWOH (33% vs 19%). More PWH had active cancer which was progressing at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to PWOH (24% vs 14%). 44% of PWH (n = 51) had received active systemic anticancer therapy within the 3 months preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection (including cytotoxic, targeted, endocrine therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to 51% of PWOH (n = 5,420). PWH had an increased rate of hospitalization (58% vs 55%) compared to PWOH. Although a lower proportion of PWH required supplemental oxygen during hospitalization compared to PWOH (34% vs 38%) and ICU admission rates were identical between the two groups (16% vs 16%), PWH had an increased rate of mechanical ventilation (14% vs 10%) and death (24% vs 18%) compared to PWOH. Conclusions: This is the first known study describing outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19 in the PWH population from a large multinational dataset. PWH have characteristics associated with adverse outcomes in prior analyses (male sex, non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic, hematologic malignancy, progressing cancer) but are notably younger and have fewer comorbidities. HIV infection may portend increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death; however, additional analyses, including multivariable regression, are warranted.

AbstractPreclinical data demonstrated that combining an anti–programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor with a cyclin-dependent kinase 9 (CDK9) inhibitor provided enhanced antitumor activity with no significant toxicities, suggesting this combination may be a potential therapeutic option. The multicohort, phase 1 KEYNOTE-155 study evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab plus the CDK9 inhibitor dinaciclib in patients with relapsed or refractory (rr) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and multiple myeloma (MM). Patients enrolled were ≥18 years of age with a confirmed diagnosis of CLL, DLBCL, or MM. The study included 2 phases: a dose-evaluation phase to determine dose-limiting toxicities and a signal-detection phase. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus dinaciclib 7 mg/m2 on day 1 and 10 mg/m2 on day 8 of cycle 1 and 14 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of cycles 2 and later. Primary endpoint was safety, and a key secondary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Seventy-two patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of study treatment (CLL, n = 17; DLBCL, n = 38; MM, n = 17). Pembrolizumab plus dinaciclib was generally well tolerated and produced no unexpected toxicities. The ORRs were 29.4% (5/17, rrCLL), 21.1% (8/38, rrDLBCL), and 0% (0/17, rrMM), respectively. At data cutoff, all 72 patients had discontinued treatment, 38 (52.8%) because of progressive disease. These findings demonstrate activity with combination pembrolizumab plus dinaciclib and suggest that a careful and comprehensive approach to explore anti–PD-1 and CDK9 inhibitor combinations is warranted. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02684617.

Abstract Background: Pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after first-line (1L) therapy may have poor outcomes with SOC, including salvage CT and ASCT, which underscores a critical unmet need. Liso-cel is an autologous CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (NCT02631044) in pts with R/R LBCL (≥ 2 prior lines of therapy), liso-cel treatment resulted in an ORR of 73% (CR rate, 53%), 2% grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 10% grade ≥ 3 neurological events (NE) (Abramson et al. Lancet 2020). Here we present a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351; SOC vs liso-cel as 2L therapy in pts with R/R LBCL). Methods: TRANSFORM is a pivotal, global, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing efficacy and safety of SOC (Arm A; R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP per investigator choice followed by BEAM + ASCT) vs liso-cel (Arm B). Pts were adults (aged ≤ 75 years), eligible for ASCT, and with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Key inclusion criteria were ECOG PS ≤ 1 and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥ 40%; serum CrCl > 45 mL/min); pts with secondary CNS lymphoma were allowed. Key exclusion criteria were prior gene or anti-CD19-targeted therapy, and active infection. Pts in Arm A were to receive 3 cycles of CT. Responding pts (CR or PR) were to proceed to BEAM + ASCT. Pts in Arm B were to undergo lymphodepletion with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide followed by liso-cel at a target dose of 100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells. Bridging therapy with an Arm A CT regimen was allowed. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in Arm A for pts not achieving CR or PR after 3 cycles of CT or not in CR after ASCT, or demonstrating PD at any time. Primary endpoint is event-free survival (EFS) based on independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria, defined as time from randomization to death from any cause, PD, failure to achieve CR or PR by 9 weeks after randomization, or start of new antineoplastic therapy, whichever occurred first. Key secondary endpoints included in the testing strategy are CR rate, PFS, and OS. P value significance threshold for endpoints to reject the null hypothesis was ≤ 0.012. Results: A total of 184 pts were randomized, with 92 pts in each arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both arms (Table). Of 91 treated pts in Arm A (1 pt withdrew consent), 43 received BEAM + ASCT, of which 28 achieved CR with CT. Fifty pts crossed over to receive liso-cel. In Arm B, 90 pts received liso-cel infusion; 58 pts (63%) received bridging therapy. Two Arm B pts were not infused (1 each due to manufacturing failure and rapid progression). Median EFS and PFS were significantly longer, and CR rate was significantly improved for Arm B vs Arm A. For Arms A and B, respectively, median EFS was 2.3 vs 10.1 mo (HR, 0.349; P < 0.0001), median PFS was 5.7 vs 14.8 mo (HR, 0.406; P = 0.0001), and CR rate was 39% vs 66% (P < 0.0001). OS data were immature at the time of this analysis with a median follow-up of 6.2 mo (range, 0.9-20.0), but a numerical trend favored Arm B (HR, 0.509; 95% CI, 0.258-1.004; P = 0.0257). Cellular kinetics in Arm B showed a median t max of 10 d (range, 6‒22). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the 2L setting. In Arm B, any-grade CRS was reported in 49% of pts, with grade 1 in 37% and grade 2 in 11%. Only 1 pt had grade 3 CRS (onset at Day 9, which resolved in 2 days). Any-grade NEs were reported in 12% of pts and were also primarily low grade (grade 3, 4%). No grade 4 or 5 CRS or NEs were reported. In Arm B, 24% of pts received tocilizumab, 17% received corticosteroids, and none received vasopressors. The most common TEAEs in both arms were cytopenias. Prolonged cytopenias in Arm B (ie, grade ≥ 3 at 35 d after infusion) were reported in 43% of pts; the majority recovered within 2 mo after infusion. Conclusions: In the TRANSFORM study, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint, EFS, as well as in key secondary efficacy endpoints (CR rate and PFS) compared with SOC as 2L therapy in pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Safety results in the 2L setting were consistent with the liso-cel safety profile in 3L or later LBCL, and no new safety concerns were identified. Liso-cel improved outcomes vs SOC and exhibited a favorable safety profile, providing support for liso-cel as a potential new SOC for 2L treatment in pts with R/R LBCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kamdar: SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Other; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Genetech: Other; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Bachanova: KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ibrahimi: Karyopharm Theraputics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Mutsaers: BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri: Kite: Other: Advisory Boards; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; BMS: Other: Advisory Boards; Celgene: Other: Advisory Boards; Incyte: Other: Advisory Boards; AbbVie: Other: Advisory Boards; Gilead: Other: Advisory Boards; Epyzime: Other: Advisory Boards. Izutsu: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Huya Biosciences: Research Funding; Genmab: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fuji Film Toyama Chemical: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Allergan Japan: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Symbio: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Yakult: Research Funding. Morschhauser: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Maloney: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; A2 Biotherapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Umoja: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Juno therapeutics: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Navan Technologies: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stepan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ogasawara: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mack: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Abramson: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Liso-cel is a CAR T cell therapy approved for use in the third line for R/R LBCL. This trial reports data from the pivotal trial in the second line.

In the last decade, a better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas has resulted in the development of novel targeted therapies, such as small molecule inhibitors of select kinases in the B-cell receptor pathway, antibody–drug conjugates, and small molecules that target a variety of proteins (eg, CD-19, EZH2, and XPO-1–mediated nuclear export). Anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, first approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, has also emerged as a novel treatment option for R/R follicular lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma. These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight the new targeted therapy options included in the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of R/R disease.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) provide recommendations for the management of adult patients with HL. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. Current management of classic HL involves initial treatment with chemotherapy alone or combined modality therapy followed by restaging with PET/CT to assess treatment response. Overall, the introduction of less toxic and more effective regimens has significantly advanced HL cure rates. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines focuses on the management of classic HL.

AbstractImmunochemotherapy followed by autologous transplant (ASCT) in CALGB/Alliance 59909 achieved a median progression‐free survival (PFS) in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) of 5 years, but late recurrences occurred. We evaluated tolerability and efficacy of adding post‐transplant bortezomib consolidation (BC) or maintenance (BM) to this regimen in CALGB/Alliance 50403, a randomized phase II trial. Following augmented‐dose R‐CHOP/ methotrexate, high‐dose cytarabine‐based stem cell mobilization, cyclophosphamide/carmustine/etoposide (CBV) autotransplant, and rituximab, patients were randomized to BC (1.3 mg/m2 IV days 1, 4, 8, 11 of a 3‐week cycle for four cycles) or BM (1.6 mg/m2 IV once weekly × 4 every 8 weeks for 18 months) beginning day 90. The primary endpoint was PFS, measured from randomization for each arm. Proliferation signature, Ki67, and postinduction minimal residual disease (MRD) in bone marrow were assessed. Of 151 patients enrolled; 118 (80%) underwent ASCT, and 102 (68%) were randomized. Both arms met the primary endpoint, with median PFS significantly greater than 4 years (P < .001). The 8‐year PFS estimates in the BC and BM arms were 54.1% (95% CI 40.9%‐71.5%) and 64.4% (95% 51.8%‐79.0%), respectively. Progression‐free survival was significantly longer for transplanted patients on 50403 compared with those on 59909. Both the PFS and OS were significantly better for those who were MRD‐negative post‐induction. The high risk proliferation signature was associated with adverse outcome. Both BM and BC were efficacious and tolerable, although toxicity was significant. The comparison between studies 50403 and 59909 with long‐term follow up suggests a PFS benefit from the addition of BC or BM post‐ transplant.