Linton, Kim

Abstract Secondary central nervous system (CNS) large B-cell lymphoma (SCNSL) occurs in the de novo setting, as a CNS-isolated relapse, or synchronous (concomitant CNS and systemic) relapse. SCNSL is a devastating event without therapeutic consensus. Thus, we aimed to evaluate treatment outcomes in an international cohort. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR, estimated using competing-risk models) were reported. Prognostic factors were identified in a 6-month landmark multivariate analysis. Outcomes after thiotepa autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (CAR-T) delivered at relapse were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). A total of 1139 patients were included in the analysis (de novo: 537; relapsed SCNSL: 602). Two-year PFS estimates were 40.4%, 43.9%, and 16.2% for de novo SCNSL, CNS-isolated relapse, and synchronous relapse, respectively. Patients with CNS-isolated relapse demonstrated low rates of systemic recurrence (24-month CIR, 6%). Thiotepa-ASCT correlated with longer survival in de novo SCNSL (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .005; and OS: HR, 0.62; P = .023) and CNS-isolated relapses (PFS: HR, 0.55; P = .002; and OS: HR, 0.39; P< .0001). ASCT (thiotepa or no thiotepa) also associated with improved survival in synchronous relapses (PFS: HR, 0.57; P = .023; and OS: HR, 0.48; P = .019). Higher survival with thiotepa-ASCT than CAR-T was observed after PSM (PFS: HR, 0.45; P = .005 and OS: HR, 0.41; P = .014). These data support thiotepa-ASCT in eligible patients, particularly de novo disease and CNS-isolated relapses. CNS-isolated relapse was infrequently associated with systemic recurrence, supporting treatment regimens adopted from primary CNS lymphoma.

Introduction: Scant data exist on prognostic factors, survival and treatment (Tx)-related outcomes in SCNSL. We conducted a multicenter international analysis to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in SCNSL at diagnosis (de novo), or after frontline Tx (1L) either with (concomitant) or without (isolated) systemic (syst) relapse. Methods: This study collected data from patients (pts) treated between 2001-2023 at 35 centers. Overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated from SCNSL diagnosis to first event (death for OS, relapse/death for PFS) or last follow-up. Uni- (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) Cox analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors; Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Results: 1173 (US: 863, UK: 273, Canada: 37) pts with SCNSL were included. Baseline characteristics were median age: 62 years (interquartile range 52.5-69), male sex: 58.7%, elevated LDH: 71.1%, stage III/IV: 88.6%, HIV: 3%, transformed LBCL (tLBCL): 13.8%, non-germinal center B-cell like (non-GCB) subtype: 52.3%, double expressor (DE): 40%, MYC rearrangement (MYC-R): 28.3%, MYC/BCL2 double hit: 16.6%, MYC/BCL2/BCL6 triple hit (TH): 6.1%. Among 522 pts with de novo SCNSL, 84.2% had involvement of a single CNS compartment (44.7% brain parenchyma; 40.4% leptomeningeal [lepto]). 1L regimens included 36.2% R-CHOP with high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), 12.5% MARIETTA-type, and 9.8% R-CODOX-M/IVAC; 54.6% received intrathecal chemotherapy. Consolidation Thiotepa-based autologous stem cell transplant (TT-ASCT) occurred in 15.3%. The majority of pts who underwent TT-ASCT had previously achieved CR or PR in syst (92.5%) and CNS (72.5%) compartments. At median follow-up 25.7 months (mos), subsequent relapse was observed in 27.5% TT-ASCT recipients: 36.3% had isolated CNS, 27.4% syst, and 36.3% concomitant. 588 pts presented with SCNS after 1L (66.2% isolated, 33.8% concomitant). Brain parenchyma involvement was observed in 56.8%, lepto in 22.6%. Tx included 31.6% HD-MTX combination (eg, R-MPV, MTR); 18.4% HD-MTX +/- rituximab; 16.2% MARIETTA-type; and 9.4% platinum-based regimen. Consolidation TT-ASCT occurred in 22.4% (n=132), and 13.8% (n=81) received CAR-T cell therapy (excluding subsequent relapses in de novo group). Syst (65.1%) & CNS (69.1%) responses (CR/PR) were higher before TT-ASCT compared to CAR-T cell (49.5% & 54.5%, respectively). After TT-ASCT, 52 pts (39.3%) relapsed, mainly in the CNS (n=30, 57.7%), with only 4 (7.7%) concomitant. After CAR-T, 48 pts (59.3%) relapsed: 15 (31.2%) isolated in CNS and 15 (31.2%) concomitant. 12-month cumulative incidence of relapse (with death as competing risk) was 21.1% after TT-ASCT and 55.8% after CAR-T. In 63 pts (5.4%), the first CNS event occurred >2 lines of Tx. With median follow-up of the entire cohort of 24.6 mos, median PFS and OS were 11 and 21 mos, respectively. mPFS and mOS were significantly better in pts with de novo SCNSL (13.4 & 47.4 mos) compared to SCNSL after 1L (10.4 & 14.2 mos) and >2 lines of Tx (6.5 & 9.7 mos); P<0.0001. Factors associated with significantly shorter OS in UVA across all presentations were age >60, male sex, GCB subtype, MYC-R, tLBCL, DE, TH, elevated LDH, ECOG PS ≥2, SCNSL after 1L (vs. de novo), and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L. Of these, age >60, male sex, MYC-R, ECOG PS ≥2, and failure to achieve response to 1L remained significant in MVA. In de novo cases, age >60, DE, ECOG PS≥2, and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L were associated with poorer OS; for pts with SCNSL after 1L, age >60, GCB subtype, and ECOG PS ≥2 were significant. Pts treated with HD-MTX-based regimens after 1L experienced longer OS than those treated with platinum regimens or high-dose cytarabine. In de novo cases, TT-ASCT was significantly associated with longer OS (HR=0.58; P=0.025) in MVA after adjusting for significant factors, 1L type, and response. For SCNSL at relapse, TT-ASCT (HR=0.34; P<.0001) and isolated SCNSL presentation (vs. concomitant HR=0.70, P=0.007) were associated with longer OS, adjusting for significant factors, type of second-line Tx, & site of CNS relapse. Conclusions: This study represents the largest analysis of SCNSL inclusive of all modes of presentation. Concomitant SCNSL at relapse was associated with poor outcomes, while TT-ASCT consolidation was associated with improved OS in de novo & relapsed disease. Despite advances in LBCL SCNSL remains an unmet therapeutic need.

Abstract Follicular lymphoma is the most common indolent lymphoma accounting for approximately 20%–25% of all new non‐Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses in western countries. Whilst outcomes are mostly favorable, the spectrum of clinical phenotypes includes high‐risk groups with significantly inferior outcomes. This review discusses recent updates in risk stratification and treatment approaches from upfront treatment for limited and advanced stage follicular lymphoma to the growing options for relapsed, refractory disease with perspectives on how to approach this from a personalized lens. Notable gaps remain on how one can precisely and prospectively select optimal treatment for patients based on varying risks, with an anticipation that an increased understanding of the biology of these different phenotypes and increasing refinement of imaging‐ and biomarker‐based tools will, in time, allow these gaps to be closed.

Abstract Introduction: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) comprising 3 molecular subtypes: germinal center B-cell (GCB), activated B-cell (ABC) and class III. ABC patients (pts) have a poor prognosis. The immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide (Len) produces durable responses in pts with aggressive NHL (Witzig 2011), with preferential activity reported in non-GCB DLBCL (Hernandez-Ilizaliturri 2011). Methods: This randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of single-agent Len vs single-agent investigator’s choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory DLBCL pts who received ≥2 prior therapies, or were ineligible for stem cell transplantation or further combination chemotherapy. DLBCL subtype (GCB vs non-GCB) was determined by a central pathology lab using immunohistochemistry (IHC) per the Hans method (Hans 2004). Pts were stratified by subtype, then randomized 1:1 to receive Len (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin) until progressive disease (PD), unacceptable toxicity, or voluntary withdrawal. In the event of radiologically confirmed PD, pts in the IC arm were allowed to cross over to Len. The primary endpoint for Stage 1 was overall response rate (ORR), as determined by an Independent Response Assessment Committee. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and subtype analysis using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints. Concordance of GEP and IHC was evaluated from 3 separate laboratories. Results: IHC subtyping agreement rate among the 3 laboratories ranged from 87.5%-97.9%, and sensitivity of IHC to detect ABC or GCB subtypes vs GEP ranged from 92.3%-100.0%. By IHC, 102 DLBCL pts (GCB, n=48; non-GCB, n=54) were treated with ≥1 dose of Len or IC (modified intent-to-treat population) in Stage 1. In this heavily pretreated population, >90.0% of pts received ≥2 prior systemic chemotherapies; 25 pts in Len and 32 pts in IC received ≥3 prior systemic chemotherapy regimens. Median age was 65 y in the IC arm vs 69 y in the Len arm. Twenty-nine pts crossed over from IC to Len after confirmed PD. All pts, regardless of subtype or therapy group, experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event, with neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia being the most common. Efficacy data are presented in the Table. Pts with GCB or non-GCB DLBCL (per IHC) treated with Len had similar ORR, but the data suggested greater improvements in PFS and OS with Len vs IC in the non-GCB pts. In an exploratory analysis of pts subtyped by GEP, ABC pts treated with Len vs IC-treated showed greater improvements in ORR, PFS, and OS compared with GCB pts. Prespecified criterion to advance to Stage 2 was a 2-sided 15% significance level in ORR in favor of Len based on IHC-defined subtype. The data did not fulfill this requirement, and Stage 2 was not opened. Conclusion: Len monotherapy showed clinical activity in heavily pretreated pts with DLBCL. The data suggest improved ORR, PFS, and OS with Len vs IC in the non-GCB population as defined by IHC, and the difference appears to be more pronounced in the ABC population as defined by GEP. Subtyping by GEP is warranted in further studies of Len in DLBCL. Abstract 628. Table 1.Table. Efficacy DataBy IHCBy GEPOverallGCBNon-GCBGCBABCLen(n=51)IC(n=51)Len(n=23)IC(n=25)Len(n=28)IC(n=26)Len(n=14)IC(n=16)Len(n=11)IC(n=16)ORR, % (95% CI)27.5 (15.9-41.7)11.8 (4.4-23.9) 26.1 (10.2-48.4)12.0 (2.5-31.2)28.6 (13.2-48.7)11.5 (2.4-30.2)21.4 (4.7-50.8)12.5 (1.6-38.3)45.5 (16.7-76.6)18.8 (4.0-45.6)P Value .079 .279 .179 .642 .206PFS, med wk (95% CI)13.6 (8.6-17.7)7.9 (6.3-9.0) 10.1 (8.3-22.3)29.0 (6.3-20.6)15.1 (8.3-24.1)7.1 (5.3-8.4)13.2 (8.3-24.9)7.1 (6.0-20.6)82.0 (7.3-NA)6.2 (4.3-10.1)P Value .041 .550 .021 .506 .105HR (95% CI) 0.64 (0.41-0.99) 0.82 (0.43-1.57) 0.50 (0.27-0.92) 0.77 (0.35-1.68) 0.44 (0.15-1.23)OS, med wk (95% CI)31.0 (16.6-41.3)24.6 (12.7-33.9) 30.0 (14.9-44.4)24.9 (13.7-58.3)32.3 (15.9-48.1)20.4 (10.3-33.9)30.0 (18.0-34.6)20.1 (13.7-36.9)108.4 (9.6-108.4)18.6 (6.6-48.0)P Value .673 .526 .253 .767 .144HR (95% CI) 0.91 (0.59-1.41) 1.23 (0.65-2.34) 0.70 (0.38-1.30) 1.12 (0.52-2.42) 0.47 (0.17-1.33) Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; med, median; NA, not applicable/not available. Disclosures Czuczman: Celgene: Consultancy. Off Label Use: This abstract describes a clinical trial of lenalidomide, which is an orally-available immunomodulatory agent under investigation for treating patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.. Davies:GlaxoSmithKlein: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:Celgene: Research Funding. Gascoyne:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Salles:Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Jansen: Honoraria; Hoffman La Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Witzig:Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Zinzani:Mundipharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria; Millennium Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wright:Celgene: Research Funding. Staudt:Celgene Corporation: Research Funding. Repici:Celgene: Employment. Song:Celgene: Employment. Manzke:Celgene: Employment.

Abstract Purpose: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 trial investigating lenalidomide versus investigator's choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Experimental Design: Patients with DLBCL who received ≥2 prior therapies were stratified by DLBCL subtype [germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs. non-GCB; determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC)] and then randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin). Crossover to lenalidomide was permitted for IC-treated patients with radiologically confirmed progressive disease. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and subtype analysis [GCB vs. activated B-cell (ABC)] using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints. Results: Stage 1: 102 DLBCL patients (by IHC: non-GCB, n = 54; GCB, n = 48) received ≥1 dose of lenalidomide or IC. Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events with lenalidomide versus IC included neutropenia (42.6%; 36.4%), anemia (33.3%; 47.3%), thrombocytopenia (24.1%; 43.6%), and leukopenia (5.6%; 12.7%), respectively. Overall, lenalidomide-treated patients had an ORR of 27.5% versus 11.8% in IC (ORRs were similar regardless of IHC-defined DLBCL subtype). Median PFS was increased in patients receiving lenalidomide (13.6 weeks) versus IC (7.9 weeks; P = 0.041), with greater improvements in non-GCB patients (15.1 vs. 7.1 weeks, respectively; P = 0.021) compared with GCB (10.1 vs. 9.0 weeks, respectively; P = 0.550). Conclusions: The clinical benefit of lenalidomide monotherapy in DLBCL patients was more evident in the non-GCB subtype. Exploratory analyses suggest that this preferential benefit was more pronounced in the GEP-defined ABC population, demonstrating a need for additional studies of lenalidomide in DLBCL using GEP subtyping. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4127–37. ©2017 AACR.