Herrera, Alex F.

Abstract There are limited data assessing the risk scores for primary treatment failure (PTF) in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL; PTF-cHL) undergoing autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT). ECLIPSE (Evaluation of Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma patients wIth Primary treatment failure and analySis of outcomEs) is a multicenter retrospective cohort of patients with PTF-cHL (aged ≥15 years) diagnosed on or after 1 January 2005, at 15 US medical centers. PTF was defined as 1 of the following patterns of failure: (1) progressive disease by imaging during or within 6 weeks of completion of frontline chemotherapy (primary progression [PP]); (2) partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) by imaging after completion of frontline treatment (PR/SD); (3) progression of disease by imaging (and confirmed by biopsy) within 12 months of frontline therapy completion after prior documentation of complete response (CR; early relapse [ER]). A total of 478 patients were included in the analysis. Among these, 217 (45%) were PP, 86 (18%) were PR/SD, and 175 (37%) were ER. The 6-month and 1-year cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality after auto-HCT were 0.9% and 1.1%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after auto-HCT were 4.33 and 10.09 years, respectively. Although those not in CR at the time of auto-HCT were associated with inferior PFS and OS, advanced age and diagnosis before 2011 were associated with inferior OS. This study showcases the safety and long-term efficacy of auto-HCT, even in patients with high-risk disease who are traditionally considered chemotherapy refractory, and will serve as a benchmark for the ongoing transplant vs no transplant trials.

Abstract T-cell/histiocyte–rich large B-cell lymphoma (THRLBCL) is a rare histologic variant of LBCL. Limited data regarding CD19–directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) therapy in relapsed/refractory (R/R) THRLBCL suggest poor efficacy. We investigated CART outcomes for R/R THRLBCL through the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry. A total of 58 adult patients with R/R THRLBCL who received commercial CD19-CART therapy between 2018 and 2022 were identified. Most patients (67%) had early relapse of disease (45% primary refractory) with a median of 3 (range, 1-7) prior therapies and were treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (69%). At median follow-up of 23 months after CART therapy, 2-year overall and progression-free survival were 42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 27-57) and 29% (95% CI, 17-43), respectively. In univariable analysis, poor performance status before CART therapy was associated with higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.35; 95%CI, 1.02-5.5). The 2-year cumulative incidences of relapse/progression and nonrelapse mortality were 69% and 2%, respectively. Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell–associated neurologic syndrome occurred in 7% and 15% of patients, respectively. In this largest analysis of CD19-CART therapy for R/R THRLBCL, ∼30% of patients were alive and progression free 2 years after CART therapy. Despite a high incidence of progression (69% at 2 years), these results suggest a subset of patients with R/R THRLBCL may have durable responses with CARTs.

Introduction There is no prospective data to guide the utilization of peri-transplant radiation (PTRT) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In retrospective analyses, PTRT has been associated with local disease control, however evidence supporting improved progression free survival (PFS) is less well defined (Milgrom SA et al Cancer. 2017; 123(8):1363-1371). Furthermore, the added benefit of PTRT in the era of recent advancement in salvage strategies, including brentuximab vedotin (BV) and checkpoint inhibitors (CPI), is unclear. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis, we evaluated the impact of PTRT on PFS for patients with R/R cHL. Methods We identified consecutive pts ≥7 years old at time of diagnosis with R/R cHL treated with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) at 5 US academic institutions between 2010-2021. PTRT was defined as radiation administered within 3 months of ASCT. The primary objective was to compare the post-ASCT PFS, defined as the time from ASCT to subsequent relapse or death from any cause, between the two groups. Univariable and Multivariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the impact of various relevant clinical factors on post-ASCT PFS. Results A total of 958 eligible pts were identified ( Table 1). The median age at cHL diagnosis was 31 (range, 7-72). At the time of first relapse/primary refractory disease, 406 (54%) pts had early-stage disease, 167 (24%) pts had bulky disease (≥5.0 cm), 308 (36%) pts had extra-nodal disease, 182 (22%) pts had B-symptoms (B-sx), and 338 (45%) had primary refractory disease. A total of 302 (32%) pts received >1 line of salvage before ASCT. Salvage treatment at any time point before ASCT included chemotherapy only for 457 (48%) patients, BV(+/- chemotherapy) for 308 (32%) patients, and CPI (+/- BV or +/- chemotherapy) for 193 (20%) patients. In total, 239 (24.9%) pts received PTRT, 139 (58.1%) before ASCT and 100 (41.8%) after ASCT. Among pts with available dosing information (23.3%), the median radiation dose administered was 28 Gy. The most common doses administered were 30 Gy in 77 (31.7%) pts, 36 Gy in 62 (27.8%) pts, and 18 Gy in 43 (19.2%) pts. Radiated sites included mediastinum in 172 (80.7%) pts, neck/cervical lymph nodes in 68 (31.9%) pts, and supra/infra clavicular region and axilla, each in 31 (14.6%) pts. Compared to the 719 pts that did not receive PTRT, patients treated with PTRT were more likely to have early stage disease (73% vs 47%, p<0.001), bulky disease (30% vs 22%, p = 0.048), primary refractory disease (56% vs 40%, p <0.001), >1 line of salvage treatment prior to ASCT (40% vs 29%, p<0.001), and <CR prior to ASCT (36% vs 27%, p = 0.007) (Table 1). Patients treated with PTRT were less likely to have RT at initial diagnosis (5.9% vs 22%, p<0.001), extra-nodal disease (19% vs 42%, p<0.001), B-sx (17% vs 25%, p=0.035), salvage treatment that included CPI (11% vs 23%, p<0.001), and BV maintenance (20 vs 31%, p<0.001). After a median follow up from ASCT of 4.5 years (range, 2.4-7.2), 2-year PFS was 76% (73%, 79%) and 5-year PFS was 70% (67%, 73%). In univariable analysis, receipt of PTRT showed non-significant reduced hazard for PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.05, p = 0.093) (Figure 1). In a multivariable model, PTRT showed significant association with PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36-0.88, p=0.009) when adjusting for other clinically relevant factors at relapse such as stage, B-sx, bulk, primary refractory disease, BV(+/- chemotherapy) or CPI (+/- BV or +/- chemotherapy) in salvage, PET response prior to ASCT, and BV maintenance after ASCT. To determine if specific subgroups benefited from PTRT, we tested for interaction effects between PTRT and clinically relevant factors. Only bulk (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.85, p=0.013) and B-sx (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20-1.02, p=0.041) showed significant interaction with PTRT.Among pts with bulky disease, 5-year PFS was significantly improved with receipt of PTRT (81% vs 62%, p=0.013). Conclusion In this large multi-center analysis of pts with R/R cHL undergoing ASCT, there was no significant difference in PFS regardless of receipt of PTRT. However, after adjusting for known clinically relevant factors, receipt of PTRT was significantly associated with PFS and was particularly beneficial for patients with bulky disease or B-sx at relapse. We found decreased utilization of PTRT in pts receiving CPI-based salvage; therefore the role for PTRT for pts receiving CPI-based salvage is unclear.

Introduction: CAR-T therapy is the standard of care for pts with relapsed LBCL as early as in the second line in those with early relapse or with primary refractory disease. In practice, pts who are intended to receive CAR-T, commonly require interim therapy before leukapheresis, wherein a small fraction may achieve a complete remission (CR). Having chemosensitive disease, these pts can be considered for auto-HCT. Also, there are reports indicating the efficacy of CAR-T therapy in CR pts (Strati et al., Haematologica, 2023; Wudhikarn et al., Blood Adv, 2022). We compared the outcome of pts with LBCL who received CAR-T vs. auto-HCT while in a CR. Methods: Pts aged 18-75 years with DLBCL or primary mediastinal lymphoma who received CAR-T (between 2018-2021) or auto-HCT (between 2015-2021) while in a CR by PET or CT were included in this analysis using the data from the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry. Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) and relapse rate were among the secondary endpoints. Results: We identified 360 pts with LBCL who were in a CR before receiving CAR-T (n=79, tisa-cel 53%, axi-cel 46%, and liso-cel 1%) or auto-HCT (n=281). Median follow-up was 24.7 months (range 3.3-49.4) for the CAR-T cohort and 49.7 months (range 3.0-95.4) for the auto-HCT cohort. Selected baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. CRs were confirmed by PET scan in 90% of CAR-T pts and 99.6% of auto-CAR-T pts (p < 0.01). The most common lymphodepletion regimen for CAR-T was Cy/Flu (82.3%) and the most common conditioning regimen for auto-HCT was BEAM (77.6%). Thirty-seven (13.2%) of auto-HCT pts had a later CAR-T but no pts from the CAR-T cohort had subsequent auto-HCT. In univariate analysis, treatment with CAR-T was associated with a higher rate of relapse at 2 years (48% vs. 27.8%; p < 0.001), a lower rate of 2-year PFS (47.8% vs. 66.2%; p < 0.001) and lower 2-year OS (65.6% vs. 78.9%; p=0.037). There was no difference in rates of 2-year TRM (4.1% vs. 5.9%; p=0.673). Similarly, focusing on patients with early (12 months) treatment failure (CAR-T =57 and auto-HCT=163), treatment with CAR-T was associated with a higher 2-year relapse rate (45.9% vs. 22.8%; p <0.001) and an inferior 2-year PFS (48.3% vs.70.9%.; p <0.001) compared to auto-HCT (figure-2) while there was no difference in 2-year OS or TRM. In the multivariable analysis of outcomes, treatment with CAR-T was associated with higher risk of relapse (HR 2.18; p < 0.0001) and an inferior PFS (HR 1.83; p=0.0011) compared to auto-HCT. There was no difference in the risk of TRM (HR 0.59; p=0.36) or OS (HR 1.44; p=0.12). Conclusions: In pts with relapsed LBCL who achieve a CR, treatment with auto-HCT is associated with a lower relapse rate and an improved PFS compared to CAR-T, including in pts with early treatment failure (within 12 months). These results are in line with previously reported improved clinical outcomes with auto-HCT compared to CAR-T in pts in partial remission (Shadman et al. Blood, 2022). The data support utilization of auto-HCT in pts with relapsed LBCL achieving a CR.

Background: For patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), the standard of care remains salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for responding patients. Historical data suggest 40% of patients may relapse after ASCT, and these patients have generally a poor median overall survival (OS) of less than 2 years (Moskowitz et al., Br J Haematol. 2009;146(2):158-62). However, since these reports, the treatment landscape of R/R HL has dramatically improved, most notably with the introduction of two novel therapies, brentuximab vedotin (BV) and anti-PD1 agents. To refine our understanding of clinical outcomes in this context, we characterized patients who relapsed after ASCT in the modern era. Methods: We used a multicenter retrospective patient database at 5 transplant centers in the United States to identify patients with HL aged ≥ 12 years at diagnosis who had received ASCT on or after 1/1/2010. The primary objective was to determine the median OS for patients who relapsed after ASCT (post-ASCT-relapse OS), defining survival as the time from relapse after ASCT to subsequent death from any cause. Univariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the impact of various factors on post-ASCT OS. Outcomes by era were evaluated using three different eras based on approval dates of novel agents: (1) pre-BV approval (pre-7/31/2011), (2) post-BV approval (8/1/2011-4/30/2016), (3) post-anti-PD1 approval (5/1/16-present). Results: A total of 215 patients were identified. The median age at ASCT was 34. Before ASCT, 128 patients (62%) had no exposure to novel agents, 76 patients (35%) had received BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy, and 11 patients (5.1%) had received anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV. Conditioning was mostly with BEAM (59%) or CBV (32%). The median time to relapse after ASCT was 6 months (range: 1-109 months). Nearly half all relapses (47%) occurred within 6 months of ASCT. Only 14% of relapses occurred after 1 year. Among 126 patients with available treatment information, the median number of post-ASCT lines of therapy was 2 (IQR: 1, 4). Therapy for post-ASCT relapse included BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy in 41 patients (29%), anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV for 70 patients (50%), and no novel agents for only 15 patients (11%). The median followup time from the date of ASCT among survivors was 5.0 (IQR: 2.8, 7.8) years. The median post-ASCT-relapse OS was not reached ( Figure 1). The 2- and 5-year post-ASCT-relapse OS were 75% (95% CI: 70%-81%) and 59% (95% CI: 53%-67%), respectively. On univariable Cox regression for post-ASCT-relapse OS ( Table 1), time to relapse greater than 6 (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.85) or 12 months (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96) were significantly associated with improved post-ASCT-relapse OS. Increasing age at relapse was associated with worse OS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.07). Receipt of a novel agent (compared to chemotherapy alone) as the first salvage regimen for post-ASCT relapse was associated with improved post-ASCT OS (BV: HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.96; anti-PD-1: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-1.08). Outcomes improved over time as regulatory approvals for novel agents occurred (post-BV-approval: HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39-1.24; post-anti-PD-1 approval: HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.91). Conclusion: We show prolonged overall survival post-ASCT relapse compared to historical data likely due to the introduction of BV and anti-PD1 agents. This report represents one of the largest datasets of post-ASCT relapse in cHL, and this data should serve as an updated benchmark for future evaluations.

Background: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 94% and a complete response (CR) rate of 79% in patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more prior lines of therapy in the ZUMA-5 trial ( Jacobson et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022). Since its FDA approval in March 2021, there has been little evidence on comparative effectiveness (CE) studies of axi-cel vs standard-of-care (SoC), except ones using ZUMA-5 and historical SCHOLAR-5 data (eg, Ghione et al. Blood. 2022). This study was aimed to address this evidence gap in CE of axi-cel vs SoC used to treat r/r FL in real-world settings. Methods: The two data sources in this study were patients who received commercial axi-cel between March 2021 and May 2023 from the CIBMTR and patients who received historical SoC (eg, chemotherapy, anti-CD20 mAb + chemotherapy, immunomodulatory imide drugs) between July 2014 and December 2020 from SCHOLAR-5, which served as an external control of ZUMA-5 trial. The index date was defined as the initiation date of either the infusion for axi-cel patients or the last eligible systemic therapy for SoC patients. Patients were included if they were age ≥ 18, had documented r/r FL with histological grade 1, 2 or 3a, and received at least 2 prior lines of therapy at the index. Patients were excluded if they had transformed diffused large B-cell lymphoma, central nervous system involvement, prior receipt of CAR T or other non-CAR T cellular therapies or allogeneic stem cell transplant, or no post-index information on outcomes. Four effectiveness outcomes were ORR, CR rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Imbalance in observed prognostic risk factors between the two was adjusted via a propensity score analysis using the standard mortality ratio weighting (SMRW). The primary analyses included weighted univariable analysis and multivariable logistic (ORR and CR rate) or Cox (PFS and OS) regressions that were adjusted for the covariates after the SMRW. A sub-analysis of patients age ≥ 65 was conducted using the same methods as the primary analyses. Results: The unweighted study cohort included 376 patients, in which 256 (68%) received axi-cel . Thepatients who received axi-cel were more likely to be younger (median age 61 for axi-cel vs 67 for SoC), have grade 3a FL (37% vs 12%), received 3 or more prior lines of therapy (83% vs 58%), or remained refractory to the last prior therapy (79% vs 73%) vs those who received SoC. The imbalance in the observed prognostic risk factors was mitigated via the SMRW. The weighted univariable analysis, in which the sample size by treatment reflected the SMRW, is shown in Table 1. In patients of all ages, ORR was 92% in axi-cel vs 67% in SoC, and CR rate was 84% vs 37%. Because of varying follow-up lengths by treatment (median 7 months for axi-cel and 37 months for SoC), survival outcomes were reported at month 6, at which time PFS rate was 88% in axi-cel vs 64% in SoC and OS rate was 97% vs 85%. The corresponding proportions for patients age ≥ 65 were similar to those reported for patients of all ages. In the weighted multivariable regressions, axi-cel was associated with statistically significantly better outcomes by all 4 effectiveness measures vs SoC (Table 1). Specifically, in patients of all ages, the odds ratios for axi-cel were 4.93 (95% CI, 2.35−10.34) for ORR and 16.72 (95% CI, 7.03−39.73) for CR rate, and the hazard ratios for axi-cel were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.22−0.77) for PFS and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.06−0.34) for OS. Similar to the patients of all ages in the primary analyses, patients age ≥ 65 in the sub-analysis also demonstrated improved outcomes associated with axi-cel (Figure 1). Conclusions: This study showed that patients with r/r FL after two or more prior lines of therapy treated with axi-cel experienced better outcomes compared with patients treated with SoC, and that older patients also benefited significantly from axi-cel. These findings suggest that axi-cel addresses an important unmet medical need in patients with r/r FL. Future research should include longer follow-up data on outcomes of axi-cel and CE of axi-cel vs other contemporary SoC therapies.

Background: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) LBCL. ZUMA-12 (NCT03761056) is a Phase 2, multicenter, single-arm study of axi-cel as part of first-line treatment in patients with high-risk LBCL. In the primary efficacy analysis (n=37; median follow-up of 15.9 months), axi-cel demonstrated a high rate of investigator-assessed complete response (CR; 78%; 95% CI, 62-90) and an 89% objective response rate (ORR; 95% CI, 75-97). Axi-cel also had a manageable safety profile, with no new safety signals observed in the first-line setting (Neelapu et al. Nat Med. 2022). Here, we report updated efficacy and safety outcomes from ZUMA-12 in all patients treated with axi-cel after a median follow-up of ≥40 months. Methods: Eligible adults had high-risk LBCL, with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (double- or triple-hit histology) per investigator or an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score ≥3, plus a positive interim PET per Lugano classification (Deauville score 4/5) after 2 cycles of an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and anthracycline-containing regimen. Patients underwent leukapheresis, followed by lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and fludarabine) on Days -5, -4, and -3, and a single axi-cel infusion of 2×10 6 CAR T cells/kg on Day 0. Per investigator discretion, non-chemotherapy bridging could be administered. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed CR rate per Lugano classification (Cheson et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014). Secondary endpoints included ORR, duration of response (DOR), event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and levels of CAR T cells in blood and cytokines in serum. Results: As of May 3, 2023, 42 patients were enrolled and 40 were treated with axi-cel, with a median follow-up of 40.9 months (range, 29.5-50.2). In total, 37 patients were evaluable for response (centrally confirmed double- or triple-hit histology or IPI score ≥3). The CR rate was 86% (95% CI, 71-95), and 92% (95% CI, 78-98) of patients had an objective response. Patients with centrally confirmed double- or triple-hit histology (n=10) had a CR rate of 90%. Responses were ongoing in 73% of response-evaluable patients at data cutoff. Medians for DOR, EFS, PFS, and OS were not reached. The 36-month estimates for DOR, EFS (Figure 1), PFS, and OS (Figure 2) were 82%, 73%, 75%, and 81%, respectively. All treated patients (n=40) experienced adverse events (AEs) of any grade and 88% of patients had grade ≥3 AEs. Similar to the primary analysis, the most common any-grade AEs were pyrexia (100%), headache (70%), and neutrophil count decreased (55%). No new cases of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or neurologic events of any grade occurred since the prior data cut and all cases of CRS and neurologic events reported were resolved by data cutoff. Prolonged cytopenias of any grade (present Day ≥30 post-infusion) occurred in 9 patients (n=7 neutrophil count decreased) and were resolved by data cutoff. There were 8 deaths due to progressive disease (n=5) and other causes not related to axi-cel (1 COVID-19, 1 esophageal adenocarcinoma, 1 septic shock on Days 350, 535, and 287 post axi-cel infusion, respectively). Two of the 8 deaths (1 progressive disease and 1 esophageal adenocarcinoma) occurred after the primary analysis. Among treated patients, post-infusion CAR T-cell expansion by peak and area under the curve was 36.9 cells/µL and 368.0 cells/µL×days, respectively, in those with ongoing responses at data cutoff (n=17), 45.1 cells/µL and 413.4 cells/µL×days in those who relapsed (n=6), and 34.7 cells/µL and 566.8 cells/µL×days in non-responders (n=3). Conclusion: In this updated analysis of ZUMA-12 with a median follow-up of ≥40 months, axi-cel demonstrated a high rate of durable responses and no new safety signals. Axi-cel may benefit patients exposed to fewer prior therapies and those with high-risk LBCL, a population with high unmet need and poor outcomes after standard first-line chemoimmunotherapy.

Background: Maintenance therapy with brentuximab vedotin (BV) after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improved progression-free survival (PFS) among high-risk patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the phase III AETHERA trial. However, cHL treatment has changed significantly since that trial with frequent incorporation of BV and PD-1 inhibitors into earlier lines of therapy. The efficacy of BV maintenance may be different among pts who receive novel agents before ASCT. Methods: Pts with a diagnosis of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT between 2010 and 2022 were identified at 5 US transplant centers. Pts receiving no systemic post-ASCT maintenance or BV maintenance were included, while pts receiving investigational maintenance treatments were excluded. Medical records were reviewed to identify clinical variables. Results: 921 pts were identified. Median age was 32 yrs (IQR 24-44). 641 pts (70%) had primary refractory disease or relapsed within 12 months of frontline therapy, 326 (35%) had extranodal disease at relapse, and 173 (19%) had B symptoms at relapse. Pts received a median of 2 (1-9) lines of therapy before ASCT, including 295 (32%) who received ≥3 lines. 425 (46%) pts received BV before ASCT (including 24 pts as part of frontline treatment). 70 pts (8%) were BV-refractory (defined as failure to achieve an objective response to any BV-based treatment). 169 (18%) received a PD-1 agent with salvage treatment. 638 pts (69%) had a complete response on pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET). BEAM (71%) or CBV (21%) conditioning were used for most pts and 236 pts (26%) received peri-ASCT radiation. 224 pts (24%) received post-ASCT BV maintenance (including 37% of pts undergoing ASCT from 2015-2022). Compared to pts receiving no maintenance, pts receiving BV maintenance were more likely to have primary refractory/early relapsed disease (79% vs 67%, p<0.001), have received only 1 salvage regimen (79% vs 65%, p=0.001), and received BEAM conditioning (83% vs 67%, p<0.001). BV maintenance pts were less likely to receive peri-ASCT radiation (20% vs 28%, p=0.022). The median number of BV maintenance cycles was 10 (1-18) and the most common reason for discontinuation was neuropathy. Median post-ASCT follow-up was 4.9 yrs. 5-yr PFS and OS after ASCT were 70% (95% CI 67-74%) and 85% (83-88%), respectively. Because BV-refractory pts were much less likely to receive BV maintenance (p=0.0044) and had inferior PFS (HR 2.2, p<0.001) (and therefore would serve as a confounder), we excluded BV-refractory pts from additional analyses. Use of BV maintenance was associated with improved PFS (5-yr 81% vs 67%, HR 0.47 [0.33-0.69], p<0.001) and OS (5-yr 92% vs 83%, HR 0.38 [0.20-0.73], p=0.004). The benefit of BV maintenance depended upon pre-ASCT therapy. BV maintenance was associated with a significant improvement in PFS for pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.41 [0.25-0.65], p<0.001), but not for BV-treated (HR 0.69 [0.38-1.25], p=0.22) or PD-1-treated pts (HR 0.63 [0.13-3.03], p=0.56) ( Figure). Among pts with 0-1 modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance was not associated with a significant PFS benefit in any treatment subgroup (no novel agents, HR 0.50, p=0.087; BV-treated, HR 1.28, p=0.67; PD-1-treated, HR 2.97, p=0.44). For pts with 2+ modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance significantly improved PFS in the no novel agent group (HR 0.35, p<0.001) but not in the BV-treated (HR 0.55, p=0.099) or PD-1 treated groups (HR 0.24, p=0.19). In multivariable analyses that included key variables (age, year of ASCT, conditioning regimen, peri-ASCT radiation, early relapse/primary refractory disease, B symptoms, extranodal sites, pre-ASCT PET, lines of therapy), BV maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit among pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.27 [0.12-0.65], p<0.001), but not for pts treated with BV (HR 0.56 [0.28-1.10], p=0.091) or PD-1 blockade (HR 1.10 [0.22-5.56], p=0.91) before ASCT. Conclusions: In this large cohort, BV maintenance was associated with the clearest benefit among pts who received only chemotherapy before ASCT. We were unable to identify a significant improvement in PFS for pts receiving novel agents before ASCT (which could be due to insufficient power to detect a small benefit in this population), suggesting that if these pts benefit from BV maintenance, its impact is likely more limited.

Introduction: Single arm studies incorporating PD-1 blockade and/or brentuximab vedotin (BV) to salvage regimen have produced encouraging results in transplant-eligible relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) and are increasingly used in practice. As prospective randomized studies comparing PD1 based salvage to other salvage regimens are lacking, we conducted a retrospective study comparing post-transplant outcomes of R/R cHL patients who received PD1-based regimen and other novel and conventional regimen. Methods: Consecutive adult patients with R/R cHL who received salvage therapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) between 2010 and 2021 at 5 United States academic institutions were included. Demographics and clinical variables were recorded at relapse by electronic health records review. Study Objectives were post-ASCT progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 981 pts of R/R cHL were identified. At relapse, median age was 31 (IQR: 21-43) years, 504 (52%) were male, 323 (49%) had advanced stage, 353 (41%) had extranodal disease (END), 185 (22%) had B symptoms, 345 (45%) were refractory to frontline therapy and 317 (32%) relapsed within a year of frontline therapy.308 (31%) received >1 line of salvage before ASCT. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on salvage therapy received: 1) 195 (20%) patients received a PD-1 agent with or without BV at any point before ASCT (PD-1 group), 2) 312 (32%) patients received BV at any point before ASCT without PD-1 (BV group), and 3) 474 (48%) patients received no novel agent before ASCT (chemo group). PFS was significantly higher in PD1 group (2-yr PFS 93.1 (CI 95: 89.4-96.9)%); compared to BV (2 yr PFS 73.9 (CI 95: 69.1-79.1)% , p <0.0001) or chemo groups (2 yr PFS 71.6 (CI 95: 67.6-75.9)% , p<0.0001). PFS was not different between the BV and chemo groups (p=0.88) (Figure 1). OS was not significantly different between PD-1 group (2 yr OS 96.2 % (CI 95: 93.2-99.2), p=0.06), BV group (2 yr OS 94.3% (CI 95: 91.7-97.0), p=0.2) and chemo group (2 yr OS 91.8% (CI 95: 89.3-94.4)). Amongst pts who were transplanted in complete metabolic response (CMR), we assessed post-ASCT PFS and OS based on salvage therapy received immediately before ASCT. Pts who received PD-1 as last salvage therapy had improved PFS compared to chemo (HR: 0.15 (CI 95: 0.07-0.3), p= <0.0001) and BV (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.08-0.5), p= <0.001). Pts receiving PD-1 immediately before ASCT also had higher OS compared to those receiving chemo (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.05-0.8), p= 0.02) but not BV (HR: 0.8 (CI 95: 0.4-1.3), p=0.1). There was no difference between BV and chemo group in regards to PFS and OS. In multivariable analysis that included time to relapse, B symptoms, END, pre-ASCT response, number of salvage therapy lines before ASCT, year of transplant and BV consolidation, PD-1 salvage therapy had significantly higher PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.3 (CI 95: 0.2-0.5), p= <0.001). BV group had significantly lower PFS (HR: 3.34 (CI 95: 1.8-6.0), group=0.002) compared to PD1 group. PFS was not different between BV and chemo group (p= 0.7). OS was similar between all 3 groups. Similar PFS and OS were seen among patients receiving PD-1 + BV (n=83) and PD-1 with or without chemo (n =112) (p=0.96 for PFS; p= 0.72 for OS); as well as for patients receiving PD-1 as part of their first salvage therapy (n=151) or later salvage treatments (n=44) (p=0.45 for PFS, p= 0.3 for OS). Patients who received PD1 based regimen as last salvage therapy pre-ASCT had significantly better PFS (HR: 6.8 (CI 95: 2.4-19.2), p= <0.0001) and OS (HR: 10.6 (CI 95: 2.5-44.8), p= 0.0001) compared to patients who received PD1 prior to their last line of salvage therapy per-ASCT. Conclusion: Receipt of PD-1 based salvage therapy at any point before ASCT is associated with significantly improved PFS compared to either BV or chemotherapy-based salvage treatments. In the subgroup of patients transplanted in CMR, PD1 based last salvage regimen were associated with higher PFS compared to chemotherapy and BV and higher OS compared to chemotherapy. PD1 based last salvage therapy pre-ASCT was associated with better survival compared to PD1 prior to last salvage therapy. Results of this study strongly support the use of PD-1 based salvage therapy for patients with R/R cHL. S.D., R.M., H.S contributed equally. R.S., M.M. contributed equally.