Casulo, Carla

Aim: Patients with R/R LBCL after first-line treatment have poor prognosis. Multiple novel therapies have been approved for R/R LBCL in recent years, but CIT regimens are still commonly used. This study evaluated the effectiveness of CIT and novel therapies in 2L+ in patients with R/R LBCL and the association between patient clinical characteristics and real-world outcomes. Methods: This was a multi-site retrospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with R/R LBCL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Consortium of Real-World Evidence (CReWE) cohort (patients followed from 1/1/2015 to 2/15/2023) who were treated with CIT or novel therapy in 2L+. CIT regimens included salvage/palliative chemotherapy, lenalidomide, rituximab, or obinutuzumab, used alone or in combination. Novel therapies included polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab or variations thereof (i.e., pola-based regimen), tafasitamab plus lenalidomide or variations thereof (tafa-based regimen), and loncastuximab tesirine (lonca). Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were assessed from the first confirmed R/R disease diagnosis and initiation of 2L+ therapy. When multiple lines of therapy (LOTs) were eligible for inclusion in the analysis, one was randomly selected as the index LOT. Real-world outcomes, determined by investigators at each clinical site, including overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), duration of complete response (DOCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were described for all patients in each treatment group and for the subgroup of patients with prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to assess associations between select patient clinical characteristics and real-world outcomes. Results: The study population included patients treated with CIT (N=653), pola-based regimen (N=116), tafa-based regimen (N=55), and lonca (N=42) ( Figure 1A). The median (m) age at date of index treatment initiation across groups ranged from 63 to 74 years. Across groups, most patients had primary refractory disease-i.e., were refractory to the first LOT (69.5% CIT vs. 73.3% pola vs. 58.2% tafa vs. 71.4% lonca), whereas variable proportions had one prior LOT (65.5% vs. 17.2% vs. 43.6% vs. 7.1%) and prior CAR T-cell therapy (5.1% vs. 43.1% vs. 32.7% vs. 47.6%). In the CIT group, ORR was 33.8%, 15.5% of patients achieved CR, mPFS (95% CI) was 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) months, and mOS was 9.1 (8.1, 10.5) months. In the pola group, ORR was 42.2%, 24.1% of patients achieved CR, mPFS was 2.5 (2, 3.2) months and mOS was 7.8 (6.4, 11.8) months. In the tafa group, ORR was 25.5%, 14.5% of patients achieved CR, mPFS was 2.7 (2.1, 4.2) months, and mOS was 8 (5.3, 12.7) months. In the lonca group, ORR was 40.5%, 21.4% of patients achieved CR, mPFS was 3 (2.1, 5.1) months, and mOS was 4.7 (3.7, 10.8) months. Demographics and outcomes for all patients and those who received prior CAR T-cell therapy are summarized in Figure 1A. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk score ≥3, CIT as the index treatment type, and primary refractory status were significantly associated with time from response to progression/death (P<0.05; Figure 1B). IPI risk score ≥3, CIT as the index treatment type, and primary refractory status were significantly associated with worse PFS. IPI risk ≥3, ≥3 prior LOTs, and primary refractory status were significantly associated with OS. Conclusion: In this large clinical cohort of patients with R/R LBCL with high proportions having primary refractory disease, all common treatments were associated with modest ORR/CR and poor OS. Receiving CIT treatments, higher IPI score, primary refractory status, and higher number of prior LOTs were significantly associated with poor clinical outcomes. A study with larger sample size and longer follow-up may be warranted to further understand the clinical effectiveness of novel treatments. Thus, despite the availability of novel treatments during the study period, these findings highlight the need for more effective treatment alternatives beyond currently available options to improve outcomes.

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.

AbstractBackgroundStudies suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitors may represent a promising strategy for boosting immune responses and improving the antitumor activity of standard therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies.AimsPhase 1/2 FUSION NHL 001 was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of durvalumab, an anti‐programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) antibody, combined with standard‐of‐care therapies for lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).Methods and ResultsThe primary endpoints were to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the drugs used in combination with durvalumab (durvalumab was administered at the previously recommended dose of 1500 mg every 4 weeks) and to assess safety and tolerability. Patients were enrolled into one of four arms: durvalumab monotherapy (Arm D) or durvalumab in combination with lenalidomide ± rituximab (Arm A), ibrutinib (Arm B), or rituximab ± bendamustine (Arm C). A total of 106 patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma were enrolled. All but two patients experienced at least one treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE); those not experiencing a TEAE were in Arm C (diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma [DLBCL]) and Arm D (DLBCL during the durvalumab monotherapy treatment period). No new safety signals were identified, and TEAEs were consistent with the respective safety profiles for each study treatment. Across the study, patients with follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23) had an overall response rate (ORR) of 59%; ORR among DLBCL patients (n = 37) was 18%. Exploratory biomarker analysis showed that response to durvalumab monotherapy or combination therapy was associated with higher interferon‐γ signature scores in patients with FL (p = .02).ConclusionDurvalumab as monotherapy or in combination is tolerable but requires close monitoring. The high rate of TEAEs during this study may reflect on the difficulty in combining durvalumab with full doses of other agents. Durvalumab alone or in combination appeared to add limited benefit to therapy.

7573 Background: While most patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) usually have favorable outcomes, those with refractory disease after first-line anti-CD20 based immunochemotherapy (IC), or progression within 24 months of diagnosis (POD24) have higher risk of premature death. There are no standard approaches for treating this vulnerable group and studies testing novel agents are ongoing in this setting. We sought to investigate clinical practice treatment choices and efficacy for pts with POD24 that align with eligibility criteria for the randomized SWOG1608 which compares IC with novel agents in this population. Methods: This was a multicenter observational cohort study from the LEO Consortium. Eligible pts had grade 1-3a FL diagnosed between 1/1/2002 and 2/1/2019, and initiated therapy after POD24 to first-line bendamustine or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) based IC. Observation, radiotherapy, or rituximab monotherapy were permitted prior to IC and pts with transformation prior to the subsequent therapy after IC were excluded as per S1608. Outcomes of interest were overall and complete response rate (ORR/CR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 196 eligible pts with early progression to IC (39% antiCD20 Benda; 61% antiCD20 CHOP) who received subsequent therapy. Median age at post IC treatment was 57 years, 78% grade 1-2 FL. Treatments for pts with POD24 included CHOP- or Benda-based in 31%, salvage/hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in 27%, novel therapies in 10% (including phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors), antiCD20 monotherapy in 9%, and lenalidomide-based treatment in 8% (table); 21% of pts were treated on clinical trials. Across all treatments, ORR (CR) was 63% (37%) (95% CI: 55-70). At a median follow up of 6.2 years, 2 year PFS was 22% (95% CI: 17%-29%) and 5 year OS was 71% (95% CI: 65-79). Outcomes by regimen are shown in the table. Conclusions: Pts with FL experiencing POD24 following first-line IC are treated heterogeneously, with many pts still receiving IC as subsequent therapy. Despite modest CR rates and low 2-year PFS, 5-year OS appear to be improving compared to historical outcomes. This supports the ongoing need to investigate novel treatments in this population. [Table: see text]