Chang, Julie

The treatment landscape of B-cell lymphomas has significantly evolved in recent years with approval of novel targeted therapies. CD3 × CD20 bispecific antibodies and CD19-directed monoclonal antibodies and antibody–drug conjugates have demonstrated efficacy in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL). Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor–based regimens are emerging as effective treatment options for patients with TP53-mutated classical mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Results from ongoing clinical trials suggest that the addition of CD3 × CD20 bispecific antibodies to chemoimmunotherapy improves outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of FL, MCL, and DLBCL.

Introduction: The real-world outcomes in patients (pts) with PCALCL in the era of targeted therapies like Brentuximab Vedotin (BV) is not well defined due to lack of large multicenter studies. We conducted a multicenter retrospective RWA to assess patient and disease characteristics, treatment patterns, survival outcomes and impact of novel therapies in this rare type of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL). Methods: A total of 95 adult (≥18 years) pts from 8 academic institutions in the United States diagnosed from 2010-2022 were included in the analysis. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the respective sites. Demographic and disease factors were summarized by descriptive statistics. Overall survival (OS) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log rank method. Results: In our cohort, the median age at diagnosis was 63 (range 18-93) years. The majority of pts were male 60%, white 79%, and had good performance status (PS) ECOG 0-1 (93%). Median time from initial presentation to diagnosis was 1.8 (range 0-211) months. Most common initial skin presentation was tumor 46% (44/95), followed by plaques 27% (26/95) and patches 15% (14/95). No pt presented with erythroderma. Median size of the largest lesion was 2 (range 0.5-20) cm. 63% had early stage (IA-IIA) disease and 86% had <5 skin lesions at the time of initial diagnosis. Furthermore, palpable lymph node (LN) (10%) and elevated LDH (18%) were uncommon at diagnosis. Initial treatments include localized radiation 60%, surgical excision 21% and topical steroids 11%. A small subset of pts received systemic treatments like CHOP 13% (12/95), BV 8% (8/95) and oral methotrexate 7% (7/95) as frontline therapy. A proportion of pts received XRT with CHOP (6/12) and BV (2/8). The overall response rate (ORR) to initial therapy was 68% (65/95) with 61% achieving a CR and 17% had primary refractory disease (stable and progressive disease). Relapse rate after 1st line therapy was 52% (49/95). In our cohort a total of 22 pts received BV after frontline therapy, of which 19 were BV naïve and 3 were re-treated. At the time of last follow up, 27% of our cohort were still on treatment, 78% were alive and 21% were dead; only 3% of deaths were attributed to the lymphoma. The median OS was 128 months (95% CI: 78.4-NA) (Figure 1) with a median follow up of 42 (range 0.5-123.5) months. The 5-year OS was 77%. On univariate analysis, older age (≥65 vs <65 years) (median OS 78 vs 128 months; p=0.004) and higher number of lesions (5-10 vs <5) (mOS 34 vs 128 months; p=<0.0001) were significant associated with OS (Table 1). Type and size of the skin lesions, presence of palpable LN, elevated LDH, stage, and treatment modalities had no impact on OS. Results of multivariate analysis will be presented at the conference. Conclusion: In this large multicenter RWA of PCALCL, excellent long-term survival was observed following frontline therapies that were mostly skin directed. The use of systemic therapies including BV were infrequent even in relapsed disease. Older age and increased number of skin lesions were associated with poor OS.

Novel targeted therapies (small molecule inhibitors, antibody–drug conjugates, and CD19-directed therapies) have changed the treatment landscape of relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors continue to evolve in the management of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), in both the relapsed/refractory and the frontline setting. Anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapies are now effective and approved treatment options for relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and MCL. Bispecific T-cell engagers represent a novel immunotherapeutic approach for relapsed FL and DLBCL after multiple lines of therapies, including prior CAR T-cell therapy. These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight the significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of FL, DLBCL, and MCL.

Abstract In this multi-institutional retrospective study, we examined the characteristics and outcomes of 160 patients with high-grade B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBL-NOS)—a rare category defined by high-grade morphologic features and lack of MYC rearrangements with BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements ("double hit"). Our results show that HGBL-NOS tumors are heterogeneous: 83% of patients had a germinal center B-cell immunophenotype, 37% a dual-expressor immunophenotype (MYC and BCL2 expression), 28% MYC rearrangement, 13% BCL2 rearrangement, and 11% BCL6 rearrangement. Most patients presented with stage IV disease, a high serum lactate dehydrogenase, and other high-risk clinical factors. Most frequent first-line regimens included dose-adjusted cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and etoposide, with rituximab and prednisone (DA-EPOCH-R; 43%); rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; 33%); or other intensive chemotherapy programs. We found no significant differences in the rates of complete response (CR), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) between these chemotherapy regimens. CR was attained by 69% of patients. PFS at 2 years was 55.2% and OS was 68.1%. In a multivariable model, the main prognostic factors for PFS and OS were poor performance status, lactate dehydrogenase >3 × upper limit of normal, and a dual-expressor immunophenotype. Age >60 years or presence of MYC rearrangement were not prognostic, but patients with TP53 alterations had a dismal PFS. Presence of MYC rearrangement was not predictive of better PFS in patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R vs R-CHOP. Improvements in the diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approaches beyond dose-intense chemotherapy are needed to overcome the unfavorable prognosis of patients with HGBL-NOS.

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 Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is relatively rare, accounting for 3-15% of extranodal NHL and less than 1% of all NHL. Patients often present with pain and swelling or pathologic fracture of the affected area of the skeleton, and B symptoms are often less prevalent. Many cases are limited stage at presentation. Patients are usually treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or similar induction therapy. Based on older studies showing improved outcomes associated with the addition of radiation (many completed prior to the rituximab era), patients often still receive combined-modality therapy today. However, it remains unknown whether consolidative radiation therapy (RT) confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction. We sought to address this question in a multicenter retrospective study. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes in a modern cohort of patients who underwent treatment for primary bone DLBCL using chemotherapy regimens in the rituximab era either with or without consolidative RT. Data was collected from 13 academic medical centers in the U.S., with patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Patients were identified using each institution's hematologic malignancy registries. Analysis was limited to patients with primary bone DLBCL, with stage I-II disease (primary site +/- locoregional lymph nodes) that could be encompassed in a radiation field. Patients who received CIT alone or CIT followed by RT were included. Treatment selection was at the treating physician's discretion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for: demographics, chemotherapy regimens, radiation treatments, and PET scan data. Local IRB approval was obtained at sites. All data was distributed in a de-identified fashion. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included: response after induction CIT induction and the need for additional therapies. Chi-square test analysis was used to compare categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous and ordinal measures. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups via the log-rank test. Multi-variable analysis (MVA) for OS and RFS was performed using RT vs no RT, PET status post CIT (negative vs positive) and rituximab in induction (Y/N) as variables. Results A total of 127 patients were included: 91 who received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 36 who received CIT alone (no RT group). The median age of patients at diagnosis in the RT group and no RT group was 58.5 and 57.0, respectively. For CIT, the majority of patients received R-CHOP (84%). Despite focusing on 2005-2019, a small percentage of patients (5 - 14%) in each group (RT and no RT) did not receive rituximab with their induction therapy. The OS at 10 years was 74.5% in the RT group and 86.5% in the no RT group (p = 0.29). The RFS at 10 years was 70.9% in the RT group and 78.2% in the no RT group (p = 0.85). Among the 91 patients who received RT, 67 (77.0%) received a dose of 36 Gy or higher. There was no difference in OS (p = 0.63) or RFS (p = 0.90) in patients who received > 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy of radiation. On MVA for OS, RT was not associated with improved OS, although rituximab as part of induction was (p = 0.048). On MVA for RFS, neither RT nor rituximab were associated with improved RFS. For rituximab the trend was in the direction of rituximab benefit (p = 0.11). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that, in the rituximab era, patients with limited stage primary bone DLBCL have excellent outcomes overall. In this study, neither RFS or OS appeared to be improved with the addition of consolidative RT. Rituximab, however, was associated with improved OS on MVA. Outcomes do not appear to differ based on the dose of RT (> 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy). Our data suggests that RT may have less benefit for primary bone DLBCL in the rituximab era, although it is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from consolidative radiation therapy. A larger data set would likely be needed to evaluate this. We plan to present data regarding PET responses at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Caimi: XaTek: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from patents (wife); Amgen Therapeutics.: Consultancy; ADC Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Epperla: Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Genzyme: Honoraria. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; SeaGen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Fenske: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

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.

Introduction: FL is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the Western world. FL may cause disease-related symptoms, and patients with high-risk disease usually require systemic therapy. BR is commonly used as first-line therapy for high-risk FL, and the addition of bortezomib to a BR backbone has been studied (Evens A et al. Clin Can Res 2020). Little is known about how these therapeutic options impact patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). To fill this gap, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were administered to patients enrolled on E2408 to quantify symptom burden and effects of BR versus BVR induction on HRQL. Methods: Patients (n=258) randomized to receive 6 cycles of BR or BVR induction completed PROs assessing neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) at the beginning of each treatment cycle. Additional PROs measuring fatigue (FACT-F), lymphoma-specific concerns (FACT-Lym) and HRQL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G) were completed at baseline, mid-treatment (MT; cycle 3/4) and end of induction (EOI; cycle 6). Paired t-test was used to assess PRO score changes from baseline to MT and EOI within BR or BVR group. Two-sample t-test was used to compare change scores between groups at MT and EOI, respectively. Univariate analyses with a linear model identified patient baseline characteristics and clinical factors (age, sex, stage, performance status, # extra nodal sites, FLIPI, GELF, bone marrow involvement, elevated LDH, palpable splenomegaly, B-symptoms, CRIS) associated with PRO change scores from baseline to EOI, adjusting for treatment group. A multivariate model was built with backward variable selection approach for each of the PROs. Results: As shown in Figure 1, compared with baseline, patients randomized to BVR reported significantly worse FACT/GOG-Ntx scores at cycle 4, which continued to end of induction (FACT/GOG-Ntx change scores -2.91 to -3.73; p < 0.001). Neurotoxicity remained stable for patients treated with BR (Ntx change scores -0.02 to -0.55). FACT-Fatigue scores indicated worse fatigue at MT compared to baseline for patients receiving BVR (-2.7, p<0.05), yet they remained stable for BR. FACT-Lym scores were significantly higher at MT (BR: 2.69, p<0.001; BVR: 2.71, p=0.007) and end of induction (BR: 3.32, p<0.001; BVR: 3.55, p<0.001) compared to baseline, signifying a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms in both arms. FACT-G scores were comparable between treatment arms at each time-point and did not change significantly from baseline to end of induction. Univariate analyses among all patients identified older age and the absence of palpable splenomegaly at baseline as associated with worse FACT-Lym, FACT-Fatigue, and FACT-G change scores, signifying less improvement in lymphoma-related symptoms, fatigue and HRQL from baseline to end of induction (p<0.01). The presence of B-symptoms at baseline was associated with a greater reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms and fatigue from baseline to end of induction (p<0.01). Higher ECOG performance status was only associated with higher FACT-Fatigue change score, suggesting more improvement in fatigue for those with worse performance status at baseline. A multivariate model generated similar results. Conclusions: Despite worse treatment-related symptoms throughout induction, the addition of bortezomib was associated with comparable overall HRQL to those treated with BR. Both treatments were associated with a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms from baseline to end of induction, likely contributing to stable HRQL throughout treatment despite treatment-related symptoms. Findings also suggest that a subgroup of patients, particularly those who are older, may experience fewer improvements in lymphoma-related symptoms. This underscores the potential need for closer monitoring and clinical management of these patients. Collectively, results are likely to be encouraging for patients experiencing lymphoma-related symptoms, for whom the symptom burden associated with treatment may be worth the trade-off given the potential for improved disease-related symptom control. Disclosures Evens: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Advani:Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Winter:Norvartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: DSMB; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board. Cella:FACIT.org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: President; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pled Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Kiniksa: Consultancy; IDDI: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASAHI KASEI PHARMA CORP.: Consultancy; Oncoquest: Consultancy; Mei Pharma: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Evidera: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy, Research Funding; BlueNote: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; PROMIS Health Org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner:Celgene Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Connect Multiple Myeloma Registry: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Purpose: We sought to improve upon frontline bendamustine/rituximab (BR) induction therapy followed by rituximab maintenance in untreated high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to BR induction followed by 2-year rituximab maintenance (BR-R), BR with bortezomib and rituximab maintenance (BVR-R), or BR followed by lenalidomide (1 year) with rituximab maintenance (BR-LR). Dual primary objectives were complete remission (CR) rate and 1-year disease-free survival (DFS); 289 patients enrolled (NCT01216683). Results: For induction, 92%, 87%, and 86% of patients randomized to BR-R, BVR-R, or BR-LR received six cycles, respectively. CR rate with BR versus BVR induction was 62% versus 75%, respectively (P = 0.04). One-year DFS rates with BR-R versus BR-LR were 85% versus 67%, respectively (P = 0.0009). This was due to an imbalance in CR rates post-BR induction and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The most common grade 3–4 AEs for BVR versus BR were neutropenia and sensory neuropathy (12% vs <1%); 83% of the latter occurred with intravenous bortezomib. The most common grade 3–4 AEs related to LR versus rituximab maintenance were neutropenia 66% versus 21%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and febrile neutropenia 10% versus 2%, respectively (P = 0.05). The overall treatment-related mortality was 1.4%. With 5-year median follow-up, 3-year PFS rates for BR-R, BVR-R, and BR-LR were 77%, 82%, and 76%, respectively (P = 0.36) with OS rates of 87%, 90%, and 84%, respectively (P = 0.79). For prognostication, CR rate and POD-24 were associated with survival. Conclusions: Altogether, neither bortezomib added to BR induction nor lenalidomide added to rituximab maintenance immediately post-BR induction is recommended in untreated FL.