Ruan, Jia

Background Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) comprise a rare, heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas of mature T-cell origin. Most systemic (s) PTCL subtypes typically have poor outcomes with conventional anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Biomarker-driven and subtype-specific treatments are promising but unmet needs. Few benchmark studies exist to characterize the current real-world landscape of clinical and pathologic practice. We report the patterns of care and updated outcome data for PTCL patients enrolled in the LEO-MER multi-center prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02736357). Methods Patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed PTCL were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER cohort (2002-2015) or the expanded LEO cohort (2015-2020). Clinical, pathology, treatment, and outcome data were abstracted from medical records using a standard protocol in both cohorts. Pathology underwent expert re-review based on WHO criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of diagnosis to date of death or last follow-up. Event-free survival (EFS) was calculated from date of diagnosis to disease progression, initiation of 2 nd line therapy, or death from any cause. EFS and OS were evaluated using Cox model and Kaplan-Meier estimator. Log-rank test was used to test the significance of difference between groups. Results LEO-MER enrolled 1132 PTCL patients during the study period (462 MER and 670 LEO). Of these, 722 were sPTCLs (281 MER and 441 LEO), including PTCL-NOS (N=253, 35%), anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL; N=180, 24.9% [74 ALK+, 106 ALK-]), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL, N=164, 22.7%), extranodal NK-TCL (N=50, 6.9%), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (N=33, 4.6%), enteropathy-associated TCL (N=19, 2.6%), and hepatosplenic TCL (N=13, 1.8%) ( Table 1). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years. M:F ratio was 1.5. Comparing LEO to MER, African American population was 15.4% vs 0.7%, and Hispanic was 10% vs 2.2%. Clinical characteristics were comparable between MER and LEO overall: PS≥2, 20.9%; elevated LDH, 50.7%; stage III-IV, 67.6%; and IPI 2-5, 65.7%. The most common 1 st line chemotherapy regimens overall were CHOP-based (N=506, 70%), including 60% receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy in both MER and LEO cohorts (CHOP [N=268, 37%], CHOEP [N=91, 13%] or EPOCH [N=75, 10%]), and 16% with CHOP-like in combination with novel agents in LEO cohort (BV+ [N=41, 9.3%], azacitidine+ [N=11, 2.5%], pralatrexate+ [N=10, 2.3%], lenalidomide+ [N=8, 1.9%]) ( Table 1). More patients received etoposide in LEO (40.3%) than in MER (20.3%). 74 patients (10.3%) underwent consolidative SCT following induction chemotherapy (71 auto and 3 allo). 65 patients (11.2%) received frontline therapy on clinical trials. At a median follow-up of 9.4 years in MER and 4 years in LEO, 177 (MER) and 269 (LEO) events, and 150 (MER) and 206 (LEO) deaths were observed, respectively. The 3-year EFS and 4-year OS estimates for sPTCL were 46.3% and 59.1% in MER, and 40.4% and 51.3% in LEO. EFS and OS correlated with IPI scores and differed by sPTCL subtypes ( Figure 1). ALCL had superior survival, with 3-year EFS and 4-year OS of 78.2% and 90.5% for ALK+, and 65.9% and 76.9% for ALK-. Non-ALCL subtypes including PTCL-NOS and AITL had inferior outcomes, with 3-year EFS and 4-year OS of 31.4% and 42.8% for PTCL-NOS, and 33.4% and 50.7% for AITL. In subset analysis, the addition of etoposide to CHOP chemotherapy as either CHOEP or EPOCH was associated with improved OS for ALK- ALCL (p=0.038, log-rank), but not for ALK+ ALCL (p=0.75) or non-ALCL subtypes of PTCL-NOS and AITL (p=0.88). Conclusion The LEO-MER study is the largest prospective cohort study of PTCL to date. Patterns of care in the LEO cohort begin to incorporate novel agents in frontline therapy. Outcomes continue to mature with longitudinal follow-up and ongoing accrual, which poise to shape benchmarks in the contemporary era. The lack of benefit of etoposide adding to CHOP induction and poor overall survival of non-ALCL subtypes underscores the unmet need of therapeutic breakthrough for non-ALCL frontline treatment, particularly through clinical trials with biomarker-guided approaches incorporating novel agents.

Background The therapeutic landscape of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has evolved significantly since the early 2000s. We previously reported that a shift in frontline immunochemotherapy choices from 2002−2009 to 2010−2015 was associated with improved event-free survival and overall survival (OS) in both younger (age ≤65) and older (age >65) patients in a prospective Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa cohort (Castellino, Blood Advances, 2022). In addition, we recently reported that changes in treatment for relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease over the last two decades were associated with steady improvements in OS for R/R MCL (Tawfiq, ASH, 2022). In this study, we utilized data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to investigate the impact of therapy in the modern era on survival outcomes of patients with MCL in the US since 2004. Methods The NCDB is an outcomes database of more than 1,500 hospital-based cancer registries covering approximately 70% of newly diagnosed cancers in the US. The latest version of NCDB was used to identify patients with newly diagnosed MCL from 2004 to 2020. Three treatment eras were defined as Era 1 (2004−2009), Era 2 (2010−2014), and Era 3 (2015−2020), based on immunochemotherapy changes (from Era 1 to Era 2) and increased access to novel agents such as Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors (from Era 2 to Era 3). Overall survival between different eras was stratified and analyzed based on 3 age groups: <65, 65−79, and ≥80 years. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and all Cox proportional hazards models were adjusted for age and sex. Results A total of 32,746 patients with newly diagnosed MCL was identified, 12,847 (39.2%) patients were age <65, 14,297 (43.7%) age 65−79, and 5,602 (17.1%) age ≥80. For every age group, the distributions in sex, stage, Charlson-Deyo score, and treatment facility type (academic vs non-academic) were largely similar between eras. As expected, the median OS was significantly worse for patients age ≥80 years (19.8 months) compared to patients age 65-79 years (60.9 months) and patients age <65 years (143.9 months; p <0.001). In patients age <65 years, OS in Era 2 was improved when compared to Era 1, with a 5-year OS rate of 72.1% vs 67.6% (logrank p<0.001) (Figure 1) and an age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.78−0.89, p<0.001). OS in Era 3 was similar to that in Era 2, with a 5-year OS rate of 72.2% vs 72.1% (logrank p=0.61) and an age- and sex-adjusted HR of 0.97 (95% CI 0.89−1.06, p=0.51). In patients age 65-79 years, similar trends in OS changes between eras were observed. The 5-year OS rate in Era 1, Era 2, and Era 3 was 43.3%, 52.8%, and 54.9%, respectively (p<0.001 comparing Era 2 vs Era 1, and p=0.05 comparing Era 3 vs Era 2). Age- and sex-adjusted HR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.78−0.87, p<0.001) comparing Era 2 vs Era 1 and 0.95 (95% CI 0.89−1.01, p=0.07) comparing Era 3 vs Era 2. In patients age ≥80 years, the improvement in OS from Era 1 to Era 2 was less prominent than other age groups. The 5-year OS rate was 22.9% vs 19.5% (p=0.03), and age- and sex-adjusted HR was 0.88 (95% CI 0.81−0.94, p<0.001). OS in Era 3 vs Era 2 was similar, with a 5-year OS rate of 23.1% vs 22.9% (logrank p=0.79) and an age- and sex-adjusted HR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.91−1.06, p=0.67). Conclusions This large NCDB study demonstrated that survival of patients with newly diagnosed MCL has improved over the last two decades. The results are consistent with our Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa prospective cohort study and confirm an improved OS after 2010, which was most likely driven by both frontline immunochemotherapy changes and better access to novel agents for R/R disease. The 5-year OS in patients diagnosed in 2015−2020 did not appear to be superior to those in 2010−2014, despite presumably having better access to novel agents such as BTK inhibitors in the R/R setting. This lack of a difference in OS may be partially due to short follow-up, but may also suggest that further improvement in frontline therapies by incorporating novel agents may be required to improve OS. The OS of patients age ≥80 years is limited and has only minimally improved after 2010, highlighting a significant unmet need for therapies with improved tolerability and efficacy in this age group.

Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a standard-of-care first-line (1L) therapy for older or unfit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The SHINE trial compared BR with rituximab maintenance plus ibrutinib vs placebo in patients ≥65 years old and showed that the ibrutinib arm had significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median 80.6 vs 52.9 months) but similar overall survival (OS; 57% vs 55% at 7 years) compared to the placebo arm. Whether sequential treatment with BR in 1L and a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) in second-line (2L) can result in a similar cumulative PFS compared to 1L BR plus BTKi combination therapy is unknown. To provide insight to this question, we modeled observational data to evaluate MCL outcomes after 1L BR and 2L BTKi therapy in the BTKi era. Methods: Patients with MCL who received 1L BR with or without rituximab maintenance in 2014-2020 at one of the 27 participating centers were included. Exclusion criteria included participation in the SHINE or ECHO trials, any additional 1L therapy other than BR (with or without rituximab maintenance), and stem cell transplant consolidation after 1L BR. Baseline characteristics, treatment, and follow-up data were abstracted by chart review. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from index line treatment start to the first event (progression, relapse, retreatment, or death). OS was defined as time from index line treatment start to death. Using an intention-to-treat (ITT) framework, EFS2 was defined as time from 1L BR start to progression, relapse, or retreatment following 2L BTKi treatment or death. Patients who received a non-BTKi treatment at 2L were censored for EFS2 at 2L treatment start; living patients without an event following 1L BR or 2L BTKi were censored for EFS2 at last follow-up. Results: A total of 618 patients with MCL who received 1L BR in 2014-2020 were included. The median age was 71 (IQR 65-76) years, and 447 (72%) were male. 59 (11%) patients had an ECOG PS ≥2, 566 (93%) had stage III-IV disease, and simplified MIPI was low in 105 (21%), intermediate in 200 (39%), and high in 202 (40%) patients. The median follow-up following 1L BR start was 57.4 (95% CI 53.8-63.2) months. Response data were available in 580 patients, and the best ORR was 92% (79% complete response [CR] and 13% partial response [PR]). 258 (42%) patients received rituximab maintenance. As of last follow-up, 255 patients were alive and in remission after 1L BR, 92 patients died without 2L therapy, and 271 patients received a 2L therapy. The median EFS was 34.1 (95% CI 31.0-40.0) months. The median OS was 97.8 (95% CI 81.2-NA) months, the 5-year OS rate was 58.6% (95% CI 54.4-63.2), and the 7-year OS rate was 56.7% (95% CI 52.4-61.5) (Fig 1). Among the 271 patients who started a 2L treatment, 203 (75%) received a BTKi at 2L - 101 (50%) ibrutinib, 76 (37%) acalabrutinib, and 26 (13%) zanubrutinib. The median follow-up following 2L BTKi start was 38.5 (95% CI 31.3-45.1) months. Response data were available in 171 patients, and the best ORR was 64% (36% CR, 28% PR). The median EFS was 10.7 (95% CI 7.7-14.0) months, and the median OS was 24.8 (95% CI 17.3-33.1) months with 2L BTKi therapy (Fig 2). By ITT analysis, the median EFS2 following 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 72.1 (95% CI 56.7-97.8) months (Fig 1). A subset analysis of patients aged ≥65 years (n=471; 198 [42%] received rituximab maintenance) showed similar results. The median EFS with 1L BR was 32.7 (95% CI 29.1-36.3) months. The median OS was 81.5 (95% CI 65.0-NA) months, and the 7-year OS rate was 53.3% (95% CI 48.3-58.7). 208 patients received a 2L therapy, 163 (79%) with a BTKi. The median EFS was 11.5 (95% CI 7.6-15.8) months, and the median OS was 21.0 (95% CI 14.0-29.6) months with 2L BTKi therapy. By ITT analysis, the median EFS2 following 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 58.0 (95% CI 50.2-77.0) months. Conclusion: In this multicenter retrospective study, initiation of 1L BR (with or without rituximab maintenance) resulted in a 7-year OS of 57%. Median EFS2 for sequential 1L BR and 2L BTKi was 72.1 months. In context, the SHINE study reported a median PFS of 80.6 months in the BR (with rituximab maintenance) plus ibrutinib arm and a 7-year OS of 57% in the ibrutinib arm and 55% in the placebo arm, where 39% of patients received a BTKi in 2L. Within the constraints of observational data, our results provide support for sequential use of BR in 1L and BTKi in 2L for patients with MCL.

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]

TPS7574 Background: The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is an important immune checkpoint used by tumor cells to evade immune cell detection and inhibit antitumor responses. PD-1/PD-L1 expression in multiple hematologic malignancies may provide an effective target for enhancing anticancer immune response. Durvalumab (MEDI4736) is a high-affinity human IgG1 monoclonal Ab that selectively blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80, and has shown preliminary evidence of antitumor activity across multiple tumor types. Study objectives are to evaluate durvalumab monotherapy and combinations to determine dose and safety, as well as identify histologies and combinations that show the best complementary antitumor signals for future study. Methods: This is a phase I/II open-label, global, multicenter study of durvalumab as a monotherapy and in combination in relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma or CLL (MEDI4736-NHL-001; EUDRA CT 2015-003516-21; NCT02733042). Patients must have histologically-confirmed FL, MCL, splenic or nodal MZL, T-cell/histiocyte rich BCL, PMBCL, ALK+ large BCL, transformed large BCL, Richter’s transformation, DLBCL (NOS), CLL/SLL, or classical HL during the dose-finding part. Inclusion criteria are ECOG PS 0-2, and ≥1 prior antilymphoma therapy. Up to 253 patients may enroll in 4 treatment arms, which include fixed-dose durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W monotherapy or combinations with lenalidomide/rituximab, ibrutinib, or bendamustine/rituximab. The study has 3 parts: dose finding, dose confirmation, and dose expansion. The monotherapy arm does not have a dose finding or expansion part; upon progression, patients may receive combination therapy or involved-field radiation to a single nodal site (evaluating for systemic abscopal antitumor effect). Primary endpoints are safety, identification of recommended phase II dose (phase I, 3+3 design), and overall response rate (ORR; phase II); secondary endpoints include DOR, PFS, and PK/PD. ORR is measured by 2014 IWG criteria for lymphoma or modified 2008 iwCLL criteria for CLL; safety is assessed per NCI CTCAE v4.03 criteria. Recruitment is ongoing, with a target enrollment of 253 patients across 60-80 centers globally. Clinical trial information: NCT02733042.