Citations

AbstractIntroductionMelanoma guidelines stem largely from data on non‐Hispanic White (NHW) patients. We aimed to identify features of melanoma within non‐Hispanic Black (NHB) patients to inform strategies for earlier detection and treatment.MethodsFrom 2004 to 2019 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, we identified nonmetastatic melanoma patients with known TN category and race. Kaplan–Meier cancer‐specific survival (CSS) estimates and multivariable Cox proportional hazard modeling analyses were performed.ResultsOf 492 597 patients, 1499 (0.3%) were NHB, who were younger (21% vs. 17% age <50) and more commonly female (54% vs. 41%) than NHW, both p < 0.0005. For NHBs, lower extremity was the most common site (52% vs. 15% for NHWs, p < 0.0001), T category was higher (55% Tis–T1 vs. 82%; 27% T3–T4 vs. 8%, p < 0.0001) and stage at presentation was higher (19% Stage III, vs. 6%, p < 0.0001). Within the NHB cohort, males were older, and more often node‐positive than females. Five‐year Stage III CSS was 42% for NHB males versus 71% for females, adjusting for age and clinical nodal status (hazard ratio 2.48).ConclusionsNHB melanoma patients presented with distinct tumor characteristics. NHB males with Stage III disease had inferior CSS. Focus on this high‐risk patient cohort to promote earlier detection and treatment may improve outcomes.

Abstract Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is considered the standard-of-care for patients with advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), despite findings that patients with nongerminal center B-cell like (non-GCB) have significantly worse outcome with this regimen. We evaluated the prognostic significance of baseline risk factors, including cell of origin (COO) classified by the Hans algorithm, within an alternative chemoimmunotherapy program. At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), 151 patients with DLBCL received sequential R-CHOP induction and (R)-ICE (rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide) consolidation. Outcome analysis based on COO was validated with a propensity score–matched cohort treated with R-CHOP from the Mayo Clinic component of the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER). Among the patients with GCB (n = 69) and non-GCB (n = 69) at MSK, event-free survival (EFS) of non-GCB was superior to that of GCB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98). Overall survival (OS) demonstrated an association in the same direction but was not statistically significant (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42). Propensity score–matched patients from MSK (n = 108) demonstrated a small attenuation in the HRs for EFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.27-1.18) and OS (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.33-1.79) and were no longer statistically significant. In contrast, the matched MER cohort (n = 108) demonstrated an EFS association (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.70-1.95) and OS association (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.64-2.00) in the opposite direction, but were also not statistically significant. R-CHOP induction and (R)-ICE consolidation may overcome the negative prognostic impact of the non-GCB phenotype, per the Hans algorithm, and can be preferentially selected for this population. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT00039195 and #NCT00712582.

Melanoma diagnosed within 1 year of pregnancy is defined as pregnancy-associated melanoma (PAM). No robust data on how pregnancy influences melanoma nor guidelines for PAM management exist. With IRB approval, female patients with a pathology-confirmed melanoma diagnosis within 1 year of pregnancy treated at our institution from 2000 to 2020 were identified. Controls from the cancer registry were matched 1 : 4 when available on decade of age, year of surgery (±5), and stage. We identified 83 PAM patients with median follow-up of 86 months. Mean age at diagnosis was 31 years. 80% AJCC V8 stage I, 2.4% stage II, 13% stage III, 4.8% stage IV. Mean Breslow thickness was 0.79 mm and 3.6% exhibited ulceration. The mean mitotic rate was 0.76/mm 2 . In terms of PAM management, 98.6% of ESD patients and 86.7% of LSD patients received standard-of-care therapy per NCCN guidelines for their disease stage. No clinically significant delays in treatment were noted. Time to treatment from diagnosis to systemic therapy for LSD patients was an average of 46 days (95% CI: 34–59 days). Comparing the 83 PAM patients to 309 controls matched on age, stage, and year of diagnosis, similar 5-year overall survival (97% vs. 97%, P = 0.95) or recurrence-free survival (96% vs. 96%, P = 0.86) was observed. The outcomes of PAM following SOC treatment at a highly specialized center for melanoma care were comparable to non-PAM when matched by clinical-pathologic features. Specialty center care is encouraged for women with PAM.

AbstractTo address the current and long‐term unmet health needs of the growing population of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/). A total of 7735 newly diagnosed patients aged 18 years and older with NHL were prospectively enrolled from 7/1/2015 to 5/31/2020 at 8 academic centers in the United States. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 18–99). Participants came from 49 US states and included 538 Black/African‐Americans (AA), 822 Hispanics (regardless of race), 3386 women, 716 age <40 years, and 1513 rural residents. At study baseline, we abstracted clinical, pathology, and treatment data; banked serum/plasma (N = 5883, 76.0%) and germline DNA (N = 5465, 70.7%); constructed tissue microarrays for four major NHL subtypes (N = 1189); and collected quality of life (N = 5281, 68.3%) and epidemiologic risk factor (N = 4489, 58.0%) data. Through August 2022, there were 1492 deaths. Compared to population‐based SEER data (2015–2019), LEO participants had a similar distribution of gender, AA race, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHL subtype, while LEO was underrepresented for patients who were Asian and aged 80 years and above. Observed overall survival rates for LEO at 1 and 2 years were similar to population‐based SEER rates for indolent B‐cell (follicular and marginal zone) and T‐cell lymphomas, but were 10%–15% higher than SEER rates for aggressive B‐cell subtypes (diffuse large B‐cell and mantle cell). The LEO cohort is a robust and comprehensive national resource to address the role of clinical, tumor, host genetic, epidemiologic, and other biologic factors in NHL prognosis and survivorship.

Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated remarkable response rates in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Still, most patients eventually progress. Patterns of progression after ICIs are not well described and are essential to defining the role of local therapies in combination with ICIs. We identified patients who received ICIs for HL between 2013 and 2022. Fludeoxyglucose-18 positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) before initiating ICI and at progression on/after ICI were reviewed, and areas of active HL were recorded. An exploratory analysis of treatable progression included patients with ≤5 sites of disease on pre-ICI FDG-PET and progression only at pre-ICI sites. Ninety patients were identified; 69 had complete records, and of these, 32 (52%) had relapsed at ICI initiation, 17 (25%) were refractory, and 16 (23%) received ICI as first-line therapy. Forty-five of 69 patients had ≤5 sites of disease (limited) on pre-ICI FDG-PET. Patients with &gt;5 sites of disease had a higher risk of progression, and every site of disease &gt;5 sites conferred an additional 1.2x higher chance of progression. At a median follow-up of 4.0 years, 41 of 69 patients had progressed on/after ICIs (cumulative incidence 66.4%), and of these, 22 of 41 patients progressed only at pre-ICI sites (cumulative incidence 39.4%). In an exploratory analysis, the cumulative incidence of a treatable progression among 45 patients with limited disease was 34%. The cumulative incidence of any progression among this cohort was 58.9%. More than one-third of patients with limited disease before ICIs experienced progression only at pre-ICI sites of disease. These patients could be candidates for radiation during or after ICIs.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. In 2003, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group initiated a randomized phase III clinical trial (E4402) comparing two different rituximab dosing strategies for patients with previously untreated low–tumor burden follicular lymphoma. Rituximab-responsive patients (n = 299) were randomly assigned to either a retreatment rituximab (RR) strategy or a maintenance rituximab (MR) strategy. Each dosing strategy was continued until treatment failure. The primary end point of the study was time to treatment failure (TTF). In the original report, there was no difference in TTF between the two dosing strategies. Here, we report on the long-term outcomes for secondary end points of time to first cytotoxic therapy, duration of response, and overall survival (OS). At 7 years, 83% of MR patients had not required first chemotherapy compared with 63% of RR patients (hazard ratio, 2.37 [95% CI, 1.5 to 3.76]). At 7 years, 71% of MR remained in their first remission compared with 37% of RR patients. Despite the improved first remission length with MR, there was no difference in OS at 10 years (83% v 84%). With mature long-term data, we confirm that prolonged maintenance rituximab does not confer an OS advantage in low–tumor burden follicular lymphoma.

Background Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) is an uncommon type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Clinicopathologic features are distinct from diffuse large B cell lymphoma, but it shares some clinical and biologic features with Nodular sclerosis classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Central nervous system (CNS) relapse appears to be rare in patients with PMBCL, with limited literature reporting a rate of approximately 1.5% to 4%. We examined the incidence of CNS relapse, treatment approaches and survival outcomes in patients with PMBCL. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed PMBCL seen at Mayo Clinic between 2002 and 2022 were identified using the prospective Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Database. Clinical features, treatment details and outcomes were abstracted from the medical record. Cumulative incidence of CNS relapse was analyzed with death as a competing risk. The association of CNS-IPI, systemic treatment, and CNS prophylaxis approach with CNS relapse rate was analyzed using competing risk models and descriptively. Event-free survival (EFS) for the cohort was defined as time from PMBCL diagnosis to first recorded CNS and/or systemic relapse or death from any cause. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from PMBCL diagnosis (or CNS relapse) to death from any cause. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results A total of 124 PMBCL cases were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 37 years and 61% were female. The distribution of CNS-IPI was low-risk in 67 (61%), intermediate-risk in 41 (37%), and high-risk in 2 (2%). 64 patients (52%) received R-CHOP and 54 patients (44%) received R-DA-EPOCH as frontline therapy. High-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) for CNS prophylaxis was administered to 6 patients (5%), 5 with R-CHOP and 1 with R-DA-EPOCH. 16 patients received intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy (methotrexate and/or cytarabine) for CNS prophylaxis, 3 with R-CHOP and 13 with R-DA-EPOCH. The median follow-up was 56.0 months. The 5-year EFS rate was 75.1% and the 5-year OS rate was 90.7% for the entire cohort. 20 patients had systemic relapse only and 3 had CNS relapse. The cumulative incidence of CNS relapse was 1.84% (95% CI 0.46%-7.17%) at 2 years and 2.92% (95% CI 0.50%-8.84%) at 5 years (Figure 1). No statistically significant association of CNS-IPI, systemic therapy or CNS prophylaxis regimen with CNS relapse rate was found in competing risk models; however, this analysis was limited by a small event number (n=3). Among the 3 patients with CNS relapse, 1 had high-risk CNS-IPI and 2 had intermediate risk. All 3 patients were treated initially with R-CHOP. Two patients did not receive any CNS prophylaxis and 1 patient received IT CNS prophylaxis. All three patients who had CNS relapse were female. Patient #1 was diagnosed at age 48 and had simultaneous CNS and systemic relapse 6 months later. The patient was treated with HD-MTX, temozolomide and rituximab for CNS relapse, and subsequently received multiple therapies for systemic disease including R-DHAP, R-ICE, and died 17 months after CNS relapse. Patient #2 was diagnosed at age 22 and had CNS relapse after 8.7 months, followed by systemic relapse 2 months later. The patient received HD-MTX, temozolomide and rituximab for CNS relapse, followed by systemic and whole-brain radiation therapy (RT) for both systemic and CNS relapse. Subsequently the patient received salvage chemotherapy, autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplant for systemic relapse. The patient died 26.8 months after CNS relapse. Patient #3 was diagnosed at age 24 and had systemic relapse after 20.7 months, followed by CNS relapse 5.4 months later. The patient received methotrexate and whole-brain RT following CNS relapse and died 1.2 months after CNS relapse. Besides these 3 patients, we identified 6 PMBCL patients with CNS relapse who were diagnosed at other medical centers and subsequently referred to our institution for management of refractory disease. The survival after CNS relapse was poor, with a median OS of 10.4 months (95% CI 5.6-15.2). Conclusion Our study showed that the CNS relapse rate (1.84% at 2 years and 2.92% at 5 years) was overall low in patients with PMBCL, consistent with previous reports. CNS relapse was associated with poor survival despite aggressive treatment approaches. Novel approaches utilizing biological risk factors for CNS relapse, such as circulating tumor DNA, are needed to identify patients with CNS relapse.

Introduction: The use of standardized, evidence-based classification systems is crucial for the accurate diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Moreover, standardized classification facilitates research and epidemiologic studies and promotes consistency in communication among healthcare professionals. Since 2016, the revised 4 th edition of the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM4R) has been the global standard for diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies. With the emergence of new data, 2 new classification systems were developed and published in 2022: the 5 th edition of the WHO Classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). Both WHO-HAEM5 and ICC maintain a shared fundamental concept of disease classification that integrates clinical, pathologic, and molecular data. However, they differ on nomenclature, establishment of new entities, and/or diagnostic criteria for some disease categories. To evaluate the impact of these differences on real-world diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), we examined the diagnostic classification of NHL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Methods: Initiated in 2015, LEO is an ongoing prospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed NHL. Patients are enrolled at 8 major U.S. medical centers. Clinical, epidemiologic, pathologic, and treatment data are abstracted at baseline and active follow-up is conducted for all patients. Lymphoma subtype is coded for each case based on expert hematopathology re-review of the diagnostic pathology slides, the pathology report, biomarker data, and clinical data. Of note, NHL subtype distribution is similar to SEER data. We studied all patients enrolled in LEO between 7/1/2016 (the date LEO pathology review started using WHO-HAEM4R diagnostic codes) and 5/31/2020. WHO-HAEM4R diagnoses and additional clinicopathologic data, when relevant, were used to map cases into the corresponding WHO-HAEM5 and ICC diagnoses. Differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC were annotated for each case as: None - same disease entity; Minor - difference in nomenclature with similar diagnostic criteria; Major - difference in disease category and/or diagnostic criteria; or Unevaluable - insufficient data to assign WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis. Results: LEO enrolled 6143 patients during the study period. Of these, comparison between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC was evaluable in 5730 (93.3%). Unevaluable cases included those without a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis at enrollment (N=384; e.g., patients with a low-grade B-cell lymphoma that could not be definitively sub-classified) and those with a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis, but with insufficient clinicopathologic data to assign a specific WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis (N=29). Of the 5730 evaluable cases, 5376 (93.8%) showed no difference between WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis, 311 (5.4%) showed minor differences (nomenclature only), and 43 (0.8%) showed major differences (Table 1). The 43 major differences all involved B-cell NHLs; 20 (46.5%) were attributable to different approaches to classifying double-hit lymphomas, 21 (48.9%) to classification of splenic/leukemic B-cell lymphomas, and 2 (4.6%) to classification of B-cell lymphomas occurring at specific anatomic sites (Table 2). Conclusion: In a large, prospective lymphoma cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice at 8 major U.S. medical centers, major diagnostic differences in the classification of NHL using WHO-HAEM5 or ICC classification criteria were seen in 0.8%, whereas the remaining 99.2% of diagnoses were either the same or showed differences in nomenclature only. The existence of 2 concurrent classification systems presents potential for discrepancies in pathologic diagnosis, clinical practice, clinical trials, and other lymphoma research. Furthermore, some of the differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC are clinically and potentially therapeutically significant, and their resolution requires further study. Nevertheless, our findings argue that the proportion of patients affected would be small in real-world practice settings. This appears largely related to incidence rates of specific lymphoma subtypes, with major differences between the 2 classifications predominantly affecting rare entities, while there is general concordance on the most common forms of NHL.

Introduction: PET/CT is the standard-of-care for staging and therapy response assessment in lymphoma. Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avidity in extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL) remains controversial with some variability by extranodal location. The current Lugano classification recommends the use of CT scans only in staging and follow-up for EMZL. However, emerging data from small studies have challenged this suggestion. In this study we aimed to determine the ability of PET/CT to detect FDG-avid EMZL during staging work-up. Methods: First, we retrospectively analyzed the University of Miami (UM) MZL database (period 2/2016-1/2023) searching for patients who underwent staging PET/CT. Images were reviewed by expert radiologists to ascertain avidity of tumor and not surrounding tissue, with specific attention to ocular and GI locations; if scans were not available (n=15), we retrieved data from reports (results presented in part at ICML2023). Next, we aimed to validate the initial UM results additionally analyzing data from imaging reports for patients prospectively enrolled in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) MZL cohort (period 7/2015-5/2020), excluding LEO patients from Miami to avoid overlap. Patients with high-grade transformation at diagnosis were excluded. For patients with &gt;1 extranodal site, each location was counted independently. We considered FDG-avid disease if SUVmax was ≥2 as this value is commonly observed between mediastinal blood pool (BP) and liver background. To normalize data, we calculated ratios of lymphoma SUVmax versus both BP and liver background, as available. Patients without measurable disease were excluded from analysis. Results: Among 210 patients with EMZL in the UM cohort, 152 had staging PET/CT and were analyzed. Twenty-two patients demonstrated &gt;1 extranodal site providing a total of 187 locations. The LEO cohort included 411 patients from 7 centers, with 235 having available imaging reports. Fifty-two patients in this cohort demonstrated &gt;1 extranodal site providing a total of 306 locations. Disease distribution is depicted in Table 1. Among 187 EMZL locations in the UM cohort, the most common were gastric (n=33, 17.6%), ocular (n=31, 16.6%), lung (n=30, 16%), skin and soft tissue (n=16, 8.6%, each). Similarly, lung (n=63; 20.6%), soft tissue (n=46; 15%), gastric and ocular (n=34 each; 11%) were common locations in the LEO cohort. EMZL demonstrated FDG-avidity (SUVmax ≥2) across all locations with identical values in both cohorts (UM= 78.1% & LEO= 76.5%). FDG-avidity by location is shown in Table 1A & B with salivary gland (100% & 100%), lung (93.3% & 95.2%), soft tissue (93.8% & 100%), and airways (90.9% & 100%) demonstrating high avidity in both cohorts. Contrarily, skin was commonly non-FDG avid (93.8% & 81%). The median size of FDG-avid lesions was 2.4cm (range, 0.7-17.4) in UM and 2.9cm (range, 0.1-12) in LEO cohorts. In patients with &gt;1 extranodal site FDG-avidity was nearly universal across sites (UM=93% & LEO=100%). We observed a significant correlation between lymphoma size and FDG-avidity for UM (r=0.33; P=0.001), and for LEO (r=0.55; P&lt;0.0001). In patients with background FDG-avidity data in the UM cohort (n=150), a BP index and liver index ≥1 detected lymphoma in 79.3% & 71.5% cases, respectively. We were unable to calculate indexes in LEO cohort since only limited data on BP (n=26) and liver (n=19) background was available in imaging reports. Conclusions: This study represents the largest analysis evaluating accuracy of PET/CT to determine initial tumor burden in 387 patients with EMZL. We demonstrate that EMZL is largely an FDG-avid disease across two cohorts, and PET/CT should be included in the staging of these patients while acknowledging possible limited sensitivity in GI locations due to physiologic uptake. Furthermore, we observed that patients with multiple extranodal locations demonstrate uniform FDG-avidity across all sites except for skin involvement. Based on our results we recommend the incorporation of PET/CT into standard staging of EMZL in planned revised Lugano classification guidelines. In those demonstrating initial FDG-avidity, a lower SUVmax threshold of SUVmax ≥2, comparison to mediastinal BP rather than to liver background activity and evaluating for resolution of focal FDG-avidity should be considered to assess treatment response in routine care and clinical trials.