Citations

Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that responses to CPI in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) may be adversely affected by the reductions in microbiome diversity associated with concomitant antibiotic (abx) exposure. Given the increasingly key role that CPI-based regimens (CPI+) appear to have on improving post-ASCT outcomes, we evaluated the potential impact of abx exposure on CPI+ efficacy and post-ASCT outcomes in RRHL patients treated with CPI+ prior to ASCT. Methods This retrospective study of RRHL patients at 11 US academic centers included patients ≥18 who received CPI+ between 1/2012-12/2022. Patient/disease characteristics, treatment histories, outcomes, and abx exposure (2 weeks prior to and 30 days after CPI+) were collected by participating sites and analyzed centrally. Primary and key secondary objectives were overall response rate (ORR) to CPI+ by Lugano criteria, and PFS/overall survival (OS) by abx exposure. PFS/OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and compared by log-rank tests. Univariate and multivariate regression models evaluated the impact of abx exposure on ORR/complete response rate (CR)/PFS/OS. Results 237 patients with median follow-up of 3.20 and 2.73 years from CPI+ initiation and ASCT, respectively, were evaluated. At diagnosis: median age 30.6 (range 7.8 - 71.7) years, female (53.6%), nodular sclerosing (75.1%), and stages I-IIB/bulky and III/IV (73.4%). 1L regimens were ABVD/ABVD-like (75.5%), brentuximab vedotin (BV)+AVD (15.2%), and other (9.3%). 65.8% received 6 cycles of chemotherapy, and 10.5% received 1L radiation. End of 1L responses were CR (39.7%), partial response (PR; 13.1%), refractory disease (37.6%), and unknown (8.0%). Median time to first relapse from diagnosis was 0.95 (range 0.15 - 22.2) years. All patients underwent ASCT after 1 (58.2%), 2 (22.8%), or 3+ (19.0%) lines of salvage. CPI+ was given as 1st (65.8%), 2nd (21.5%), or 3rd+ (12.5%) salvage therapy. CPI+ included BV-nivolumab (44.3%) + ipilimumab (7.2%), pembrolizumab, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and liposomal doxorubicin (P-GVD; 24.5%), and CPI-monotherapy (20.2%). ORR to CPI+ was 88.0% (CR 68.4%) in all lines; as 1st salvage ORR was 91.7% (CR 76.3%). 75.1% of patients underwent ASCT in CR (PR 19.4%) increasing to 91.1% CR after ASCT. At 3-years, PFS was 88.0% (95% CI: 83.5% - 92.8%) and OS was 94.8% (95% CI: 91.3% - 98.3%) for the full cohort. Overall, 46.8% patients were abx exposed during CPI+, 22.8% fluoroquinolone/beta-lactams (BL) prophylaxis (ppx) and 38.8% abx [BL 29.5%, carbapenems (CB) 12.2%, vancomycin (VM) 19.8%, anti-pseudomonas (PA) 24.9%, anti-MRSA (SA) 22.4%, anti-anaerobe (AN) 16.5%] for suspected/documented infection. Use of ppx, BL, CB, VM, PA, SA were significantly higher with CP1+ as 2nd+ vs 1st salvage. At 3-years, PFS (87.0% vs 88.4%, p=0.91) and OS (92.5% vs 95.8%, p=0.47) were similar for abx exposed vs naïve patients, respectively. On univariate analysis, line of salvage and CPI+ regimen (Cytotoxic vs Monotherapy) were associated with ORR/CR, while overall abx exposure was not associated with inferior ORR (OR 0.62; p=0.24), CR (OR 0.85, p=0.56), PFS (HR 0.95, p=0.91), or OS (HR 1.58, p=0.47). When adjusted for line of salvage and CPI+ regimen, exposure to BL, CB, VM, PS, SA, or AN, abx indication (ppx vs treatment), duration of abx exposure (<7 vs ≥7 days) by class were all not associated with ORR/CR or PFS/OS. Conclusion In this large cohort abx exposure does not appear to adversely affect ORR/CR to CPI+ or PFS/OS following ASCT, when adjusted for line of CPI+ salvage and CPI+ regimen. Our findings may be related the high proportion of patients (79.8%) receiving CPI-combinations compared to CPI monotherapy (20.2%), whereas in previous series all patients received CPI without cytotoxic agents. This observation could be related to intrinsic antimicrobial activities of some cytotoxic agents (e.g. gemcitabine and doxorubicin) that may overshadow impact from concomitant abx exposure. Alternatively, the lack of effect could be related to the inherent fitness of patients with RRHL who undergo ASCT, compared to those treated with CPI+ following ASCT or those with solid tumors receiving where abx exposure may indicate an overall sicker/higher-risk population. Overall, our findings demonstrate that combination of CPI with BV or chemotherapy may overcome any adverse impact of abx on the efficacy of CPI+ prior to ASCT.

Introduction: Pembrolizumab Gemcitabine Vinorelbine and Liposomal Doxorubicin (P-GVD) has become a commonly employed regimen for the treatment of relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL), often preceding autologous stem cell transplant in patients with good response. The utilization of P-GVD is based on a 38-evaluable patient prospective trial (Moskowitz et al. JCO 2021). There remains minimal data regarding the efficacy of this regimen in a larger, real-world cohort. Methods:Patients with CHL who received P-GVD at 9 United States centers were retrospectively evaluated to estimate efficacy and safety, with a focus on the second line use of this regimen. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from medical records. Responses reflected Lugano criteria per local investigator assessment. Study objectives were overall response rates (ORR), complete response rates (CRR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. PFS and OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier. Results: Patients and Treatment: We identified 65 CHL patients who received P-GVD between July 2019 and June 2024, including 43 who were treated in the second line. Enrolled patients included a median age of 31 years (range 17-69 years), 36.9% (24) females, 75.4% (49) nodular sclerosing subtype, and 60% (39) stage III-IV at diagnosis. Patients included 64.6% (42) White and non-Hispanic, 15.4% (10) Hispanic or White and Hispanic, 10.8% (7) Black, 3.1% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.1% (2) other, and 3.1% (2) unknown. The median number of prior regimens was 1 (range 0-12); these included 3.1% (2) who had prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI), 50.8% (33) who had prior brentuximab vedotin (BV), and 3.1% (2) who had prior transplant. Patients with primary refractory disease [no initial complete response (CR)] comprised 58.5% (38), and 35.4% (23) had relapse within 1 year of completing initial therapy. The median number of cycles received was 3 (range 1-5). Treatment in a community practice setting was noted for 21.5% (14) patients. Efficacy: At a median follow up of 17.7 months, ORR and CRR after P-GVD were 95% (62/65) and 74% (48/65), respectively. This increased to 95% ORR and 81% CRR when limited to 43 patients who were treated 2nd line. Responses by line included: 1st [n=1; 100% ORR and CRR]; 3rd [n=15; 100% ORR, 73.3% CRR], 4th [n=3; 100% ORR, 33.3% CRR], 5th [n=2; 100% ORR, 0% CRR], and 13th [n=1; SD]. CRR in BV- and CPI-exposed patients were 60.6% and 50%, respectively. Ninety one percent (39) of 2nd line treated patients proceeded to autologous transplant, as well as all 3 patients > age 60. Among 41 response-evaluable second-line patients, CR was achieved in 94% (30/32) who received 2 or 3 cycles of P-GVD, and 56% (5/9) who received 4 cycles of P-GVD. For the entire cohort at 12 and 24 months after starting P-GVD, PFS was 95% (95% CI: 89-100%), 91% (95% CI: 83-100%) and OS was 98% (95% CI: 94-100%), 94% (95% CI: 86-100%), respectively. Ninety five percent (41) of 2nd line transplanted patients remain alive and in remission at a median of 18.5 months (range 3.5-38.7 months). In the primary refractory subset, PFS and OS at 24 months were 91% and 97%, respectively. For the cohort with 2 or more prior lines of therapy, PFS and OS at 24 months were 91% and 94%, respectively. Safety: Immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) were reported in 20% (13) of patients, of which grade 3 IRAEs per NCCN criteria version 1.2024 comprised 38.5%; all others were grades 1-2. Non-IRAE grade 3-4 toxicities per CTCAE version 5.0 were reported in 22% (14) patients. Of 29 patients evaluable for treatment-related interruptions, 7% (2) had therapy discontinued, and 34% (10) had holds, dose reductions, and/or delays. No deaths were attributed to P-GVD treatment. Conclusions:This retrospective study confirms the utility of P-GVD in treating relapsed/refractory CHL in a real-world population. Though fewer CRs and higher rates of grade 3 adverse events were observed, the vast majority of patients were able to proceed to transplant, and outcomes to date are highly encouraging.

Background Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma Patients (PCNSL) is a rare and aggressive form of NHL in the central nervous system or vitreoretinal space. Despite high initial response rates of high dose methotrexate-based regimens, most patients will relapse in less than two years with poor prognosis. There are no approved treatments for Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) PCNSL, representing a clear unmet medical need. IRAK4 kinase activity is required for TLR and IL-1R signaling in a variety of myeloid and lymphoid cell types, including PCNSL. Recruitment of IRAK4 to these receptors and subsequent activation is facilitated by the MyD88 adaptor protein, which is mutated in ~70% of PCNSL. This leads to constitutive activation of the NF-κB signaling pathway, increased inflammation, and tumor growth. Emavusertib is a novel and potent oral inhibitor of IRAK4, which has demonstrated the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier in PCNSL xenografts. In preclinical studies, the combination of emavusertib with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) showed in vitro synergy of inhibition and re-sensitization of BTKi-resistant cell lines. Emavusertib + ibrutinib has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile across a broad population of R/R NHL patients, including PCNSL. Aim We present updated safety and efficacy of emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib in patients with R/R PCNSL most recently treated with BTKi regimen. Methods The safety, clinical activity, and potential biomarkers of emavusertib in R/R PCNSL are being investigated in the ongoing open-label, Phase 1/2 TakeAim Lymphoma trial (NCT03328078). The eligible patients with R/R PCNSL received emavusertib (100-300 mg BID) in combination with ibrutinib (560 mg QD) continuously until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity. Disease staging at screening and anti-cancer therapeutic responses were evaluated according to the IPCG Response Criteria Guideline for PCNSL. Results As of 10 July 2024, 13 R/R PCNSL patients, with prior BTK exposure, received emavusertib at 100 - 300 mg BID in combination with ibrutinib at 560mg QD. The median age was 60 years (range 44 - 79). The median number of prior lines of anti-cancer therapies was 2 (range 2 - 5). Median emavusertib/ibrutinib treatment duration was 51 days (range 17 - 503). The preliminary efficacy data in 12 evaluable patients whose most recent treatment regimen included a BTKi and were treated with the combination of emavusertib and ibrutinib showed 3 complete remission (CR), 1 unconfirmed complete Response (CRu) and 2 partial responses (PR) and an overall response rate of 50%. Treatment is on-going for 5 patients with one patient pending the first assessment. All responders demonstrated more than 80% reduction in target lesion size compared to baseline. Two of the responders with a CR demonstrated durable response, with 1 patient having a duration of response (DOR) of approximately 9 months, and the second patient having a DOR of 12 months with response ongoing. Grade ≥3 Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 7 (53.8%) patients, while Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 4 (30.8%) patients. No fatal TRAE were reported and the majority of Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs and all Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs were reversible and manageable. Conclusion Emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib shows promising efficacy and was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile in R/R PCNSL patients with prior BTKi exposure. The combination of emavusertib + ibrutinib may overcome BTKi resistance and has the potential to show improved anti-cancer activity. Enrollment in this trial is ongoing (NCT03328078).

2087 Background: PCNSL is a rare and aggressive form of NHL in the central nervous system or vitreoretinal space. Despite high initial rates of responses to HD-MTX-based induction chemotherapies, most patients relapse in two years. R/R PCNSL is associated with poor prognosis, representing a clear unmet medical need, as there are no currently approved treatments for this disease. IRAK4 kinase activity is required for TLR and IL-1R signaling in a variety of myeloid and lymphoid cell types, including PCNSL. Recruitment of IRAK4 to these receptors and subsequent activation is facilitated by the MyD88 adaptor protein, which is mutated in ~70% of PCNSL. This leads to constitutive activation of the NF-κB signaling pathway, increased inflammation, and tumor growth. Emavusertib is a novel and potent oral inhibitor of IRAK4 and FLT3, which has demonstrated the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier in PCNSL xenografts. In preclinical studies, the combination of emavusertib with ibrutinib overcomes resistance to BTK inhibitors. This combination has an acceptable safety profile across a broad population of R/R NHL patients, including PCNSL. Here we present updated safety and efficacy data for emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib in patients with R/R PCNSL. Methods: The safety, clinical activity, and potential biomarkers of emavusertib in R/R PCNSL are being investigated in the ongoing open-label, Phase 1/2 TakeAim Lymphoma trial (NCT03328078). The eligible patients with R/R PCNSL received emavusertib (100-300 mg BID) in combination with ibrutinib (560 mg QD) in a 21-day cycle until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: Here, we present updated data from R/R PCNSL patients with prior ibrutinib exposure who were treated with emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib. The median number of prior lines of anti-cancer therapies was 3 (range: 2-5), all patients were R/R to both frontline therapy and subsequent ibrutinib regimens. Prior responses to ibrutinib based regimens included only 1 CR. Here, we report a higher CR rate when these patients are subsequently treated with emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib.Results revealed no dose-limiting toxicities. Conclusions: Emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile and promising efficacy in R/R PCNSL patients with previous exposure to ibrutinib (BTKi). Enrollment in this trial is ongoing (NCT03328078). Clinical trial information: NCT03328078 .

The treatment of Waldenström macroglobulinemia/lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (WM/LPL) has evolved to include several new options. The NCCN Guidelines for WM/LPL provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding diagnosis, treatment, assessment of response to treatment, and follow-up of both newly diagnosed and previously treated WM/LPL.

The treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM) has evolved to include several new options. These include new combinations with second generation proteasome inhibitors (PI); second generation immunomodulators, monoclonal antibodies, CAR T cells, bispecific antibodies, selinexor, venetoclax, and many others. Most patients with MM undergo several cycles of remissions and relapse, and therefore need multiple lines of combination therapies. Selecting treatment options for relapsed/refractory MM requires consideration of resistance status to specific classes, and patient-specific factors such as age and other comorbidities should be considered. The NCCN Guidelines for MM provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding workup, treatment, and follow-up of newly diagnosed and previously treated MM. This manuscript outlines the recommendations from NCCN Guidelines for MM specific to relapsed/refractory disease.

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.