Citations

Abstract Little is known about the central nervous system (CNS) risk in high-grade B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBL NOS). Hence, we sought to describe the rates of baseline CNS involvement, risk of CNS recurrence after primary therapy, and management strategies in HGBL NOS. In this multicenter retrospective study, we included 160 adults with newly diagnosed HGBL NOS treated between 2016 and 2021 at 20 US institutions. Eleven patients (7%) had baseline CNS involvement at diagnosis (leptomeningeal = 6, parenchymal = 4, and both = 1). Baseline CNS involvement was significantly associated only with MYC rearrangement (OR = 3.5) and testicular (in men) or female pelvic (in women) involvement (OR = 8.1). There was no significant difference in survival outcomes between patients with HGBL NOS with (median PFS = 4 years) or without (median PFS = 2.4 years) baseline CNS involvement (P = 0.45). The cumulative incidence of CNS recurrence at 3 years was 11%. Patients with baseline CNS involvement were at the highest risk (48.5% vs 8% for those without baseline CNS involvement) and were excluded from the risk factors analysis for CNS recurrence. The risk for CNS recurrence was significantly associated with blood or bone marrow involvement, CD5 expression, non–germinal center B-cell subtype, and “dual-expresser lymphoma” phenotype, however, high CNS IPI was not. The prognosis of relapsed HGBL NOS was poor, regardless of whether recurrence was systemic or limited to the CNS, and with currently available salvage strategies, including autologous transplantation and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell modalities, almost all patients with CNS recurrence ultimately succumbed to their disease.

7533 Background: Maintenance treatment (rx) with lenalidomide (R) improves overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma (MM). We report a retrospective cohort of patients (pts) with second primary B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) diagnosed after R-rx for MM. Methods: We included pts who were exposed to at least 1 yr of R for MM rx prior to ALL dx. After approval by institutional review board, data were collected by chart review at participating centers using Redcap. OS was the primary endpoint. We used BlueSky statistics v10.3.1 for analysis. Results: Analysis included 33 ALL pts diagnosed from 2014-2022 at 7 sites. 52% pts were female. Median follow up was 9.6 yrs (95%CI,7.6-11.8) from MM dx and 3.2 yrs (CI, 2.1-4.7) from ALL dx. Pt characteristics at MM dx are given in Table. Induction rx included: proteasome inhibitor (PI) +immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) (43%), PI+alkylator (24%), IMiD (18%) & others (15%). 50% pts received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Median OS from MM dx was 11.2 yrs (CI, 8.9-NR). Time from MM dx and initial R rx to ALL dx were 5.0 yrs (range, 2.4-18.5) and 4.4 yrs (2.2-10.6) respectively. Median duration of R exposure before ALL dx was 3.8 yrs (1.6-10.4). Table shows characteristics of pts at B-ALL dx and genetic classification based on karyotyping (n=30), ALL FISH (n=28), chromosomal microarray (n=5) and next-generation sequencing (n=5). 31 pts received ALL-directed rx while 1 pt was initially managed with close observation as the pt attained CR on stopping R ( Lakshman et al; ASH 2019 ). Rx was unknown in 1 pt. Initial rx included: hyper-CVAD+/- rituximab- 49%, pediatric inspired protocols-18%, reduced intensity rx for frail pts- 21% and others- 12%. Response to first line rx were: CR- 56%, CRi- 28%, induction failure- 16%. 32% pts attained measurable residual disease (MRD) negativity. 48% pts underwent SCT for ALL. 14 pts died during follow up. 3-yr OS from ALL-dx was 50% (CI, 33%-76%). 3 pts required rx for MM after ALL diagnosis (2 had allo-SCT for ALL before MM relapse). Conclusions: Most pts had standard risk MM and were exposed to R for several years prior to dx of B-ALL, characterized by high incidence of hypodiploid karyotype; IKZF1 loss and TP53 deletions/mutations were detected in a subset of pts.MRD-adapted timely discontinuation of R in standard risk MM may decrease risk of second primary ALL. [Table: see text]

11079 Background: Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) inform the standard of care in cancer treatment yet have a mixed track record of success. In this study, we sought to 1) determine the overall success rate of phase 3 RCTs; 2) assess whether authorship patterns differ between successful (positive) and unsuccessful (negative) trials; and 3) explore if individual authors have distinct track records of success. Methods: The HemOnc knowledgebase (KB) was queried for initial publications of phase 3 RCTs of systemic anticancer therapy; those without primary outcome described were excluded. RCTs were labeled positive if the primary endpoint was met per HemOnc standard criteria (P value ≤ 0.05 or hazard ratio upper bound ≤ 1 for any experimental arm[s]) and negative if they did not meet these criteria or if the experimental arm was statistically inferior. Trial metadata and author information were extracted from the HemOnc KB. Author positive publication rate (PPR) was defined as % of publications reporting a positive result divided by total number of eligible publications. Prolific authors were defined as those with 6+ eligible publications. Author count for manuscripts reporting positive vs negative results was evaluated with the Mann-Whitney U test; other statistics were descriptive. Results: 3328 studies met criteria as of February 5, 2024; these were associated with 3305 initial publications between 1960-2023, involving 25,412 unique authors. 1474 (44.3%) of the studies were positive. Publications reporting positive trial results had, on average, 3 more authors, median (interquartile range) of 18 (12-23) vs 15 (11-20), p<0.0001. The mean (±SD) PPR for n=1967 prolific authors was 47.7% (±22.3%). The PPR was not related to individual author output; mean PPR for non-prolific authors was 48.0% (SD not reported). Differences in PPR were apparent by the disease under study and the years of publication (Table). Among the 46 prolific authors who had a PPR 2+ SD above the mean, 26 (55%) were from China followed by Italy with 3 (6%). Conclusions: Despite known positive publication bias, the success rate of published phase 3 RCTs remains <50%. Publications reporting positive results had significantly more authors; this finding requires further study including adjustment for trial sample size. Significant variation in PPR amongst fields could be due to watershed therapeutic advances, differential selection of primary endpoints, and/or selective reporting of results. Finally, a signal for geographic association of outlier PPRs suggests the need for further investigation. [Table: see text]

11030 Background: Drug regulators operate on their own timelines to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs and/or extensions to existing indications, such that there are delays between regulators. During such a gap, patients in the “early” domain have access to the approved drug, while those in the “late” domain do not, outside of compassionate use. Our study aimed to quantify the “opportunity lost” for new therapies approved by FDA and EMA, assuming patients in the late domain receive standard-of-care (SOC) therapy – which is presumably inferior to the new drug – during the gap. Methods: Anticancer drugs approved by both FDA and EMA were identified through the HemOnc knowledgebase. Inclusion criteria included: 1) drugs approved in both domains based on the same randomized clinical trial (RCTs) for the same indication; 2) a primary time-to-event endpoint; and 3) a quantitated median time-to-event for the primary endpoint. For each included trial, the approval gap between FDA and EMA in days and the ratio of approval gap to median control arm time-to-event duration was calculated. A ratio ≥2 implies that, on average, no late domain patients starting treatment in the first half of the gap would be expected to have access to the new drug prior to an event. Results: Of 60 eligible RCTs, 59 had calculable median event durations. 25 (42%) had a primary overall survival endpoint; the most common surrogate endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; 29/59; 49%). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) approval gap was 186 (124-271) days, with FDA being the first approver in 56/59 (95%) cases. The median (IQR) ratio of approval gap to median control arm event duration was 0.63 (0.35-1.11). Drugs with ratio ≥2 (Table) were targeted or immunotherapies; 7/8 (88%) were approved with PFS endpoint; 5/8 (62.5%) were approved for second line or later. Conclusions: Our study shows that FDA approves most drugs prior to EMA and a nontrivial number of patients may experience progression or death events while awaiting access to anticancer therapies already approved in another domain. The analysis does not take into consideration scenarios in which the new therapy is inferior to SOC or delays in patient access (due to slow uptake; regulatory barriers [in Europe/UK]; or patient affordability [in US]). Further regulatory collaboration (e.g., Project Orbis) between FDA and EMA could help to reduce and potentially ameliorate this differential in access to new cancer drugs in the future. [Table: see text]

11023 Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in cancer typically compare experimental to control arm regimens. The choice of an appropriate control (ctrl) arm can have a major impact on the expected success of an RCT. The frequency with which cancer RCTs use control arms based on established dosing and scheduling protocols has not been described. Methods: The HemOnc knowledgebase (KB) was used to identify systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) regimen variants, defined as regimens with identical components that differ in dosing, scheduling, and/or route. Non-cancer, nonrandomized, and non-SACT studies were excluded. Study publication year was used to define standard variants as those evaluated in the experimental arm of a positive phase 3 RCT >1 year prior to publication as a control arm, regardless of cancer type or context of treatment. Study-variant dyads were evaluated to determine whether the variant was standard. Success rates of RCTs with standard vs non-standard control arms were evaluated with Fisher’s exact test. Results: 5221 studies were associated with ≥1 named variant in the HemOnc KB, as of 2024-02-06. After exclusions, there were 3511 study-variant dyads (2386 studies; 1714 variants). The 9 most common regimens are shown in the Table. The median (IQR) number of variants per regimen was 2 (1-3); carboplatin & paclitaxel (CP) had the most variants (n=33). Across all control arm study-variant dyads, 2228/3492 (64%) utilized non-standard variants. For example, 60/97 studies (62%) of docetaxel as control used the 75 mg/m2 q3wk variant after it was established in 2000, whereas n=27 others used 19 non-standard variants. Trials that used a standard control arm had a numerically higher success rate, 45% vs 42% (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.32). Conclusions: Non-standard regimen variants are frequently used in cancer RCTs. Reasons for this could include toxicity, patient convenience, or emerging data from smaller studies that establish comparable efficacy or improved toxicity to standard variants. However, the a priori efficacy of non-standard control arms is less rigorously established, and trials with standard control arms might be more successful. Future directions include quantifying the granular differences between standard and non-standard variants and investigating whether certain types of non-standard variation (e.g. fewer cycles, lower doses) associate with trial success rates. [Table: see text]

Abstract Rationale Hospital readmission within 30 days poses challenges for healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients because of its impact on care quality, costs, and outcomes. Patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) are particularly affected by readmission, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and reduced quality of life. Because small sample sizes have hindered previous studies, this study seeks to address this gap in knowledge by examining a large-scale dataset. Objective To determine the rate and probability of 30-day all-cause readmission and secondary outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) or ILD admitted to the hospital. Methods This study is a nested cohort study that used the PearlDiver patient records database. Adult patients (age ⩾18 yr) who were admitted to hospitals in 28 states in the United States with COVID-19 or ILD diagnoses were included. We defined and analyzed two separate cohorts in this study. The first cohort consisted of patients with COVID-19 and was later divided into two groups with or without a history of ILD. The second cohort consisted of patients with ILD and was later divided into groups with COVID-19 or with a non–COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis at admission. We also studied two other subcohorts of patients with and without idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis within the second cohort. Propensity score matching was employed to match confounders between groups. The Kaplan-Meier log rank test was applied to compare the probabilities of outcomes. Results We assessed the data of 2,286,775 patients with COVID-19 and 118,892 patients with ILD. We found that patients with COVID-19 with preexisting ILD had an odds ratio of 1.6 for 30-day all-cause readmission. Similarly, an odds ratio of 2.42 in readmission rates was observed among hospitalized individuals with ILD who contracted COVID-19 compared with those who were hospitalized for non–COVID-19 pneumonia. Our study also found a significantly higher probability of intensive care admission among patients in both cohorts. Conclusions Patients with ILD face heightened rates of hospital readmissions, particularly when ILD is combined with COVID-19, resulting in adverse outcomes such as decreased quality of life and increased healthcare expenses. It is imperative to prioritize preventive measures against COVID-19 and establish effective postdischarge care strategies for patients with ILD.

Introduction: Lineage switch (LS) refers to the transformation of acute leukemia from one cell lineage to another (e.g., lymphoid (ALL) to myeloid (AML)). This rare phenomenon, distinct from treatment induced malignancy (i.e., t-AML) and mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL), is increasingly being observed following cell surface antigen targeting. Given challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of LS, Project EVOLVE was developed to globally identify cases of LS following immunotherapy. Methods: A protocol and data collection form for this IRB exempt study was widely disseminated to capture deidentified LS case information across multiple centers and cancer consortia. This included collection of data from published reports of LS, with authors contacted to obtain additional information. For this analysis, LS was defined by the emergence of cell-surface markers warranting reclassification of the original leukemia as a different lineage derivation based on the immunophenotype, including cases of AML emerging alongside the original ALL. “Confirmed” LS cases included those where retention of original cytogenetic or molecular aberrations and/or the clonal immunoglobulin rearrangement patterns were verified to confirm the clonal relationship. “Suspected” LS cases included those where samples to confirm clonality marker retention could not be obtained, but the clinical presentation was consistent with LS. The term “transition” was applied when immunophenotypic shifts were transient. Cases with new cytogenetic abnormalities unrelated to the original diagnosis and compatible with t-AML were excluded. Statistical analysis was primarily descriptive. Data cut-off was July 26, 2023. Results: A total of 58 cases were identified, including 19 cases referenced in prior publications. Of the 58, 11 cases were excluded from this initial analysis, including: 4 cases of t-AML, 2 cases of T-ALL to AML, and 5 “transition” cases. Collectively, 47 cases of LS (43 “confirmed”; 4 “suspected”), spanning across 3 continents and 8 countries, were analyzed. (Fig. 1A) Cases included transition from B-ALL to AML in 36 (76.6%) and to MPAL/biphenotypic/ambiguous lineage in 11 (23.4%). Two likely had MPAL at diagnosis and a third with chronic myeloid leukemia. The median age at initial diagnosis was 8.4 years (range, 1 day-76.5 years); median age at LS presentation was 11.0 years (range 0.4-77.3 years). Twenty-three (48.9%) were male and 19 (40.4%) had prior stem cell transplant (SCT). Baseline cytogenetics showed KMT2A rearrangement in 27 (57.4%). Baseline myeloid antigen co-expression was seen in 22 of 23 patients with submitted data, but variation in degree of expression across patients and antigens was substantial. The most proximal immunotherapy prior to development of LS was CAR T-cells in 23 (48.9%) and blinatumomab in 24 (51.1%). The median time from the most proximal immunotherapy to development of LS was 1.6 months (range, 7 days-36.5 months). In 7 (29.2%) patients receiving blinatumomab, LS developed during the infusion. LS presented as isolated marrow relapse in 27 (57.4%), isolated CNS in 2 (4.3%), isolated non-CNS extramedullary disease in 3 (6.4%), combined relapse in 14 (29.8%) and unreported in 1. First line treatment for LS was chemotherapy induction in 31 (66.0%), palliative care/no therapy in 8 (17.0%), and alternative therapies in the remaining 8 (17.0%). In 35 (74.5%) patients, remission induction was the goal of first line therapy. Fifteen (31.9%) achieved a complete remission (CR) of whom 2 were treated with palliative intent. Across all patients, 8 (17.0%) are alive in remission, the longest being 4.7 years from LS diagnosis; 2 (4.3%) are alive with active LS and 37 (78.7%) died from LS, their original disease, or complications of treatment of LS (Fig 1B). For those alive in CR (n=8), 7 (87.5%) proceeded to a consolidative SCT for treatment of LS and 1 patient, an octogenarian remains in remission after AML directed therapy. Conclusions: LS is emerging as an important mechanism of immune escape following immunotherapy. Project EVOLVE provides the largest dataset of patients with LS to date. This systematic, international effort reveals substantial complexity and variability in diagnosing and managing LS. Unfortunately, outcomes following LS are grim, underscoring the critical need to identify risk factors of and optimal therapies for this leukemia transformation.

CONCLUSION The most widely used multiple myeloma (MM) staging system, the Revised International Staging System (R-ISS), is based on lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), albumin, high-risk genetic markers by FISH, and beta-2 microglobulin (B2M). However, it does not account for additional risk impacted by multiple genetic abnormalities, or the risk imparted by presence of gain of chromosome 1q, and most patients are staged as R-ISS Stage 2. Two new staging systems, the Mayo Additive Staging System (MASS), and the Second Revision of the International Staging System (R2-ISS) have been recently proposed. A comparison of the performance of these two systems has not previously been done. We aimed to externally demonstrate the application of these staging systems and compare their performances in a large, contemporary cohort of patients in the United States. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database, comprising de-identified patient-level structured and unstructured data, curated via technology-enabled abstraction and originating from approximately 280 US cancer clinics (~800 sites of care). The study included newly diagnosed MM patients initiating treatment between January 1, 2016 and October 1, 2022. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to evaluate real-world overall survival (rwOS) and patients were followed from first-line treatment initiation (index date) until the first of death, end of the study period or last recorded activity. The log-rank test to compare survival curves across derived stages. Multivariable analysis was conducted using stratified Cox models to account for non-proportional hazards by age with covariate adjustment for race/ethnicity, sex, practice type (academic or community) and diagnosis year (2016-2019 vs 2020-2022). Discrimination and calibration were evaluated in crude models using Harrell's c-index and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. There were 497 patients with MM included. Patient characteristics are listed in Panel A. The distribution of patients across R-ISS stages were as follows, 24%, 63% and 13% for Stage 1, 2 and 3 respectively. rwOS differed across R-ISS stage (log-rank p = 0.0006) and the median OS (OS) was not reached (NR), 63, and 37 months for R-ISS stage 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 34%, 35% and 31% for MASS 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The corresponding survival curves were significantly different (p &lt; 0.0001), with associated mOS of 77, 61 and 45 months for MASS stages 1, 2, and 3, respectively. R2-ISS includes four risk categories (stages I-IV) and in our cohort, 20% (n = 100) were stage I (low), 126 (25%) were stage II (low-intermediate), 229 (46%) were stage III (intermediate), and 42 (9%) were stage IV (high). Survival across stages were significantly different (p&lt;0.0001), though the survival curves for low and low-intermediate, and intermediate-high and high, were clustered, suggesting comparable outcomes in stages I-II and stages III-IV. mOS for R2-ISS stages I, II, III, and IV was NR, 69, 50 and 51 months respectively (Panel B). In fully adjusted analyses, as compared to MASS I, the hazards of death were 2.0 (95% CI 1.3-3.2) for MASS II and 2.7 (1.7-4.2) for MASS III. The hazards of death were similar for R2-ISS low and low-int (HR for low-int vs low: 1.2 [0.7, 2.3]). As compared to R2-ISS low, the hazards of death were similarly higher for int-high and high (HRs: 2.4 [1.4, 4.1] and 2.6 [1.3, 5.2], respectively). Discrimination and calibration were similar across all staging systems (c = 0.6, and Hosmer-Lemeshow p&gt;0.05 for all three staging systems). Application of contemporary MM staging systems in a large cohort of US patients shows that they are prognostic for OS in MM. MASS demonstrated a greater separation for OS across stages, whereas R2-ISS intermediate-high and high were largely overlapping. Although our results demonstrate similar accuracy and reliability of MASS and R2-ISS, the discrimination of patients across different stages seen with the newer staging systems, as opposed to R-ISS, calls for greater use of these newer staging systems in routine clinical practice.