Citations

Background: Axi-cel is a US and EU-approved autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy for pts with relapsed/refractory large B cell lymphoma after 1 prior therapy as a result of ZUMA-7 (NCT. In ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216), the pivotal study which initially led to the approval of axi-cel in the 3L+ setting, the objective response rate was 83% (58% complete response rate; Locke et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019) and at 5 years follow up an OS rate of 42.6%, 5 years durable response and 5 years disease specific survival at 51% ( Neelapu et al. Blood 2023). T cell-related biology (Immunosign 21; Immunoscore®IC) measured pretreatment in the tumor microenvironment (TME) was associated with response to axi-cel ( Scholler et al., 2022). Increased density of activated PD-1+LAG-3+/−TIM-3−CD8+ T cells, measurable pretreatment, facilitates clinical response in pts post-axi-cel. This expanded analysis characterized the impact of axi-cel treatment on the TME immune contexture and examined associations between immune cell subsets and relapse. Methods: Baseline and post-infusion tumor biopsy samples were analyzed by multiplex immunohistochemistry ( Brightplex®). Four panels were developed and applied to assess T cell infiltration (CD3 CD8 FOXP3 TIM3 PD1 LAG3 TOX), regulatory T cell subtyping (CD3 CD8 GATA3 TBET RORg BCL6), T cell activation & exhaustion (CD3 CD8 TIM3 LAG3 PD1 GZMB KI67), macrophage (CD68 CD64 CD163 CD204 CD206 PDL1) and MDSC (CD3 CD11B CD68 CD14 CD15 LOX1 S100A9) subsets. Transcriptomic analysis was performed using nCounter® Pan Cancer panel. The association between T cell subtypes and macrophages cell subset density, and probability to relapse was evaluated. T test values were based on Brightplex analysis. Results: 34 tumor biopsies (16 at baseline, 18 post-infusion) from 26 pts were analyzed including 11 relapsed (6 CR/5 PR) and 15 durable response (15 CR). The baseline and post-infusion TME comprised all major macrophages, MDSC and T cell subsets, with diverse distribution across samples analyzed. Low proinflammatory M1 macrophage density was observed at baseline and post-infusion across patients. In relapsed patients, baseline tumors were enriched with a significantly higher proportion of protumoral M2 macrophage (p<0.0001). A shift of M1-M2 polarization was observed between baseline and post-infusion (Baseline 33%M1M2 / 65%M2, post infusion 76%M1M2 / 21%M2, p<0,0001) across the cohort. In contrast, in relapsed patients, M-MDSC cell density was significantly increased post treatment (p=0.0420). In addition, Innate lymphocyte cells subtype 2 (ILC2) cell density, previously described to be positively correlated with improved overall survival in CRC ( Huang et al. 2021 Cancers), was significantly decreased in relapsed patients post infusion (p=0.019).Post-infusion, durable response was associated with a significant increase in pan-Macrophages (p=0.0360) and cytotoxic T cell subset densities: CD8 naïve T cells (p=0.016); Activated Cytotoxic T cell (GZMB+)(p=0.0203); PD1+TIM3+LAG3- cytotoxic T cell (p=0.0117); CD8 regulatory T cell (FOXP3+)(p=0.012). Regarding T helper lineage, ongoing response was associated with a significant increase of: CD4 naïve T cells (p=0.021); T helper Th2 (p=0.020); cytotoxic T lymphocyte TC2 and TC1/TC2 cell densities (respectively p=0.0052 and 0.011).Additional characterization of the immune contexture and correlative analysis of cell subsets will be presented. Conclusion: These results suggest that baseline proportions of protumor M2 macrophages may predict disease relapse after axi-cel treatment. Following infusion, relapse is also associated with spatial enrichment of M-MDSC, whereas durable response is related to increases in T cell subpopulation densities inclusive of cytotoxic T cells, T helper, TC1/TC2 ratios and innate T-subpopulations. These findings suggest that axi-cel treatment drastically impacts tumor immune mobilization, infiltration and contexture, which correlates with long term response.

Introduction: Historically, older patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) were often deemed ineligible for curative-intent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) due to age and concern for increased toxicity related to comorbidities. We previously demonstrated in the pivotal ZUMA-7 study that older pts with R/R LBCL can safely receive axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) as second-line (2L) therapy with improved event-free survival (EFS), response rate, and quality of life compared with standard of care (SOC) based on results from the primary EFS analysis (Westin, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2023). At a median follow-up of 47.2 months (mo), results from the ZUMA-7 primary overall survival (OS) analysis demonstrated superior OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; stratified two-sided log-rank P=0.03; Westin, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023; NCT03391466). We now report updated efficacy and safety results from the primary OS analysis among ZUMA-7 pts aged ≥65 years (y) and ≥70 y. Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to axi-cel or SOC (2-3 cycles of platinum-based chemoimmunotherapy; responding pts proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT). The primary OS analysis occurred 5 y after the first pt was randomized (01/25/2018) per protocol. Other endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment and safety. A planned subgroup analysis of pts aged ≥65 y was conducted in addition to an analysis for those ≥70 y. Multivariate analyses were performed to examine treatment efficacy with axi-cel compared with SOC after adjusting for multiple covariates, including sex, disease type, molecular subgroup, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), tumor burden, and age; strata for these analyses included second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI), and relapsed vs refractory disease. Exploratory analyses were conducted to determine the association between OS and axi-cel product characteristics for pts aged ≥65 y. Results: A total of 109 pts were included in the analysis (axi-cel: 51 were ≥65 y, 26 of whom were ≥70 y, maximum age was 80 y; SOC: 58 were ≥65 y, 27 of whom were ≥70 y, maximum age was 81 y). Compared with SOC pts at baseline, more axi-cel pts had high-risk features, including aaIPI 2-3, elevated LDH, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma. At a median follow-up of 46.6 mo, OS was prolonged in the axicel vs SOC arm in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.691; 95% CI, 0.401-1.190) and for those ≥70 y (HR, 0.330; 95% CI, 0.135-0.809). Similar results were observed using the piecewise Cox regression model. The median OS for axi-cel and SOC pts was 43.5 mo (95% CI, 20.9-not estimable [NE]) and 19.6 mo (95% CI, 12.3-NE), respectively, among those aged ≥65 y, and 24.7 mo (95% CI, 12.8-NE) and 11.2 mo (95% CI, 6.1-NE), respectively, among those aged ≥70 y. In the SOC arm, 57% and 52% of pts received subsequent cellular immunotherapy off protocol in pts aged ≥65 y and ≥70 y, respectively. Multivariate analyses demonstrated an even greater OS benefit with axi-cel over SOC when adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.526; 95% CI, 0.266-1.041) and in pts aged ≥70 y (HR, 0.184; 95% CI, 0.045-0.755). PFS assessed by investigator confirmed benefit of axi-cel over SOC in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.406; 95% CI, 0.230-0.715) and in pts aged ≥70 y (HR, 0.206; 95% CI, 0.078-0.547). The median PFS for axi-cel and SOC pts was 28.7 mo (95% CI, 5.1-NE) and 5.0 mo (95% CI, 2.8-7.2), respectively, for those aged ≥65 y, and 11.4 mo (95% CI, 4.1-NE) and 2.7 mo (95% CI, 1.7-5.0), respectively, for those aged ≥70 y. No new treatment-related deaths occurred since the primary EFS analysis. There were no manufacturing failures for any pt who underwent leukapheresis. Similar associations between product characteristics and outcomes were observed among the elderly and overall populations, including improved OS associated with a greater (>median) proportion of juvenile or stem memory T-cell phenotype cells (CCR7+CD45RA+ T cells) in the axi-cel product among pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.369; 95% CI, 0.138-0.984). Conclusion: Axi-cel as 2L therapy prolonged survival over SOC in pts aged ≥65 y, including in pts aged ≥70 y. These findings confirm that age alone should not be a barrier for consideration of CAR T-cell therapy, supporting the use of axi-cel as a curative-intent 2L therapeutic option for older pts with R/R LBCL.

Background: To be useful across the broadest range of patients and clinical settings, clinical prediction models should be externally validated in different data sets and clinical settings and refined over time. In 2022, the HoLISTIC Consortium (www.hodgkinconsortium.org) developed and validated the A-HIPI model via TRIPOD guidelines for adults 18-65 with advanced stage classic Hodgkin Lymphoma (AS-HL) (Rodday et al., JCO 2023). The A-HIPI model, based on individual patient (pt) data from more than 5000 patients (pts) from North America, Europe, and Australia, predicts progression-free survival and overall survival within the first 5 years (PFS5 and OS5) based on pre-treatment pt and disease characteristics (www.qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_869/a-hipi). In collaboration with Brazilian clinical experts and researchers, we describe the performance of the A-HIPI in the Brazilian Prospective HL registry. Methods: The Brazilian Prospective HL registry (NCT02589548) was originally established in 2009 with the goal of evaluating risk factors, treatment, and disease outcomes. By 2022, 1357 pts with classic HL were registered with a median follow-up of 5 years for surviving patients (Biasoli I. HemaSphere 2022). 5-year PFS and OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Using the methodology for validation and calibration outlined in by Rodday et al., calculated risk scores were calculated for PFS5 and OS5. Harrell c-statistic and the Uno c-statistic were calculated to evaluate discrimination (i.e., differentiation of those at higher risk of having an event from those at lower risk) and plots of deciles of predicted vs. observed outcomes were created to assess calibration (i.e., how similar the predicted absolute risk of the model is to the true (observed) risk in an external cohort). In the primary A-HIPI analysis, laboratory values outside of permitted range were excluded and not imputed. This was checked in sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation for missing values; no substantial differences were noted. Thus, in the current validation, out-of-range lab values were excluded. There were no exclusions in the current analysis for early death, defined as deaths that occurred from the onset of first treatment until 30 days after its end. Pts with HIV were excluded from the assembled cohort. Results: 694 patients with AS-HL with the inclusion criteria of the original study were included in the present study. The median age was 30.9 years (range, 18-65) at diagnosis with 46% of the pts being female. 230 (33%) patients were classified as Stage IIB, 190 with Stage III (27.4%), and 274 (39.5%) with Stage IV. Bulky disease (>10 cm) was present in 226 patients (33%). Median hemoglobin was 11.6 g/dL (8-16.3), median albumin 3.63 g/dL (1.41-5.46), and median lymphocyte count was 1.5 x 10 3 µL (0.10-4.76). The 5-y PFS (PFS5) in the A-HIPI Brazilian validation dataset was 68.4% (95% CI: 64.7-71.9%) and the 5-y OS (OS5) was 86.0% (95% CI: 82.8-88.6).Harrell c-statistics for the A-HIPI model were 0.60 (95% CI, .56-.64) for 5-year PFS and 0.69 (95%CI, .64-.74) for 5-year OS and Uno c-statistics for the A-HIPI model were 0.63 (95% CI, .58-.68) for 5-year PFS and 0.72 (95%CI, .65-.78) for 5-year OS. Calibration plots (see figures) show the predicted A-HIPI model estimates were well calibrated with the observed outcomes in the Brazilian HL registry. Conclusions: Despite important differences between the original development cohort for A-HIPI and the Brazilian registry in patient and clinical characteristics (e.g., younger age at diagnosis, greater proportion of Stage IV disease) and the well characterized impact of income maldistribution and socio-economic status on clinical outcomes (Biasoli et al., Int J Cancer 2018), the A-HIPI clinical prediction tool performed well in the Brazilian Prospective Registry. This included evidence of adequate discrimination and calibration. Future studies are planned, including the impact of treatment selection and response, use of interim imaging, and supportive care may underscore important differences in outcomes among adults with AS-HL.

Background: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 94% and a complete response (CR) rate of 79% in patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more prior lines of therapy in the ZUMA-5 trial ( Jacobson et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022). Since its FDA approval in March 2021, there has been little evidence on comparative effectiveness (CE) studies of axi-cel vs standard-of-care (SoC), except ones using ZUMA-5 and historical SCHOLAR-5 data (eg, Ghione et al. Blood. 2022). This study was aimed to address this evidence gap in CE of axi-cel vs SoC used to treat r/r FL in real-world settings. Methods: The two data sources in this study were patients who received commercial axi-cel between March 2021 and May 2023 from the CIBMTR and patients who received historical SoC (eg, chemotherapy, anti-CD20 mAb + chemotherapy, immunomodulatory imide drugs) between July 2014 and December 2020 from SCHOLAR-5, which served as an external control of ZUMA-5 trial. The index date was defined as the initiation date of either the infusion for axi-cel patients or the last eligible systemic therapy for SoC patients. Patients were included if they were age ≥ 18, had documented r/r FL with histological grade 1, 2 or 3a, and received at least 2 prior lines of therapy at the index. Patients were excluded if they had transformed diffused large B-cell lymphoma, central nervous system involvement, prior receipt of CAR T or other non-CAR T cellular therapies or allogeneic stem cell transplant, or no post-index information on outcomes. Four effectiveness outcomes were ORR, CR rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Imbalance in observed prognostic risk factors between the two was adjusted via a propensity score analysis using the standard mortality ratio weighting (SMRW). The primary analyses included weighted univariable analysis and multivariable logistic (ORR and CR rate) or Cox (PFS and OS) regressions that were adjusted for the covariates after the SMRW. A sub-analysis of patients age ≥ 65 was conducted using the same methods as the primary analyses. Results: The unweighted study cohort included 376 patients, in which 256 (68%) received axi-cel . Thepatients who received axi-cel were more likely to be younger (median age 61 for axi-cel vs 67 for SoC), have grade 3a FL (37% vs 12%), received 3 or more prior lines of therapy (83% vs 58%), or remained refractory to the last prior therapy (79% vs 73%) vs those who received SoC. The imbalance in the observed prognostic risk factors was mitigated via the SMRW. The weighted univariable analysis, in which the sample size by treatment reflected the SMRW, is shown in Table 1. In patients of all ages, ORR was 92% in axi-cel vs 67% in SoC, and CR rate was 84% vs 37%. Because of varying follow-up lengths by treatment (median 7 months for axi-cel and 37 months for SoC), survival outcomes were reported at month 6, at which time PFS rate was 88% in axi-cel vs 64% in SoC and OS rate was 97% vs 85%. The corresponding proportions for patients age ≥ 65 were similar to those reported for patients of all ages. In the weighted multivariable regressions, axi-cel was associated with statistically significantly better outcomes by all 4 effectiveness measures vs SoC (Table 1). Specifically, in patients of all ages, the odds ratios for axi-cel were 4.93 (95% CI, 2.35−10.34) for ORR and 16.72 (95% CI, 7.03−39.73) for CR rate, and the hazard ratios for axi-cel were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.22−0.77) for PFS and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.06−0.34) for OS. Similar to the patients of all ages in the primary analyses, patients age ≥ 65 in the sub-analysis also demonstrated improved outcomes associated with axi-cel (Figure 1). Conclusions: This study showed that patients with r/r FL after two or more prior lines of therapy treated with axi-cel experienced better outcomes compared with patients treated with SoC, and that older patients also benefited significantly from axi-cel. These findings suggest that axi-cel addresses an important unmet medical need in patients with r/r FL. Future research should include longer follow-up data on outcomes of axi-cel and CE of axi-cel vs other contemporary SoC therapies.

Background: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) LBCL. ZUMA-12 (NCT03761056) is a Phase 2, multicenter, single-arm study of axi-cel as part of first-line treatment in patients with high-risk LBCL. In the primary efficacy analysis (n=37; median follow-up of 15.9 months), axi-cel demonstrated a high rate of investigator-assessed complete response (CR; 78%; 95% CI, 62-90) and an 89% objective response rate (ORR; 95% CI, 75-97). Axi-cel also had a manageable safety profile, with no new safety signals observed in the first-line setting (Neelapu et al. Nat Med. 2022). Here, we report updated efficacy and safety outcomes from ZUMA-12 in all patients treated with axi-cel after a median follow-up of ≥40 months. Methods: Eligible adults had high-risk LBCL, with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (double- or triple-hit histology) per investigator or an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score ≥3, plus a positive interim PET per Lugano classification (Deauville score 4/5) after 2 cycles of an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and anthracycline-containing regimen. Patients underwent leukapheresis, followed by lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and fludarabine) on Days -5, -4, and -3, and a single axi-cel infusion of 2×10 6 CAR T cells/kg on Day 0. Per investigator discretion, non-chemotherapy bridging could be administered. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed CR rate per Lugano classification (Cheson et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014). Secondary endpoints included ORR, duration of response (DOR), event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and levels of CAR T cells in blood and cytokines in serum. Results: As of May 3, 2023, 42 patients were enrolled and 40 were treated with axi-cel, with a median follow-up of 40.9 months (range, 29.5-50.2). In total, 37 patients were evaluable for response (centrally confirmed double- or triple-hit histology or IPI score ≥3). The CR rate was 86% (95% CI, 71-95), and 92% (95% CI, 78-98) of patients had an objective response. Patients with centrally confirmed double- or triple-hit histology (n=10) had a CR rate of 90%. Responses were ongoing in 73% of response-evaluable patients at data cutoff. Medians for DOR, EFS, PFS, and OS were not reached. The 36-month estimates for DOR, EFS (Figure 1), PFS, and OS (Figure 2) were 82%, 73%, 75%, and 81%, respectively. All treated patients (n=40) experienced adverse events (AEs) of any grade and 88% of patients had grade ≥3 AEs. Similar to the primary analysis, the most common any-grade AEs were pyrexia (100%), headache (70%), and neutrophil count decreased (55%). No new cases of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or neurologic events of any grade occurred since the prior data cut and all cases of CRS and neurologic events reported were resolved by data cutoff. Prolonged cytopenias of any grade (present Day ≥30 post-infusion) occurred in 9 patients (n=7 neutrophil count decreased) and were resolved by data cutoff. There were 8 deaths due to progressive disease (n=5) and other causes not related to axi-cel (1 COVID-19, 1 esophageal adenocarcinoma, 1 septic shock on Days 350, 535, and 287 post axi-cel infusion, respectively). Two of the 8 deaths (1 progressive disease and 1 esophageal adenocarcinoma) occurred after the primary analysis. Among treated patients, post-infusion CAR T-cell expansion by peak and area under the curve was 36.9 cells/µL and 368.0 cells/µL×days, respectively, in those with ongoing responses at data cutoff (n=17), 45.1 cells/µL and 413.4 cells/µL×days in those who relapsed (n=6), and 34.7 cells/µL and 566.8 cells/µL×days in non-responders (n=3). Conclusion: In this updated analysis of ZUMA-12 with a median follow-up of ≥40 months, axi-cel demonstrated a high rate of durable responses and no new safety signals. Axi-cel may benefit patients exposed to fewer prior therapies and those with high-risk LBCL, a population with high unmet need and poor outcomes after standard first-line chemoimmunotherapy.

Background The class of CD20×CD3 bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) has emerged as an important anti-lymphoma modality for patients (pts) with R/R B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Odronextamab, a novel, off-the-shelf, CD20×CD3 BsAb, has previously demonstrated compelling efficacy in both R/R diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and R/R FL. In pts with R/R FL, odronextamab monotherapy achieved 75% complete response (CR) rates and encouraging durability of responses, and showed generally manageable safety, in the Phase 2 ELM-2 study (NCT03888105; Kim TM, et al. ASH. 2022). Here, we report the results of a second, pre-specified interim analysis of ELM-2. Methods Intravenous odronextamab was administered weekly in 21-day cycles during Cycles (C) 1-4. Optimization of the step-up regimen to further mitigate cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported previously (Kim TM, et al. ASH. 2022). Odronextamab was administered with steroid prophylaxis and step-up doses of 0.7/4/20 mg during C1, followed by 80 mg on Days 1, 8, and 15 of C2-4. After C4, odronextamab maintenance treatment continued at 160 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts who achieved a durable CR for ≥9 months transitioned to dosing every 4 weeks. A pre-specified interim analysis was performed when 80 pts had completed ≥12 months follow-up. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), assessed by independent central review (ICR) according to the Lugano classification. Key secondary endpoints included CR rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and changes in scores of patient-reported outcomes. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was included as an exploratory endpoint. Results At data cut off (Jan 31, 2023), the global study was fully enrolled and included 140 safety-evaluable pts with FL; 128 pts were efficacy-evaluable and 85 pts had ≥12 months follow-up. The median duration of study follow-up for efficacy was 26.6 months. In the safety-evaluable FL population, median age was 60.5 years (range 22-84), 53% were male, and pts had received a median of 3 (range 2-13) prior lines of therapy. 73% of pts were refractory to their last therapy, 41% were double refractory, and 74% were refractory to an anti-CD20 antibody. 50% of pts had progression of disease within 2 years (POD24) and 29% had a prior autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant. ORR and CR rate by ICR were 80% (102/128) and 72% (92/128), respectively, and were consistent across pts with high-risk features. Responses were durable, with both median DoR and duration of CR of 21.7 months; the probability of maintaining CR for 24 months was 48%. Median PFS was 20.7 months (95% CI: 16.7-26.5) and median OS was not reached; the probability of survival at 3 years was 63%. Patient-reported overall quality of life (QoL) scores were maintained during the course of treatment. MRD status at 12 weeks was highly predictive of PFS. Safety was generally consistent with previous reports, and no new treatment-related Grade (Gr) 5 events were recorded since the first interim analysis. The most common treatment-emergent AEs (>30% all grades) were CRS (55%), anemia (34%), neutropenia (34%), and pyrexia (33%). With the optimized 0.7/4/20 mg step-up regimen (n=72), 98% of CRS events were Gr 1/2, and only one pt had Gr 3 CRS. All CRS events resolved with supportive measures; 13 pts received tocilizumab for CRS management with the optimized regimen. Only one low-grade ICANS event was reported with the optimized regimen. Gr ≥3 infections occurred in 50 (36%) pts (Gr 5, n=14 [10%]); COVID-19 infections were reported in 46 (35%) pts (Gr 5, n=8 [6%]). Conclusions The results of this pre-specified analysis of the Phase 2 ELM-2 study continue to demonstrate deep and durable responses with odronextamab in heavily pretreated, refractory pts with R/R FL. 90% of responders were complete responders, with a 48% probability of maintaining CR for 2 years. High CR rates appear to translate to favorable, long-term survival outcomes in the setting of incurable disease. The incidence of AEs was consistent with earlier reports, with no new treatment-related Gr 5 events. Importantly, continued treatment with odronextamab had no detrimental effects on overall QoL. These data underscore the promise of odronextamab as a potentially effective agent for the management of R/R FL. Updated data will be presented.

Introduction: Axi-cel utilization expanded after demonstration of superior event-free survival in patients (pts) with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL (Locke, et al. NEJM. 2022) and was reinforced by improved overall survival (OS) among these pts (Westin, et al. NEJM. 2023). Despite increased demand, limited data exist on the impact of bridging therapies (BT) on pt outcomes. Thus, BT use between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion (LD) is largely at the discretion of treating physicians. Here, we assessed the impact of BT on effectiveness and safety outcomes after axi-cel. Methods: Pts receiving axi-cel for 3L+ LBCL in the US between 2017-2020 were prospectively collected through the CIBMTR registry in a post-authorization safety study; data up to May 2023 were included. Effectiveness outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Safety outcomes were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) per ASTCT grading, non-relapse mortality (NRM), and other key adverse events. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used in logistic and Cox regressions to account for potential confounding in BT use. For pts who had BT, effects of BT types and responses on outcomes were evaluated using conventional logistic and Cox regressions. Results: Of 1497 pts registered, 1307 had BT data available and were included (median follow-up, 36 mo). Overall, 430 pts (33%) received BT (median time from leukapheresis to LD, 23 days [IQR, 21-28]). Systemic therapy was used in 403 pts (31%), including 305 (23%) with chemotherapy (CT)-based BT (19% treated with CT + anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody [mAb; mainly rituximab] and 4% with CT only), and 98 (7%) with non-CT systemic therapy (Table). Radiotherapy (± systemic therapy) was used in 44 pts (3%). Pts with ≥3 lines of prior therapy (odds ratio [OR], 10.67 [95% CI, 7.17−15.87]) or mild hepatic impairment prior to infusion (OR, 1.64 [1.06−2.55]) were more likely to receive BT, while those with histologic transformation (OR, 0.69 [0.51−0.92]) or longer time from diagnosis to leukapheresis were less likely to receive BT. ORRs to axi-cel were 70% and 79% (CR rates 51% and 64%) for pts with or without BT, respectively. Unadjusted DOR, PFS, and OS at 3 years were 40%, 28%, and 37%, respectively, in pts with BT vs 49%, 39%, and 49%, respectively, in those without BT. After multivariate adjustment, no statistical significance was found between BT and any effectiveness outcome. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for BT were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.94-1.36) for PFS and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.92-1.34) for OS, respectively (Figure). Most safety endpoints were consistent regardless of BT. Grade ≥3 CRS and ICANS occurred in 12% and 30% of pts, respectively, who received BT vs 10% and 24% of pts who did not. Use of BT was associated with more frequent prolonged neutropenia (OR, 2.24 [1.44-3.50]) and thrombocytopenia (OR, 2.33 [1.67-3.24]), but not associated with a higher rate of infections or NRM (Table). Among pts receiving BT, 74 (17%) had a CR or partial response to BT. Of them, median PFS and median OS post infusion were 12.7 mo (3.8-not estimable [NE]) and 48.7 mo (18.6-NE), respectively. Response to BT was associated with increased CR rate (OR, 2.00 [1.07-3.75]), PFS (HR, 0.69 [0.49-0.99]), and OS (HR, 0.59 [0.40-0.88]) and decreased any-grade ICANS (OR, 0.51 [0.29-0.92]). When different BT strategies were considered, effectiveness and most safety outcomes for CT + anti-CD20 mAb vs non-CT treatment were comparable without significant difference. CT + anti-CD20 mAb was associated with improved ORR (OR, 1.90 [1.00-3.60]), PFS (HR, 0.69 [0.49-0.98]), and OS (HR, 0.66 [0.46-0.95]) but increased any-grade CRS (OR, 2.16 [1.02-4.57]) vs CT only. CT use was associated with an increased risk of prolonged thrombocytopenia (41% vs 24% for pts receiving non-CT treatment; OR, 2.37 [1.39-4.02]). No significant association was found between use of radiotherapy as BT and any outcome. Conclusion: These US real-world findings suggest that the addition of BT prior to axi-cel is associated with more frequent prolonged cytopenias but does not impact effectiveness or other critical safety outcomes. Response to BT may prognosticate more favorable outcomes after axi-cel infusion. Further study is warranted to identify the optimal bridging regimen.

Background: Goals of patient-centered care for management of relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL) are to improve clinical outcomes while maintaining or improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In ELM-2 (NCT03888105), a Phase 2, open-label, multicohort, multicenter study, odronextamab monotherapy demonstrated high and durable complete response rates and generally manageable safety in patients with R/R FL. We report here, for the first time, patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from ELM-2 in patients with R/R FL. Methods: Patients with R/R FL Grade 1-3a received odronextamab IV at 80 mg weekly in 21-day cycles in Cycles (C) 1-4. Optimization of the step-up regimen to mitigate cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported previously. Odronextamab was administered with steroid prophylaxis and step-up doses of 0.7/4/20 mg in C1, then 80 mg on Days 1, 8, and 15 of C2-4. After C4, odronextamab maintenance continued at 160 mg every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients with durable complete response (≥9 months) switched to dosing every 4 weeks. Patients completed EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT-Lym, and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires at Weeks 1 (baseline), 2, 3, 4, and 10, then every 8 weeks for the remainder of the first year and every 12 weeks in the second year. Results here focus on six key PRO scales: EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHS/QOL), physical functioning (PF), role functioning (RF), and fatigue; FACT-Lym lymphoma subscale (LymS); and EQ-5D-3L visual analog score (VAS). Longitudinal analyses using mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) were conducted through Week 50 (the last visit with ≥10 patients with PRO data). Changes from baseline were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval did not contain zero. No adjustment for multiplicity was performed, hence all statistical significance is nominal. Published ranges for minimum important difference (MID) to define clinically meaningful changes are: EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, 10 points; FACT-Lym LymS, 2.9-5.4 points; and EQ-5D-3L VAS, 7-12 points. For responder and time to definitive deterioration (TTDD) analyses, the upper end of these published MID ranges was used to define deterioration or improvement. Results: At the ELM-2 interim data cutoff on 31-Jan-2023, 140 patients with R/R FL Grade 1-3a had received at least 1 dose of odronextamab. Median age was 60.5 years (range: 22-84), with 38.6% ≥65 years, 52.9% male, 57.1% White, 32.1% Asian, 52.2% ECOG=0, and 47.1% ECOG=1. Median duration of follow-up was 26.6 months (range: 6.2-37.5). PRO completion rates for EORTC-QLQ-C30, FACT-Lym, and EQ-5D-3L were high at baseline and remained high for all assessments through Week 50. At baseline, moderate levels of general health (GHS/QoL) and high levels of functioning (PF and RF) were observed that were higher (better) than reference values for general cancer or non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL). Fatigue scores at baseline were lower (less symptoms) than reference values for general cancer or NHL. EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, PF, RF, and fatigue scores were maintained from baseline through Week 50 (Table). For EQ-5D-3L VAS, the overall estimated mean changes from baseline improved statistically significantly but did not reach MID thresholds (Table). For FACT-Lym LymS, overall estimated mean change from baseline statistically significantly improved, and scores improved statistically significantly from Weeks 10 to 42 (except Week 34), with clinically meaningful improvements at Weeks 26 and 42 (Figure). The proportion of patients reporting meaningful improvement or stability across the six scales was higher than the proportion reporting meaningful worsening through Week 50 (Table). The median TTDD for EORTC-QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL was 22.41 (95% CI: 14.59 to not yet reached) months, corresponding to the median PFS. Median TTDD was not reached for EORTC QLQ-C30 PF, FACT-Lym LymS, and EQ-5D-3L VAS scales. Conclusions: For patients with R/R FL, patient-reported HRQoL results were favorable during odronextamab treatment until disease progression, with no detriments on patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and overall quality of life. These results complement encouraging clinical efficacy, durability of responses, and tolerability observed in this highly refractory patient population and support the future role of odronextamab in the management of patients with R/R FL.

Abstract Background: The Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (MCCCC) is uniquely positioned to address cancer health disparities globally through the Community Outreach & Engagement (COE) Office and Program’s resources and partnerships in the areas of cancer research, education, and training. The goal of the COE Global Oncology Initiatives (GOI) is to lessen the cancer burden on patients globally by building global capacity through research, education, and training in MCCC impact regions. While MCCCC continues to build institutional relationships worldwide through the GOI, it has specifically increased research collaborations in Africa over the past 5 years. The purpose of this study is to synthesize and report the global oncology reach through scholarly output of collaborative efforts in ongoing research activities with partnering African countries. By analyzing and documenting research outputs within this area, we aim to better understand research priorities and needs, increase inclusivity of African populations, and improve potential avenues for impactful studies in global alliance networks. Methods: Publications were found by using key search terms and by using the map feature on Mayo Clinic’s Elsevier-hosted publication database to locate partner institutions throughout Africa. Only publications in the past 5 years, which included an African researcher as an author, and are relevant to cancer research were included. Duplicate publications were removed from the final dataset. Results: There are 86 unique MCCCC members collaborating with 11 different African countries (Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe). A total of 50 unique publications have been published, with an African country being represented 72 times. The majority of MCCCC global oncology work is with researchers in Sub-Saharan nations (n=43). Egypt, however, has the largest single country representation (n=22), followed by South Africa (n=14) and Nigeria (n=13). 164 unique African researchers across 133 different institutions have worked with MCCCC members. Prostate and liver cancer were the most represented cancers at 6 instances, respectively. Discussion: Overall, 86 MCCCC members are involved in global research that address cancer health disparities through equal partnership with African researchers, which has resulted in multiple research output. Some of the publications were led by global consortia or cohort studies. These collaborations have been mutually beneficial for MCCCC members and African investigators, elevating cancer research in Africa. This includes increased research scholarship, extramural funding for cancer research in Africa, opening of more clinical trials across the continent, and increase in cancer biomedical workforce. Global research, especially one that is inclusive of the African populations, will foster the understanding of the genetic architecture of cancer, and help shape cancer care and control for Africans and people of African ancestry. Citation Format: Parisa Fathi, Manisha Salinas, Monica Albertie, Folakemi Odedina. Addressing cancer health disparities through global oncology initiatives at a comprehensive cancer center [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A135.

Abstract Background: The National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Cancer Center Support Grants (CCSGs) encourages Cancer Centers to address health disparities and reduce the cancer burden in their Catchment Area (CA) through an organized Community Outreach and Engagement (COE) structure. COE activities focus on engaging communities to address cancer needs through bidirectional partnership, facilitation of research that meets community needs, and the implementation of evidence-based practices. Methods: Following a 2018 “satisfactory to good” rating for COE, the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (MCCCCC) developed a transition team to specifically address the critique and create a transformative plan for engaging communities to address cancer burden in the CA. An impact model was developed to illustrate the components of the CCSG and connect those components to short- and long-term COE outcomes. A logic model was developed to track and monitor activities for continuous process improvement for all COE activities. Results: The impact and logic model serve as a roadmap to monitor progress towards short- and long-term COE goals of the MCCCC. The COE operational strategies draw upon bidirectional partnership, evidence-based practices, and research facilitation to respond to the CCSG critique. Conclusion: These strategies demonstrate successful practices in addressing cancer burden, promoting health equity and eliminating cancer disparities in the MCCCC CA. Citation Format: Manisha Salinas, Monica Albertie, Doug Murrell, Folakemi Odedina. Operational strategies for achieving NCI comprehensive cancer center community outreach and engagement objectives: Impact and logic models [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A117.