Citations

Abstract Mature T-cell lymphomas constitute the most common indication for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) of all lymphomas. Large studies evaluating contemporary outcomes of allo-HCT in mature T-cell lymphomas relative to commonly used donor sources are not available. Included in this registry study were adult patients who had undergone allo-HCT for anaplastic large cell lymphoma, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), or peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) between 2008 and 2018. Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) platforms compared were posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based haploidentical (haplo-)HCT, matched sibling donor (MSD) HCT, matched unrelated donor HCT with in vivo T-cell depletion (MUD TCD+), and matched unrelated donor HCT without in vivo T-cell depletion (MUD TCD−). Coprimary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included nonrelapse mortality (NRM), and relapse/progression incidence (RI). A total of 1942 patients were eligible (237 haplo-HCT; 911 MSD; 468 MUD TCD+; 326 MUD TCD−). Cohorts were comparable for baseline characteristics with the exception of higher proportions of patients with decreased performance status (PS) and marrow graft recipients in the haplo-HCT group. Using univariate and multivariate comparisons, OS, PFS, RI, and NRM were not significantly different among the haplo-HCT, MSD, MUD TCD+, and MUD TCD− cohorts, with 3-year OS and PFS of 60%, 63%, 59%, and 64%, respectively, and 50%, 50%, 48%, and 52%, respectively. Significant predictors of inferior OS and PFS on multivariate analysis were active disease status at HCT and decreased PS. AITL was associated with significantly reduced relapse risk and better PFS compared with PTCL-NOS. Allo-HCT can provide durable PFS in patients with mature T-cell lymphoma (TCL). Outcomes of haplo-HCT were comparable to those of matched donor allo-HCT.

Abstract The management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone unprecedented changes over the last decade. Modern targeted therapies are incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, patients have begun to develop resistance or intolerance to multiple classes. Symptomatic patients previously treated with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) and venetoclax represent a new and rapidly growing unmet need in CLL. Here, we define unmet needs in a modern treatment context. We also critically review the literature for PI3K inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy and lack of data to support their utility following BTKis and venetoclax. Finally, we suggest opportunities to ensure the continued innovation for patients with CLL.

SummaryIn young and fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), intensive induction therapy followed by a consolidative autologous haematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT) is the standard of care in the front‐line setting. Recently, time‐to‐event analysis has emerged as an important risk assessment tool in lymphoma, though its impact in MCL is not well defined. We utilized the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database to evaluate the effect of post‐autoHCT time to relapse on overall survival (OS) over time in 461 patients who underwent autoHCT within 12 months of MCL diagnosis. On multivariate analysis, the impact of relapse on OS was greatest at the six‐month [hazard ratio (HR) = 7·68], 12‐month (HR = 6·68), and 18‐month (HR = 5·81) landmark timepoints. Using a dynamic landmark model we demonstrate that adjusted OS at five years following each landmark timepoint improved with time for relapsing and non‐relapsing patients. Furthermore, early relapse (<18 months) following autoHCT defines a high‐risk group with inferior post‐relapse OS. This retrospective analysis highlights the impact of time to relapse on OS in MCL patients undergoing up‐front autoHCT and emphasizes the need to consider novel therapeutic approaches for patients suffering early relapse.

Abstract The relative efficacy of autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (auto-HCT) vs chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who achieve a partial remission (PR) after salvage chemotherapy is not known. Using the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research registry database, we identified adult patients with DLBCL who received either an auto-HCT (2013-2019) or CAR-T treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (2018-2019) while in a PR by computed tomography or positron emission tomography scan. We compared the clinical outcomes between the 2 cohorts using univariable and multivariable regression models after adjustment for relevant baseline and clinical factors. In the univariable analysis, the 2-year progression-free survival (52% vs 42%; P = .1) and the rate of 100-day nonrelapse mortality (4% vs 2%; P = .3) were not different between the 2 cohorts, but consolidation with auto-HCT was associated with a lower rate of relapse/progression (40% vs 53%; P = .05) and a superior overall survival (OS) (69% vs 47%; P = .004) at 2 years. In the multivariable regression analysis, treatment with auto-HCT was associated with a significantly lower risk of relapse/progression rate (hazard ratio = 1.49; P = .01) and a superior OS (hazard ratio = 1.63; P = .008). In patients with DLBCL in a PR after salvage therapy, treatment with auto-HCT was associated with a lower incidence of relapse and a superior OS compared with CAR-T. These data support the role of auto-HCT as the standard of care in transplant-eligible patients with relapsed DLBCL in PR after salvage therapy.

Background: The rapid reduction in tumor burden by the oral B-cell lymphoma-2 inhibitor venetoclax (Ven) poses a risk of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) for patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The approved 5-week Ven dose ramp-up, along with prophylaxis and monitoring, effectively mitigate this risk of TLS but also introduce some logistical challenges to starting the drug. Moreover, the long ramp-up period may lead to clinical deterioration while pts are receiving lower doses, particularly for those with rapid disease progression after B-cell receptor pathway inhibitor (BCRi) therapy. Accelerated Ven dose ramp-up has been explored in a limited number of prior studies, including the prospective M14-032 trial (Jones et al. Lancet Oncol 2018) and a single-center retrospective study (Koenig et al. ASH 2019); these studies had conflicting results with regard to the risk of TLS. We conducted a multicenter study to systematically characterize the safety profile and feasibility of an accelerated Ven ramp-up schedule in pts with previously treated CLL. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review from 4 large academic US medical centers of 36 pts with relapsed/refractory CLL and a documented ramp-up period of &lt;5 weeks (duration at treating physician's discretion). The study period was defined from 1 month before to 1 month after ramp-up. TLS risk before Ven initiation was assessed per the label. Safety endpoints included the proportion of pts who experienced Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), TLS per Howard criteria (laboratory, clinical, or any reported TLS), and/or metabolic abnormalities observed during ramp-up. Feasibility of accelerated ramp-up was measured by assessing the proportion of pts who reached the target 400-mg dose or an alternative stable dose, defined as continuous/stable Ven dosing for ≥1 month after ramp-up. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: The median age at Ven initiation was 67.5 years (range 53-84) and 58.3% of pts had deletion 17p or TP53 mutation (Table 1). Pts were heavily pretreated (median of 3 lines of prior therapy [range 1-7]) and 88.9% had prior BCRi therapy; 27 pts (75.0%) had BCRi as immediate prior line of therapy before Ven. Before Ven initiation, 7 pts (19.4%) were at high risk of TLS, 13 (36.1%) at medium risk of TLS, and 15 (41.7%) at low risk of TLS; 1 unknown. Last line of therapy was discontinued in 30 pts (83.3%). Twenty-one pts (58.3%) received Ven monotherapy, 11 (30.6%) received Ven plus rituximab, 1 (2.8%) received Ven plus obinutuzumab, and 3 (8.3%) received Ven plus other (including ibrutinib, duvelisib, or idelalisib). Thirty-three pts (91.7%) underwent accelerated ramp-up as an inpatient, with a median hospital stay of 11 days (range 3-28). A stable dose of Ven was reached by 34 pts (94.4%), with median time of 15 days (range 3-66) to stable dose. Twenty-eight of these 34 pts (82.4%) reached the full 400 mg as their stable dose, with median time of 19.5 days (range 11-66). Overall, 15 pts (41.7%) experienced Grade ≥3 AEs and 4 (11.1%) discontinued Ven during ramp-up (2 pts due to clinical TLS, and 1 patient each due to persistent cytopenias and enrollment in hospice care). Seven pts (19.4%) had TLS (5 [13.9%] laboratory, 2 [5.6%] clinical), and 9 pts (25.0%) developed a metabolic abnormality only that did not meet Howard criteria for TLS (Table 2). Both pts with clinical TLS received Ven ramp-up while hospitalized; 1 high risk and 1 medium risk at baseline. Life-threatening (Grade 4) acute kidney injury and hypovolemic shock were reported for both. Of those pts with TLS, 4 (57.1%) required supportive medications. All AEs of TLS (including clinical events) resolved. Conclusion: In this multicenter study exploring accelerated Ven ramp-up, 82% of pts reached a stable dose of Ven 400 mg. TLS was observed in 19% of pts, including 2 pts with clinical TLS, which in both cases was reversible. Our data suggest that although the risk of TLS with an accelerated ramp-up appears to be greater than with 5-week Ven ramp-up per label, an accelerated Ven ramp-up schedule appears feasible at experienced academic centers with close inpatient monitoring. This dosing regimen may be beneficial for relapsed CLL pts with aggressive disease, particularly those progressing immediately after BCRi therapy. While promising, the approach cannot be routinely recommended until results are validated in a prospective clinical trial. Disclosures Davids: BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Zentalis: Consultancy; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; Surface Oncology: Research Funding. Shadman:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellectar: 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, Research Funding; Mustang Bio: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; MophoSys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sound Biologics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Parikh:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Ujjani:MorphoSys: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Atara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:AbbVie: Other: Institutional research grants, Research Funding. Johnson:AbbVie: Other: Institutional research grants, Research Funding. Jiang:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or options. Llamas:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or options. Feng:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or options. Khan:ICON plc: Current Employment, Other: a company contracted by AbbVie for this study. Lamanna:MingSight: Other: Institutional research grants, Research Funding; Oncternal, Verastem, TG Therapeutics: Other: Institutional research grants, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Columbia University Medical Center: Current Employment; Juno: Other: Institutional research grants, Research Funding; Octapharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Institutional research grants, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bei-Gene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Institutional research grants, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Institutional research grants, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Institutional research grants, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Loxo: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: "Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor indicated: for treatment of adult patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL); in combination with azacitidine, or decitabine, or low-dose cytarabine to treat adults with newly-diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in adults who are age 75 years or older, or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy. CLL/SLL: Dosing with venetoclax begins with a 5-week ramp-up."

Abstract Objectives To summarize cases submitted to the 2019 Society for Hematopathology/European Association for Haematopathology Workshop under the category of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms with eosinophilia and PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1 or with PCM1-JAK2 rearrangements, focusing on recent updates and relevant practice findings. Methods The cases were summarized according to their respective gene rearrangement to illustrate the spectrum of clinical, laboratory, and histopathology manifestations and to explore the appropriate molecular genetic tests. Results Disease presentations were heterogeneous, including myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), MDS/MPN, acute myeloid leukemia, acute B- or T-lymphoblastic lymphoma/acute lymphoblastic lymphoma (ALL/LBL), or mixed-lineage neoplasms. Frequent extramedullary involvement occurred. Eosinophilia was common but not invariably present. With the advancement of RNA sequencing, cryptic rearrangements were recognized in genes other than PDGFRA. Additional somatic mutations were more frequent in the FGFR1-rearranged cases. Cases with B-ALL presentations differed from Philadelphia-like B-ALL by the presence of an underlying MPN. Cases with FLT3 and ABL1 rearrangements could be potential candidates for future inclusion in this category. Conclusions Accurate diagnosis and classification of this category of myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms has important therapeutic implications. With the large number of submitted cases, we expand our understanding of these rare neoplasms and improve our ability to diagnose these genetically defined disorders.

8038 Background: Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) are performed pre/post therapy to confirm complete response (CR) in patients (pts) with lymphoma on clinical trials. We evaluated 2 prior data sets and concluded that BMB impact response assessment in a minority of pts with follicular lymphoma (FL) (Rutherford BJH 2017; Rutherford ASH abstract 1605, 2018). We sought to establish if BMB add value in assessing response or identify distinct progression free (PFS) or overall survival (OS) outcomes in a large, multicenter, multi-trial cohort. Methods: Data were pooled from 7 trials of 580 pts with untreated FL conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and SWOG from 2002-2016. The proportion of pts with positive (+) baseline BMB, CR on imaging after treatment, and (+) repeat BMB was calculated using total pts enrolled as the denominator. We tested against the null hypothesis that the proportion was = 10%, the threshold below which BMB would be considered irrelevant for response assessment, versus (vs) the alternative hypothesis that this proportion was < 10%, using 1-sided exact binomial test. Response criteria were CT-based. Imaging was not used to assess BM involvement. Because confirmatory BMB were not completed in all indicated pts, landmark survival analyses compared PFS/OS of pts with CR on imaging and negative (-) BMB vs pts with CR on imaging without repeat BMB. Pts with CR on imaging were categorized as having (-) repeat BMB or no repeat BMB within 60 days of first CR on imaging. PFS and OS were calculated from time of first CR and estimated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, stage, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score, and treatment type (targeted vs chemotherapy plus targeted therapy), and stratified by treatment arm. Results: Median age was 55 with 51% male, 96% stage III-IV, and 88% grade I-II. FLIPI scores were 113 low, 265 intermediate, and 199 high risk. 67% received chemotherapy-based regimens. Baseline BMB was (+) in 321 (55%). Only 5/580 (0.8%) had (+) baseline BMB, CR on imaging, and subsequent (+) BMB (p < 0.0001). Of pts with CR on imaging, PFS and OS were not different among pts with (-) BMB vs pts without repeat BMB (PFS: HR = 1.08, 95%CI 0.61-1.93, p = 0.783; OS: HR = 0.52, 95%CI 0.20-1.40, p = 0.199). Conclusions: BMB requirements may discourage pt participation in trials and add pain, expense and time without providing necessary information. We recommend eliminating BMB for response assessment from FL clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT00553501, NCT01145495, NCT01190449, NCT01286272, NCT01829568, NCT00822120, and NCT00770224 .

Abstract Background: Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) S0016 was a phase III randomized study that compared safety and efficacy of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone and rituximab (CHOP-R) with CHOP followed by consolidation with (131) iodine-tositumomab radioimmunotherapy (CHOP-RIT) for previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. As reported previously, the study demonstrated excellent outcomes in both arms with 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 76% and 80% and 2-year overall-survival (OS) of 97% and 93% in the CHOP-R and CHOP-RIT arms, respectively. (Press. et al. JCO, 2012) We now report the long term outcome of patients who were treated on the S0016 study. Methods: Between 2001 and 2008, 531 previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma patients were randomized to receive either 6 cycles of CHOP every 3 weeks with 6 doses of rituximab (CHOP-R) or 6 cycles of CHOP every 3 weeks followed by RIT. Patients with advanced-stage disease (bulky stage II, III or IV) with any pathologic grade (1, 2 or 3) were eligible. Results: Patients on CHOP-R (n=264) and CHOP-RIT (n=267) arms had balanced baseline characteristics including age (median 54.5 vs. 53.4 years), presence of B symptoms (29% vs. 26%), pathologic grade 3 (8% vs. 9%), "high" FLIPI risk group (22% vs. 26%), stage IV disease (59% vs. 63%), elevated β2M (53% vs. 55%), bone marrow involvement (56% vs. 55%) and bulky disease (24% vs. 26%). Objective remissions were documented in 226 of 267 eligible patients treated with CHOP-R (85%) and in 226 of 264 patients with CHOP-RIT (86%). Complete remission (CR) rate was 40% in the CHOP-R and 45% in the CHOP-RIT arm. Neutropenia was the most common adverse event (AE) in both arms (48% vs. 51%). Rate of grade 3-5 AEs were not different except for thrombocytopenia which was more common in the CHOP-RIT group (18% vs. 2%). After a median follow-up of 9.6 years (range 0.1 - 14.4 years), the estimated 10-year PFS was 42% (95% CI: 35.6%, 48.5%) in the CHOP-R arm and 57% (95% CI: 50.5%, 63.2%) in the CHOP-RIT arm (p-value = 0.01). 51% of responders on the CHOP-R arm and 38% of responders on the CHOP-RIT arm have relapsed (p-value= 0.01). The estimated 2-year relapse-free survival was 76% for CHOP-R patients and 81% for CHOP-RIT patients (p-value=0.15). There were 48 deaths in the CHOP+R arm and 59 deaths in the CHOP-RIT arm with an estimated 10-year OS of 82% (95% CI: 76.3%, 86.4%) with CHOP-R and 77% (95% CI: 70.5%, 81.4%) with CHOP-RIT (p-value = 0.18). (Figure-1) During the follow-up, 41 patients (15.4%) in the CHOP-R arm and 37 patients (14%) in the CHOP-RIT arm developed secondary malignancies. MDS/AML were more common in the CHOP-RIT arm (11 patients; 4.2%) compared to CHOP-R arm (5 patients; 1.9%) with a relative risk of 2.2 (95% CI: 0.8-6.3) (P-value 0.12). Conclusion: With almost 10 years of follow-up, patients with FL treated on protocol S0016 show outstanding survival in both CHOP-R and CHOP-RIT arms, and represent the best published long-term outcomes to date in this disease. Indeed, almost half of patients enrolled still remain progression-free, confirming registry experiences. While CHOP-RIT provided significantly longer PFS and lower relapse rate compared to CHOP-R in our study, the OS rate was not different between 2 arms due in part to higher incidence of fatal MDS/AML in the CHOP-RIT group, emphasizing the importance of long-term follow-up, and calling into question the validity of PFS as a surrogate for OS in this setting. Given these outstanding outcomes, we believe chemoimmunotherapy should remain the standard induction approach for patients with high-risk FL until long-term follow-up of alternative approaches demonstrates superiority. Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180821 and in part by GlaxoSmithKline Disclosures Shadman: Emergent: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Rimsza:NCI/NIH: Patents & Royalties: L.M. Rimsza is a co-inventor on a provisional patent, owned by the NCI of the NIH, using Nanostring technology for determining cell of origin in DLBCL.. Gopal:Paid Consultancy- Gilead, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Spectrum, Research funding- Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, Merck, Teva, Takeda, Spectrum, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Maloney:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Honoraria. Cheson:Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Smith:Amgen: Other: Educational lecture to sales force; TGTX: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: on a DSMB for two trials ; Portola: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Fisher:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee. Press:Roche / Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding.