Citations

LBA1551 Background: Traditional cancer therapy is primarily delivered in clinical settings, imposing logistical, emotional, and financial burdens, particularly on rural and underserved patients. While international studies have demonstrated the safety of home-based chemotherapy, no randomized U.S. trials have evaluated this approach. Mayo Clinic’s CCBW program aims to expand access to high-quality cancer care by providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, command center and paramedic support. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates feasibility and impact of home-based versus in-clinic cancer directed therapy on patient preference, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Adult patients (ECOG 0-2) receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy at Mayo Clinic Florida were randomized 1:1 after confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic to receive (1) home-based care for 24 weeks or (2) in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks. Target accrual is 200 patients. A planned interim analysis after 50 enrollments assessed accrual, data completeness, technical challenges, safety, and study outcomes. The primary endpoint is patient ratings of their overall cancer care experience (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) at 8 weeks. 200 patients provide 80% power to detect a 0.45 standard deviation difference in mean ratings between arms with a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (α=0.05) and 20% missing data rate. Secondary endpoints are patient preference, comfort with home infusions, treatment worthwhileness, functional/symptom assessments (EORTC QLQ-F17, PRO-CTCAE, GP5), grade ≥3 AEs, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Cost is a tertiary endpoint. The trial is IRB-approved (#23001719) and registered (NCT05969860). Results: Enrollment began 8/23/23. As of 2/21/25, 52 patients (26 per arm) were enrolled and 36 started protocol treatment. Common cancers were breast (38%), colorectal (21%), prostate (19%), and multiple myeloma (14%). 64% (28/44) of patients were female; 84% identified as White, 14% as Black, and 2% as multiple races. Median distance to clinic was 20 miles (range 2-66). After 8 weeks, patients in both arms rated their overall cancer care experience highly (mean [SD]=9.69 [0.85] versus 9.54 [0.66] for home-based vs. in-clinic care, n=26). After 24 weeks, 73% preferred home-based care, 18% had no preference, and 9% preferred in-clinic care; 100% felt comfortable with home infusions. No grade ≥3 AEs related to location of care have occurred. Conclusions: Early findings support the feasibility, safety, and high patient acceptability of home-based cancer therapy. No safety concerns related to care location were observed and most patients preferred home-based treatment. Ongoing accrual and analysis will assess clinical outcomes and cost implications. Clinical trial information: NCT05969860 .

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .

2085 Background: Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma with no approved treatments for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients, representing a critical unmet need. MyD88 mutations in ~70% of PCNSL patients drive Interleukin-1 receptor associated kinase 4 (IRAK4) activation, promoting NF-κB signaling, inflammation, and tumor progression. Emavusertib, a potent oral IRAK4 inhibitor, crosses the blood-brain barrier and shows preclinical synergy with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi), re-sensitizing BTKi-resistant cell lines. This study evaluates the molecular and pharmacokinetic (PK) data associated with responses to emavusertib + ibrutinib combination therapy in R/R PCNSL patients. 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). Pre-dose and 1.5-hour post-dose plasma samples were collected on Cycle 3 Day 1, Cycle 5 Day 1 and Cycle 7 Day 1. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were obtained via a lumbar puncture within 1.5 hrs of collection of the post-dose plasma PK sample on Cycle 3 Day 1. Mutation analysis was based on patients’ molecular pathology reports provided by trial sites. Sequencing of archival tissues, CSF and plasma are in progress. Results: As of 06 December 2024, CSF concentration data were available for 7 PCNSL patients. The mean emavusertib concentration in CSF was 81.3 ng/ml (54.7-104.0) in patients receiving 100 mg emavusertib BID (n = 4). In patients receiving 200 mg emavusertib BID (n = 3), the mean emavusertib concentration in CSF was higher at 175.7 ng/ml (114.8-209.4), which is 2.2X the mean value in patients who received 100 mg emavusertib BID (p-value = 0.02). All 7 patients received 560 mg ibrutinib QD, and the ibrutinib concentrations in the CSF were consistent with findings from previously published clinical studies. MyD88 mutation status was available for 7 patients of which all had prior exposure to BTKi regimens. Among these, 6 patients had MyD88 mutation of which 4 patients had responded (3 complete responses and 1 partial response) to emavusertib + ibrutinib combination with duration of response (DOR) up to 18.9 months with data collection ongoing. Conclusions: Preliminary CNS pharmacokinetic data demonstrates that emavusertib concentration in CSF increases with increasing emavusertib dose. Patients with MyD88 mutations showed expected promising preliminary efficacy to emavusertib + ibrutinib combination and may overcome BTKi resistance. Enrollment in this trial is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03328078 .

7075 Background: Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) is a rare, aggressive peripheral T-cell lymphoma arising primarily from γδ T-cells. It carries a poor prognosis and resists conventional chemotherapy. Most reports on HSTCL are case-based. This study comprehensively analyzes a large cohort, evaluating treatment strategies and survival outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included patients (pts) with pathologically confirmed HSTCL diagnosed between 2000-2024, consecutively seen at Mayo Clinic MN. Clinical, pathological, genomic, and treatment-related data were extracted when available. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics. Time-to-event analyses, including Kaplan-Meier estimates, median overall survival (OS), and survival time estimates were conducted from the date of diagnosis. Results: A total of 20 patients with newly diagnosed HSTCL were included, with a median age of 57 years (range: 35-71). The cohort was predominantly male (70%) and non-Hispanic (93%). Molecular data was available for five patients, revealing abnormalities in STAT5B, MLL3 deletion, TP53, EZH2, TERT, and NF1 E291D . The median follow-up was 27.6 months (m) with a median OS of 17.6 m (95% CI: 11.2 - NA). First-line treatment was anthracycline-based in 68% of pts and non-anthracycline-based in 32%, with higher response rates in the latter group (50% vs.83%). Although non-anthracycline regimens showed a trend toward improved 3-year OS (100% vs. 29%) the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Achieving a complete response to first-line therapy was also associated with a trend towards a better 3-year OS compared to refractory disease (80% vs. 50%, p = 0.17). Most pts (79%) underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), primarily allogeneic, with only one receiving autologous HSCT. First-line therapy before HSCT was evenly distributed between anthracycline (55%) and non-anthracycline (45%) regimens. HSCT recipients had significantly higher 3-year OS than non-recipients (83% vs. 33%, p = 0.017). Notably, the patient with a TP53 mutation has remained in remission for over a year post-allogeneic HSCT. Conclusions: HSTCL predominantly affects younger pts, with nearly half dying within a year. Allogeneic HSCT, rarely used in other NHL subtypes, improved survival. Non-anthracycline regimens and achieving CR trended toward better outcomes. Our study, leveraging a sizable cohort, highlights the need for targeted research and novel therapies to improve HSTCL management. Summary of survival outcomes in HSTCL. Characteristics Median OS (y) 3-Year OS (95% CI) 1.48 [0.93- NA] 46% [0.26 - 0.81] Transplant Transplant NA [NA - NA] 83% [0.58 - 1.00] No Transplant 1.02 [0.93 - NA] 33% [0.07 - 1.00] Treatment Anthracycline Based 1.02 [0.36 - NA] 29% [0.11 - 0.73] Non-Anthracycline Based 4.61 [NA- NA] 100% [1.00 - 1.00]

7073 Background: The Optimized HLH Inflammatory (OHI) index (Zoref-Lorenz et al., Blood , 2022), based on serum soluble CD25 (sCD25) and ferritin, is a prognostic tool identifying inflammation in the hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) spectrum and early mortality risk. Prior studies were retrospective and enriched with HLH-suspected cases. We hypothesized that the OHI index would predict outcomes in unselected diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: 670 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients from a prospective cohort (2002–2015) were analyzed: 335 for discovery and 335 for validation. Pre-treatment serum sCD25 and ferritin levels were quantified via ELISA, and we evaluated original thresholds (sCD25 ≥ 3,900 U/mL; ferritin ≥ 1,000 ng/mL) and developed DLBCL-optimized thresholds (using receiver operator curves) for predicting 500-day mortality. We also evaluated event-free survival (EFS), EFS at 24 months (EFS24), and overall survival (OS). Results: The median age was 64, and 51% were male. Using original thresholds, 4.2% (n=14) of patients were OHI+, with a 5.6-fold higher risk of 500-day mortality (95% CI 1.6–17; p<0.001). Optimized thresholds identified 23.6% (n=78) as OHI+ with a 9.2-fold higher 500-day mortality risk (95% CI 4.0–24; p<0.001). Optimized OHI+ also had a higher risk of EFS24 failure and inferior EFS and OS (Table). OHI+ patients had higher rates of B symptoms (35% vs. 20%; p=0.027), elevated LDH (76% vs. 34%; p<0.001), worse performance status (ECOG ≥2: 38% vs. 12%; p<0.001), and advanced-stage disease (Stage IV: 57% vs 38%; p<0.001), though IPI scores (3–5) were not significantly different (44% vs 36%; p=0.28). Adjusting for age and IPI, OHI+ independently predicted 500-day mortality (OR=5.0; CI 1.9–13; p=0.001), EFS24 failure (OR=3.2; CI 1.5–6.5; p=0.0018), and inferior long-term EFS (HR=2.2; CI 1.1–4.3; p=0.030) and OS (HR=2.0; CI 1.0–4.0; p=0.040) at a median follow up of 9.8 years in living patients. In validation, optimized OHI predicted 500-day mortality, EFS24 failure, and long-term OS and EFS (Table). Cytokine profiling revealed elevated inflammatory markers in OHI+ patients, including IL1a (p=0.008), CCL2 (p=0.03), CXCL10 (p<0.001), and CXCL9 (p<0.001), reflecting systemic hyperinflammation. Conclusions: The OHI index is a powerful predictor of early and long-term outcomes in DLBCL patients. Optimized thresholds identify a larger OHI+ group, highlighting hyperinflammation’s critical role in poor outcomes. These findings support its use in routine management and clinical trial design for novel therapies. Odds ratios or hazard ratios and p-values for optimized OHI+ and DLBCL prognosis. Outcome Discovery Validation OR for 500-day mortality 9.2; p<0.001 4.0; p=0.002 OR for EFS24 failure 5.2; p <0.001 6.3; p<0.001 HR for OS 2.3; p<0.001 1.8; p=0.006 HR for EFS 2.4; p<0.001 2.5; p<0.001

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is clinically heterogeneous, and gene expression profiling has identified at least two biologically distinct DLBCL subtypes defined by their cell of origin (COO): germinal center B cell (GCB) and activate B cell (ABC) or non-GCB. We evaluated a variety of putative DLBCL risk factors for etiologic heterogeneity by the COO in a clinic-based study of newly diagnosed DLBCL cases (N = 638) and frequency-matched controls (N = 2,253). Methods: The COO was determined on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, with DLBCL classified as GCB (N = 283), non-GCB (N = 188), or undetermined/missing (N = 167; mainly because of lack of tissue). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: We identified heterogeneity by the COO for low socioeconomic status (SES), which was only associated with non-GCB DLBCL (OR = 1.88 for low vs. average SES; 95% CI, 1.08–3.27); alcohol use, which was only associated with GCB DLBCL (OR = 0.48 for former drinkers; 95% CI, 0.29–0.80 and OR = 0.47 for current drinkers; 95% CI, 0.32–0.71); and borderline heterogeneity for the regular use of regular/extra-strength aspirin, which was only associated with non-GCB DLBCL (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.85). In contrast, there was no significant heterogeneity by the COO for family history, medical history, or other lifestyle factors. Conclusions: Although requiring confirmation, most risk factors for DLBCL did not show etiologic heterogeneity by the COO, with some notable exceptions including alcohol use, SES, and perhaps regular use of regular/extra-strength aspirin showing associations. Impact: Mechanistically, these findings suggest that most of the DLBCL risk factors evaluated here influence lymphomagenesis prior to differentiation into COO subtypes, with selected factors acting later.

ABSTRACT Rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R‐GemOx) is a commonly used chemoimmunotherapy regimen for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but there are limited real‐world data. In a multicenter retrospective study from a cohort of eight US academic centers (LEO CReWE), we evaluated 183 patients with R/R DLBCL and high‐grade B cell lymphoma treated with R‐GemOx, including subgroups treated without intent for consolidation with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy ( n = 100), those utilizing R‐GemOx as a bridge to ASCT or CAR T ( n = 83), and those aged 70 and older ( n = 71). Overall response rates (ORRs) for all patients treated with R‐GemOx were 45% with a complete response (CR) rate of 29%. The median event‐free survival (EFS) was 2.3 months, and the median overall survival (OS) was 13.5 months. Patients receiving R‐GemOx without intent for ASCT or CAR T had ORR and CR rates of 33% and 18%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 2.0 and 9.5 months, respectively. Patients receiving R‐GemOx as a bridge to ASCT or CAR T had ORR and CR rates of 57% and 36%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 3.5 and 17.4 months, respectively. Patients receiving R‐GemOx aged 70 and older had ORR and CR rates of 53% and 33%, respectively, with median EFS and OS of 2.2 and 13.9 months, respectively. These data provide a benchmark for R‐GemOx in the rapidly evolving landscape of R/R DLBCL therapies.

Key Points Studies on GFR assessment in people with cancer are needed. In this study, the creatinine–cystatin C equations performed better than other equations, and this was observed in solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support to the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in people with cancer. Background GFR assessment is important in clinical practice with implications for diagnosis, prognostication, and drug dosing. People with cancer are at risk of imprecision in GFR estimation. This cross-sectional study evaluated the performance of various creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in comparison with measured GFR (mGFR) in people with cancer. Methods We retrieved data for all adult patients who had mGFR by urinary iothalamate clearance between 2011 and 2023 at Mayo Clinic and use of an electronic health record diagnosis code for cancer within 2 years before mGFR. The CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), European Kidney Function Consortium, and Cockcroft–Gault equations were computed, along with performance metrics (bias, precision, and root mean square error [RMSE]. Confidence intervals were generated by bootstrapping, and analysis were stratified by solid and hematological cancers. Results From all adults with cancer and mGFR, 1145 had both creatinine and cystatin C available within 7 days of mGFR. Among all equations, the creatinine–cystatin C CKD-EPI equation provided the best performance, with small bias (median, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 3.8) and higher precision (RMSE, 14.5) compared with creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations (RMSE varying from 16.6 to 20), and this was also true in solid and hematological cancers. The creatinine–cystatin European Kidney Function Consortium equation had a similar performance to CKD-EPI, Cockcroft–Gault showed worst precision (30% of people with errors above 30%), and cystatin C CKD-EPI equation was the most biased, prone to underestimation of mGFR. Conclusions In our cohort of patients with mGFR and cancer, the CKD-EPI creatinine–cystatin C equation performed best for GFR assessment, and this was true for both solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support for the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations instead of creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations in people with cancer. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2025_03_25_CJASNMar20.3.3252025.mp3