Citations

Background: Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma with historically poor outcomes. Induction therapy with high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX)-based regimens followed by consolidation with autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) has become the mainstay of treatment with overall response rates (ORR) of 69-87% and two-year overall survival (OS) of 66-70% reported in prospective clinical trials. Limited data are available regarding a maintenance approach with single-agent HD-MTX, particularly in patients who are not auto-SCT candidates. Herein, we describe a comparison of outcomes in patients with PCNSL who underwent HD-MTX-based induction followed by either HD-MTX maintenance or auto-SCT consolidation at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of PCNSL who received HD-MTX as part of induction therapy at Mayo Clinic between October 2010 and June 2022 were identified. Patients with prior or concurrent diagnosis of systemic lymphoma were excluded. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) defined as time from post-induction treatment initiation to relapse, progression, or death due to any cause; and OS defined as time from post-induction treatment initiation to death due to any cause. We compared baseline characteristics by post-induction therapy using descriptive statistics. The primary endpoints PFS and OS were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared by risk scores using a log-rank test. Results: A total of 148 patients were identified (51% female, 95% white) with median age at diagnosis of 66 years (range 29-85), with 48 patients (32%) age > 70. Most patients had multifocal disease (n=89, 60%) and deep brain involvement (n=100, 70%) at diagnosis. Few had vitreoretinal (n=15, 10%) or CSF involvement (n=9, 6%) at diagnosis. Using the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSKCC) prognostic score for PCNSL, 35 patients (26%) scored class 3 (poor prognosis), 85 (62%) scored class 2, and 17 (12%) scored class 1. In total, 117 patients (79%) received methotrexate, rituximab, and temozolomide (MRT) induction therapy, and the remaining 31 patients (21%) received methotrexate and rituximab (MR) induction therapy (Table 1). A total of 70 patients (47%) underwent consolidation with auto-SCT and 37 patients (25%) received maintenance methotrexate. The patients who received maintenance methotrexate had higher median age of 72 versus 62 years, higher proportion of patients older than 70 (54% versus 16%, p<0.001), higher proportion of MSKCC prognostic score class 3 patients (33% versus 17%, p=0.026), and trend towards higher proportion of patients ECOG 2 or higher (41% versus 29%, p=0.109). A higher proportion of patients who underwent auto-SCT received MRT (vs MR) induction (n=64, 91%) compared to those who received maintenance methotrexate (n=24, 65%, p=0.004) (Table 1). The median follow-up for all patients was 4.5 years. At 1-, 3-, and 5-years post-induction treatment initiation, the PFS in the auto-SCT cohort was 85.8% (95% CI 77.7-94.9), 81.0% (95% CI 72.0-91.0), and 74.6% (95% CI 63.3-87.9), respectively; and the PFS in the HD-MTX maintenance cohort was 88.6% (95% CI 78.7-99.8), 72.6% (95% CI 58.8-89.8), and 72.6% (95% CI 58.8-89.8), respectively. At the same time points, the OS in the auto-SCT cohort was 94.0% (95% CI 88.4-99.9), 81.3% (95% CI 71.8-92.0), and 76.0% (95% CI 65.0-89.0), respectively; and the OS in the HD-MTX maintenance cohort was 94.3% (95% CI 86.9-100.0), 87.5% (76.8-99.8%), and 82.4% (69.0-98.4), respectively. Overall, there was no significant difference in PFS (p=0.64) or OS (p=0.95) based on post-induction treatment (Figure 1). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates comparable outcomes in PCNSL between a post-induction treatment approach with maintenance HD-MTX and consolidation auto-SCT, even though baseline characteristics indicate that patients who went on to receive auto-SCT were younger and had overall better performance status. This suggests that maintenance HD-MTX is a reasonable, time-limited strategy for patients with PCNSL responding to initial induction therapy, particularly in patients who are not candidates for auto-SCT.

Background: High Grade B cell Lymphoma (HGBL) with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements(R) was introduced as an entity in 2016 by the WHO revised 4 th edition. In 2022, both the WHO 5 th edition (beta version) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC) separated DHL- BCL2 (+/- BCL6-R)from DHL- BCL6 given differences in biology . However, while the ICC has maintainedDHL- BCL6 as a provisional entity, the WHO has removed the category, thus removing the requirement to FISH for BCL6-R in this setting. Clinical data on DHL- BCL6 is much more limited, as these cases represent only 10-20% of DHL and have been combined with BCL2-R cases in prior studies. Outcomes are variable in retrospective studies with no consistent data on prognosis or optimal therapeutic strategies. By retaining the category of DHL-BCL6 as a provisional entity, the ICC emphasized the need for further, multicenter, prospective studies evaluating the clinical and biological features of this disease. We herein report a comprehensive comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with DHL- BCL6 compared to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), not otherwise specified (NOS); DLBCL with MYC rearrangement only; DHL- BCL2; and HGBL, NOS in a large, multicenter, prospective cohort of patients from Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO). Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed large B-cell or HGBL were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis at one the 8 LEO cohort academic medical centers in the US between 2015 and 2020. Baseline characteristics were abstracted at the time of diagnosis per protocol. Based on FISH data patients were further sub mgrouped into DLBCL, NOS (without MYC rearrangement); MYC-R DLBCL, NOS; HGBL, NOS; DHL- BCL2 and DHL- BCL6. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until progression/relapse, retreatment, or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until death due to any cause. Results: A total of 1526 eligible patients were identified during this time period. All FISH data was available at the time of diagnosis and the choice of treatment was based on physician discretion. Median age at diagnosis was 63 years (IQR 53-72), with 148 (10%) patients in the AYA category, and 128 (8%) patients > 80 years. 58% (891) were male, 11% self identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 7% as Black/African American. The median diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) was 20 days (IQR 12-32), and 33% had DTI < 14 days. The FISH-based subgroups were MYC-negative DLBCL, NOS (N=1146, 75%), MYC-R DLBCL,NOS 227 (N = 96, 6%), DHL- BCL2 (N=154, 10%), DHL- BCL6 (N=38, 3%), and HGBL, NOS (N=92, 6%). When available, COO by Hans algorithm was 92% GCB in DHL- BCL2 and 50% GCB in DHL- BCL6. Clinical characteristics can be found in the table. At a median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 36-67), 490 patients (32%) had an event and 356 patients (23%) died. EFS at 24 months (EFS24) was 75% (95% CI: 73-77). Patients with DHL- BCL6 were younger at diagnosis (median 60 years), had more extranodal site involvement (40%), more often stage III/IV disease (70%), and more often treated with a higher intensity regimen than R-CHOP (69%) compared to DLBCL,NOS and MYC-R DLBCL. DHL- BCL6 also had fewer patients that were males (47%), with DTI <=14 days (33%), NCCN IPI ≥ 4 (45%), elevated LDH (53%) than HGBL, NOS and DHL- BCL2. The 2-year EFS and OS rates were noted to be significantly better in the DHL- BCL6 (EFS 79%, 95% CI: 67-93; OS 92%, 95% CI: 84-100) as compared to DHL- BCL2 (EFS 58%, 95% CI: 50-66; OS 70%, 95% CI 63 - 78) and HGBL, NOS (EFS 74%, 95% CI: 65-84; OS 74%, 95% CI: 65-84 ), (Figure 1) but were comparable to that of DLBCL, NOS (EFS 78%, 95% CI: 76-81; OS 87%, 95% CI: 86-89). Conclusions: Our data support separating DHL- BCL6 from DHL -BCL2 as these patients form a unique subgroup with some clinical characteristics comparable to both DLBCL, NOS as well as HGBL, NOS and DHL- BCL2 subtypes. In this cohort, clinical outcomes are more comparable to DLBCL, NOS than DHL- BCL2 or HGBCL, NOS. More frequent use of intensive chemotherapy in DHL- BCL6 compared with DLBCL may account for this finding, although larger multicenter studies are needed. Our results support continued identification of DHL- BCL6 in the clinical setting to better understand optimal therapy and biology of this cohort.

Abstract In this real-world evaluation of tafasitamab-lenalidomide (TL) in relapsed or refractory LBCL, patients receiving TL had higher rates of comorbidities and high-risk disease characteristics, and substantially lower progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with the L-MIND registration clinical trial for TL.

Abstract In the pivotal study ECHELON-1, brentuximab vedotin (BV), doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A + AVD) demonstrated superior efficacy compared with bleomycin + AVD for the treatment of advanced-stage classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). However, there are minimal available data regarding the frequency of dose reductions or omission of BV during curative therapy and the potential impact on patient outcomes. In a real-world analysis, we retrospectively reviewed the characteristics and outcomes of 179 patients with stage III or IV cHL treated with frontline A + AVD from January 2010 to April 2022. Treatment consisted of up to 1.2 mg/kg of BV and standard dose AVD IV on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. At the time of treatment, the median patient age was 37 years, and a high-risk International Prognostic Score was observed in 46% of patients. Overall, 91% of patients received 6 cycles of AVD; 55% of patients did not receive the intended cumulative dose of BV (CDB); 28% of patients received two-thirds or less than the planned CDB. At a median follow-up time of 27.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 24.8-29), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached, and the 12-month PFS was 90.3% (95% CI, 85.9-95.0). The impact of CDB on PFS was not significant (P = .15), nor was high CDB significantly associated with increased adverse events. In real-world experience, A + AVD is a highly effective treatment for patients with advanced-stage cHL, including for patients with prominent dose reductions of BV.