Citations

Background Advancements in imaging techniques, diagnostic procedures, and increased routine health care visits are anticipated to lead to a higher number of patients with an incidental diagnosis of cancer, including the most common lymphoma DLBCL. In parallel, multiple cancer early detection (MCED) blood assays are emerging to screen for cancer in asymptomatic, average risk individuals. Assays that use methylated DNA markers (MDM) are of special interest and have been shown to detect evidence of DLBCL in the blood in 80% of DLBCL cases (Witzig TE et al ASCO 2022). While these MDMs are candidates for inclusion in MCED assays, the impact of early detection of lymphoma in general and DLBCL specifically remains controversial. Since the outcomes for patients with an incidental diagnosis of DLBCL have not been previously studied and to give further insight to the early detection question, we investigated clinical characteristics and outcome differences between patients with DLBCL found incidentally and those with symptoms or obvious signs of disease that led them to seek medical evaluation. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of newly diagnosed DLBCL patients enrolled into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence from 2002-2015. We reviewed the medical records of the Mayo component to assign a mode of diagnosis (incidental vs symptomatic). We examined disease characteristics and impact on event-free survival (EFS) and overall (OS) survival according to the mode of diagnosis. EFS was the time from diagnosis to relapse, progression, retreatment, or death from any cause. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis to death from any cause. Results 1140 patients with DLBCL (90.6%), high grade B cell lymphoma (2.4%) or primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma (7.0%) were reviewed; 85 (7.5%) patients presented incidentally (incidental group), while 1055 (92.5%) presented with a lymphoma-related symptom or sign, e.g., palpation of a lump/mass, B symptoms and/or other symptoms caused by the lymphoma such as abdominal pain (symptomatic group). In the incidental group, 67.5% (65/85) of patients were diagnosed after an incidental finding on imaging or diagnostic/surgical procedure, 14.1% (12/85) were diagnosed after an incidental lab finding, and 9.4% (8/85) were diagnosed after a clinical health care professional incidentally identified a lump/mass. Compared to the symptomatic group, patients with incidental diagnosis were older at diagnosis (median age 66 vs 63 years, P=0.01) and more likely to present with an earlier stage I/II (62.4% vs 38.9%, P<0.001). Patients who presented with symptoms were more likely to have ≥ 1 extra-nodal site involvement (29.8% vs 15.5%, P=0.005), elevated LDH level (55.4% vs 40.8%, P=0.01), and high-risk IPI score (13.7% vs 5.9% P=0.03) compared to the incidental group. The median diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) was significantly longer in the incidental group (21 days, IQR 12-34) compared to the symptomatic group (15 days, IQR 9-24) (P = 0.0014). The median follow-up time was 152.3 months in the incidental group and 123.7 months in the symptomatic group. We observed no difference in early failure rates as measured by failure to achieve event-free status at 24 months (EFS24) for incidentally vs symptomatic diagnosis (25.9% vs 31.9%, P=0.25). There was no difference in EFS between the two groups in univariate (HR=1.08, 95%CI=0.8-1.45) or multivariable analysis adjusted for IPI (aHR=0.97, 95%CI=0.72-1.31). There was also no difference in OS in univariate (HR=0.98, 95%CI=0.72-1.34) or multivariable analysis adjusted for IPI (aHR=0.87, 95%CI=0.64-1.19). Conclusion In this large cohort of aggressive B-cell lymphoma, incidental diagnosis occurred in only 7.5% of cases and these patients had earlier stage, lower IPI score, lower LDH levels and less extranodal involvement. These differences in clinical characteristics did not translate into EFS or OS differences. Our findings are the first to describe presentation and outcomes of incidentally diagnosed DLBCL and provide data regarding what investigators may find with MCED assays. Finding more early stage DLBCL patients with lower tumor burden may influence type of treatment, enable the use of fewer chemotherapy cycles, and avoid symptoms and complications of advanced stage disease such as tumor lysis syndrome and organ compression.

Background: FL3B is the least common among FL subtypes, accounting for 5-10% of cases. Almost half of FL3B tumors have concurrent diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the diagnostic tissue biopsy, while FL3B rarely coexists with FL1-2 or FL3A. Several lines of evidence suggest that FL3B displays distinct biological and clinical characteristics resembling aggressive DLBCL rather than the indolent FL1-3A. Accordingly, DLBCL anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, are the mainstay of therapy for FL3B with or without coexisting DLBCL. However, while some studies show that R-CHOP therapy in FL3B was associated with 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 54%, others report outcomes comparable to FL3A with 79-90% survival. Additional controversy involves the clinical implication of pure FL3B (FL3Bp) vs FL3B with concurrent DLBCL (FL3Bc). Thus, it remains unclear if FL3B clinically resembles DLBCL or lower-grade FL and whether FL3Bp has a different prognosis from FL3Bc. To address these questions, we performed a pooled study of two large prospective multicenter study cohorts to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of newly diagnosed FL3B with FL1-2, FL3A and DLBCL patients, all of whom were uniformly treated with frontline R-CHOP. Patients and Methods: Weevaluated 469 newly diagnosed patients with FL1-2 (n=216), FL3A (n=170) and FL3B (n=83) who received R-CHOP within 6 months of diagnosis and 739 de novo DLBCL (GCB n=455 and non-GCB n=284) who were prospectively enrolled into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohorts between 2002 and 2021. FL3B cases were designated as FL3Bc and FL3Bp based on the presence or absence of coexisting DLBCL, respectively. Histologic diagnosis was determined by an expert pathologist at each participating center and centrally reviewed. Event free survival (EFS) and OS were defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, retreatment or death, and early progression defined as failing to achieve EFS at 24 months (EFS24). Associations between clinical features and EFS or OS were evaluated using Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models unadjusted and adjusted for age and FLIPI (comparisons with FL1-2 and FL3A) or IPI (comparisons with DLBCL). Results: The median age was 61 years (range, 18-94 years). Among FL3B patients, 21 (25%) had FL3Bc and 62 (75%) FL3Bp. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were broadly similar between the two FL3B subtypes. We then compared all FL3B patients to those with lower-grade FL. Patients with FL3B showed similar clinical features to those with FL1-2 and FL3A, with exception for a lower tumor burden. After R-CHOP, FL1-2 patients had an inferior EFS (HR 2.13 95%CI 1.31-3.46) than those with FL3B, whereas there was no difference compared to FL3A. OS was similar across all FL grades. Although FL1-2 patients failed to achieve EFS24 more frequently than FL3B and FL3A (34% vs 18% and 15%, p<0.001), FL3B patients who did fail EFS24 had almost three folds higher risk of subsequent mortality (HR 2.84 95%CI 1.35-6.01) than other FLs. At 5-year follow-up, FL3B patients had twice the risk of relapse with an aggressive subtype (i.e., DLBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma) than those with FL1-2 and FL3A, who instead often recurred with indolent disease (i.e., FL1-2, FL3A; p<0.001). We further compared FL3B patients to those with DLBCL classified based on cell-of-origin into GCB and non-GCB subtypes. At diagnosis, patients with FL3B had more favorable clinical features than those with GCB and non-GCB DLBCL. Compared to FL3B, patients with non-GCB DLBCL had an inferior EFS (HR 1.73 95%CI 1.07-2.79) and OS (HR 2.04 95%CI 1.11-3.75), while those with GCB DLBCL did not show a significant difference in EFS (HR 1.41 95%CI 0.88-2.25) or OS (HR 1.69, 95%CI 0.93-3.06) likely due to insufficient statistical power. Patients with FL3B failed EFS24 less frequently than patients with GCB or non-GCB DLBCL (17% vs 25% and 32%; p=0.01). Among patients who failed EFS24, those with FL3B had a similar subsequent OS as both GCB (HR 1.41 95%CI 0.73-2.72) and non-GCB DLBCL (HR 1.27 95%CI 0.65-2.47). Conclusions: We report that FL3Bp and FL3Bc appear clinically similar. While most FL3B patients have a prognosis comparable to FL1-2 and FL3A, 18% exhibit aggressive behavior with poor outcome reminiscent of DLBCL. Future studies with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings.

Introduction: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients experience favorable outcomes following frontline immunochemotherapy, however, 30-40% of patients will exhibit primary refractory disease or relapse (rrDLBCL). Recent studies have expanded upon well-defined characteristics of newly diagnosed DLBCL (ndDLBCL) to elucidate genomic landscapes underlying rrDLBCL; yet, high-throughput examination of resistance and relapse mechanisms within rrDLBCL subtypes, including the newly defined dark zone signature (DZsig) addition to cell of origin (COO), have yet to be described. To expand upon the current tumor etiology and define subtype-specific driving mechanisms, we describe a multi-omic analysis leveraging clinical and biologic variables in rrDLBCL. Methods: Tumor biopsies (N=228) collected at the time of relapse were obtained from n=85 participants in the Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa Lymphoma Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), n=73 in the Mayo Clinic Biobank, and n=38 from CC-122-DLBCL-001 or n=32 CC-122-ST-001 trials. Tumor samples were analyzed by WES (n=158) or WGS (n=70) and by RNAseq (n=145). Comparative analysis against ndDLBCL MER samples (N=444) utilized WES (n=404) and RNAseq (n=321). Chi Square or Fisher's exact test was used for enrichment analysis of categorical variables, while Wilcoxon or Kruskal-Wallis test was used for continuous variables. Results: rrDLBCL samples were enriched for ABC (46% vs 33% in ndDLBCL, p=0.01), and fewer GCB (27% vs 40%, p=0.006). Amongst rrDLBCL patients, variance in overall survival (from time of original diagnosis; log-rank p=0.001) was observed between COO subtypes, with poor outcomes in patients with DZsig (median 15.0 mo) and GCB (36.5 mo) compared to ABC tumors (74.4 mo). Patients with progression or relapse within 6 months featured a more even COO distribution (ABC - 22%, GCB - 34%, DZsig - 28%) than patients with early (6-24 mo; 51%, 22%, 22%) or late relapses (>24 mo; 62%, 19%, 4%), which were predominantly ABC. Comparing mutation frequency within subtypes, rrDLBCL GCB tumors were enriched for B2M (41% vs 15% in ndDLBCL, p=0.002), EP300 (19% vs 7%, p=0.059), CIITA (19% vs 5%, p=0.02), PRKCB (11% vs 2%, p=0.035), CD79B (11% vs 0%, p=0.004), and CD83 (8% vs 1%, p=0.049) mutations, and CNV events including gains at 8q24.21 (MYC locus; 48% vs 14%, p<0.001) and 18q21.33 (BCL2, TCF4 locus; 36% vs 15%, p=0.021), and losses at 17p13.1 (TP53 locus; 40% vs 19%, p=0.035). rrDLBCL DZsig tumors featured enrichment for BCL6 (22% vs 3%, p=0.025), and SPEN (17% vs 3%, p=0.062) mutations and 2q22.2 losses (LRP1B locus; 20% vs 0%, p=0.019). Despite differential mutation and CNV profiles, gene expression analysis revealed minimal variance within COO subtypes in rrDLBCL and ndDLBCL, however upregulation of lymphoma driving genes including MYBPC2 (LogFC=1.68, FDR<0.001), MYOM2 (LogFC=1.33, FDR=0.007), MYC (LogFC=0.61, FDR=0.04), and CELSR2 (LogFC=0.53, FDR=0.02) were observed in ABC rrDLBCL. Increased frequency of LymphGen classifier A53 was observed in ABC (43% vs 17%, p=0.005) and GCB (40% vs 14%, p=0.009) rrDLBCL. Using CIBERSORTx to infer lymphoma microenvironment (LME) cell type abundance, an LME-depleted class was evident in rrDLBCL tumors, including reduction of CD8+ T cells (effect size (r)=-0.78, p<0.001) and T follicular helper cells (r=-0.48, p=0.012) in GCB rrDLBCL and reduction of T follicular helper cells (r=-0.43, p=0.023) and Tregs (r=-0.32, p=0.065) in DZsig rrDLBCL. Significance: We present an update to the genomic landscape of rrDLBCL, highlighting GCB and DZsig tumors with differential biology and advanced clinical course. Our data supports increased implementation of sequencing efforts in rrDLBCL to more broadly evaluate relapse mechanisms, with optimism that a more detailed understanding of r/r disease may guide trials for targeted treatment strategies. For example, rrDLBCL patients may be strong candidates for MYC pathway targeting agents (BETi), or a Lenalidomide-based regimen (R2 or Tafa-Len), as Lenalidomide has been shown to reprogram the LME via PD-L1 expression in addition to downregulation of MYC and MYC target genes. Or, due to enrichment of variants affecting anti-apoptotic proteins including BCL6 or BCL2 in DZsig and GCB rrDLBCL, a venetoclax-based therapeutic may be considered. Further targeted strategies should be considered as development of a more personalized approach remains an unmet need.

Background: Immunochemotherapy is the current standard-of-care frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Our group previously reported that addition of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus to R-CHOP resulted in excellent efficacy in the Alliance N1085 trial (Witzig TE et al, Blood Cancer J, 2017, 7(6):e576), with 23 of 24 patients achieving event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24), supporting further investigation of PI3K/mTOR targeting in DLBCL. New insights into molecular classification of DLBCL suggest that multiple genetic subtypes of DLBCL (eg, MCD, BN2, ST2, and EZB per LymphGen classification) may be susceptible to PI3K/mTOR targeting. Therefore, we conducted a phase 1/1b trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of combination therapy with a novel PI3K inhibitor parsaclisib and standard immunochemotherapy. Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL were eligible if any of the following was present: 1) non-GCB subtype per the Hans algorithm; 2) protein expression of either MYC (≥40%) or BCL2 (≥50%) by immunohistochemistry; or 3) MYC rearrangement by FISH. Patients with high grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements were also eligible. Phase 1 followed a 3+3 design to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of parsaclisib (plus R-CHOP) to be used in Phase 1b (dose expansion). The primary efficacy endpoint in phase 1/1b was complete response (CR) rate by PET. A polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) safety lead-in cohort was added later to explore the safety and efficacy of parsaclisib (at MTD) plus Pola-R-CHP. Results: From July 2020 to May 2023, 50 patients were enrolled; 1 patient withdrew consent before study treatment and was excluded from this analysis. Nine patients were treated in Phase 1, 33 in Phase 1b, and 7 in the Pola cohort. The median age at diagnosis was 66 years (range 20-86), and 20 (41%) were female. Two (4%) patients had ECOG PS ≥2, 26 (53%) had elevated LDH, 19 (39%) had >1 extranodal site, 37 (76%) had stage III/IV, and 25 (51%) had high-intermediate or high-risk International Prognostic Index (3-5). 23 (47%) had non-GCB subtype, 23 (46.9%) had MYC or BCL2 single expression, 21 (42.9%) had MYC/BCL2 double expression, and 6 (12%) had MYC rearrangement (2 with BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements). In Phase 1, 3 patients were treated at dose level 1 (parsaclisib 20 mg QD, d1-10) and 6 at dose level 2 (parsaclisib 20 mg QD, d1-14). No dose limiting toxicity was observed. Therefore, dose level 2 for parsaclisib was the MTD and was used in Phase 1b. In the Pola cohort (n=7), only 1 of 6 evaluable patients experienced significant toxicity (grade 3 diarrhea). Among all 49 patients, the most common treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) of any grade included neutropenia (83.7%), thrombocytopenia (79.6%), leukopenia (77.6%), lymphopenia (71.4%), anemia (71.4%), nausea (63.3%), fatigue (40.8%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (36.7%), constipation (24.5%), and diarrhea (22.4%), and the most common grade ≥3 TRAE included neutropenia (71.4%), leukopenia (69.4%), lymphopenia (49.0%), thrombocytopenia (20.4%), anemia (16.3%), febrile neutropenia (6.1%), and diarrhea (6.1%). In Phase 1/1b (n=42), the overall response rate (ORR) to parsaclisib plus R-CHOP was 97.6%, and the CR rate was 90.5%. After a median follow-up of 28.5 months (95% CI 27.7-32.7), the estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 84.6% (95% CI 73.9-96.8), and the estimated 2-year overall survival (OS) rate was 95.1% (95% CI 88.7-100.0). In the Pola cohort, the ORR to parsaclisib plus Pola-R-CHP was 100% and the CR rate was 100%. After a median follow-up of 15.6 months (95% CI 13.5-NE), 1 patient had disease relapse at 11.95 months, and all patients were alive. Conclusions: Addition of the PI3K inhibitor parsaclisib to R-CHOP or Pola-R-CHP immunochemotherapy is considered safe in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. Combination of parsaclisib and standard immunochemotherapy resulted in high ORR and CR rate and encouraging preliminary PFS and OS outcomes patients with high-risk DLBCL. These data support further investigation of PI3K/mTOR targeting in newly diagnosed DLBCL in future trials.

In 2023, Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, cared for over 20,000 patients with hematologic malignancies, roughly 42% of whom were rural. Patients residing in rural areas can face challenges in access to care, financial and time burdens due to treatment-related travel, and limited opportunities to participate in clinical trials. In 2021, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society launched its IMPACT (Influential Medicine Providing Access to Clinical Trials) grant with Mayo Clinic being among its first recipients. The program provides funding to major cancer centers, in partnership with local community oncology centers, to help increase participation of patients traditionally underrepresented in clinical trials, including those who are rural, minority and/or economically disadvantaged. The award allowed significant changes to be made to clinical trial selection and facilitation models increasing access to trials within the rural setting and reducing the socioeconomic barriers noted above. This program included Rochester (IMPACT Hub) and Mayo Clinic Health System (MCHS) sites in Albert Lea, MN (65 miles to Hub), Eau Claire, WI (96 miles to hub), La Crosse, WI (73 miles to Hub), and Mankato, MN (84 miles to Hub). Methods: Two models were deployed; the full activation model where clinical trials were fully opened at MCHS sites, and the hybrid model where clinical trial participants are consented at the Hub and portions of participant care are conducted at MCHS sites. Initial barriers included limitations in clinical trials support staff, insufficient specimen processing equipment, medication storage and shipping limitations, MCHS catchment population unalignment with the Hub trials portfolio, and reduced bandwidth of providers due to patient care responsibilities. To address barriers to trial conduct, community center site champions were identified to streamline trial review and increase collaboration to better define site catchment areas, trial constraints, and site needs. A feasibility specialist was hired to support the program in trial design/implementation, barrier tracking, and to serve as a liaison between community site providers, study staff, and the program. Results: Since 2021, 20 clinical studies including 14 interventional treatment trials have been activated demonstrating 108 total patients accrued with 42 interventional accruals; 5 within the full activation model (13 accruals) and 15 in the hybrid model (29 accruals). Patients showed an average of 216 miles, with an estimated mileage cost of $142/trip based on the 2023 IRS mileage rate of $0.655/mile to the hub location. Nine of those patients traveled over 260 miles, with an estimated mileage cost of $170/visit to access clinical trials. Under the hybrid model, 8 patients transitioned portions of their care to their home city resulting in reduction of an average of 155 miles/visit, and 7 patients were able to reduce their travel time an average of 216 miles/visit. By estimating at least 10 study visits, the travel burden was reduced by 2,160 miles (4320 driving hours) and $1,420 in driving costs alone for participants. Using participant averages the 108 patients would spend a total of $15,336 in travel costs for just the initial visit, but when factoring in the 10-visit estimate, travel reduction could result in a net savings of $153,360. Based on travel data, it is estimated 11 of these patients would have required overnight accommodation using an average of $149/night hotel stay, a savings of $1,490/patient is estimated for the lifecycle of trial participation or $16,390 for the 11-patient cohort requiring accommodation. These results do not include travel companion and time off work costs. Efforts have been made to further develop the full activation model and 5 clinical trials are in activation. Data gathered from the program is being used to design strategies to reduce the administrative burden of clinical trial participation for community providers and launch screening programs. Conclusion: The Mayo Clinic LLS IMPACT program has demonstrated success in addressing barriers to opening clinical trials in the community-center setting and reduced the travel burden and financial impact to clinical trial participation in a cohort of trial participants. Centralized hub support of study activation and conduct and decentralized care to support treatment of patients in proximity of their home can be extended to other hospital systems and settings.

Background: Polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) is an antibody drug conjugate targeting CD79b that incorporates the microtubule disrupting monomethyl auristatin E payload. Pola was approved in 2023 for the upfront treatment of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (polaRCHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, the activity of pola appears to vary based on DLBCL cell of origin (COO) subtype, with greater efficacy in activated B cell (ABC) DLBCL compared to germinal center B cell (GCB) DLBCL (Russler-Germain Blood 2023). When outcomes in POLARIX are stratified by COO, polaRCHP demonstrated progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits over RCHOP in patients with ABC but not GCB subtype DLBCL (PFS HR 0.34 ABC vs 1.03 GCB, OS HR 0.27 ABC vs 1.64 GCB; Morschhauser ASH 2023 and FDA data). Most prospective studies of pola used gene expression to assess COO, which is not readily clinically available. This study aims to examine if COO subtype by Hans algorithm (based on CD10, BCL6, and MUM1 expression by immunohistochemistry) is predictive of pola responses and outcomes in patients with large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter observational study of adults with LBCL who received pola (monotherapy or in combination) from 2015-2024 with Hans algorithm COO data and response assessment available. Patients were stratified by receipt of pola in the frontline vs relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to pola-based treatment in GCB vs non-GCB subtypes. Secondary endpoints included complete response rate (CRR), PFS, and OS. For time to event endpoints, patients responding to pola who received CAR T or stem cell transplantation prior to progression were censored at time of cellular therapy. Demographics were summarized by descriptive statistics. Comparative and survival analyses used Chi squared/Fischer exact tests and Kaplan Meier analysis. Data cutoff was July 1, 2024. Results: 718 patients were included. Median follow-up was 15 months (interquartile range [IQR] 8-32). Median age at LBCL diagnosis was 66 years (IQR 56-74); 62% were men; 69 (10%) had double hit lymphoma (DHL); 129 (18%) had underlying low grade lymphoma. Pola was used in the frontline setting in 293 (41%) patients, of whom 139 (47%) had GCB vs 154 (53%) non-GCB COO. Of the 426 patients receiving pola for R/R LBCL (including one patient receiving pola retreatment), 224 (53%) had GCB vs 202 (47%) non-GCB COO. Among patients receiving pola-based regimens in the R/R setting (GCB vs non-GCB: pola monotherapy = 7% vs 4%, pola + R = 26% vs 26%, pola + BR = 55% vs 61%, pola + other = 12% vs 9%; p = 0.44), the ORR in GCB vs non-GCB LBCL was 36% vs 61% (p < 0.001), while CRR in GCB vs non-GCB was 17% vs 36% (p < 0.001). COO remained a significant component of logistic multivariate regression models of ORR (p < 0.001) and CRR (p < 0.001) when incorporating IPI at original LBCL diagnosis, histology, DHL status, and refractory status to frontline therapy. Despite this, no significant PFS or OS differences by COO were seen, potentially due to approximately 1/4 patients being censored due to receiving subsequent cellular therapy (e.g. CAR T) prior to progression. In patients receiving frontline pola-based regimens (of which 275 [94%] included an anthracycline), ORR and CRR were similar in GCB vs non-GCB (ORR 89% vs 88% p > 0.5; CRR 76% vs 77% p > 0.5). While PFS and OS were similar between COO groups in the frontline cohort, follow-up and cohort size were limited. Conclusion: Based on this real-world evidence, COO classification by Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of the activity of pola-containing therapy in R/R LBCL, with significantly higher ORR and CRR in patients with non-GCB compared to GCB COO LBCL. This aligns with the cumulative existing evidence. ORR and CRR to pola-containing therapy in the frontline setting did not differ significantly by COO subtype, but longer follow-up of larger cohorts is needed to clarify the predictive role of COO by Hans algorithm in this setting, especially considering the PFS advantage with polaRCHP in POLARIX was not associated with significant differences in ORR or CRR. Overall, clinicians should consider factoring COO subtype into treatment decisions regarding pola-containing regimens, and studies of pola-based therapies should stratify patients and report outcomes by COO subtype.

Introduction: GOLCA is a potential first-in-class oral cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD™) agent for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, purposefully designed to target Ikaros/Aiolos and have favorable pharmacokinetics, resulting in apoptotic and immunomodulatory activity with preferential distribution to lymphoid organs. CC-220-DLBCL-001 (NCT04884035) is an ongoing phase 1b, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation/expansion trial to assess safety and preliminary 1L GOLCA + R-CHOP efficacy in a-BCL. Although longer follow-up is needed to assess durability of response, MRD negativity (MRD-) is an emerging endpoint in a-BCL. Achieving MRD- on and at end of treatment (EOT) can potentially predict clinical benefit. This study aimed to analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) kinetics of GOLCA + R-CHOP across the trial population and in defined patient (pt) segments-cell of origin (COO), high baseline ctDNA, and high-risk genomics-and to correlate MRD- with imaging and clinical outcomes. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥ 18 years of age with ECOG performance status ≤2, IPI 0-5 in Part 1 and 2-5 in Part 2, and untreated a-BCL with measurable disease. Pts were treated with GOLCA + R-CHOP for 6 x 21-day (D) cycles (C) or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity/study withdrawal. Dose escalation phase GOLCA dose levels (DLs) were 0.2 mg D1-7 (DL-1), 0.4 mg D1-7 (DL1), or 0.4 mg D1-10 (DL2). During dose expansion, pts were randomized 1:1 to R-CHOP + GOLCA DL-1 or DL1. The primary endpoint was safety of GOLCA at DL1; efficacy was a secondary endpoint, ctDNA was an exploratory endpoint. ctDNA was analyzed using the PhasED-Seq assay (<10-6 sensitivity) at baseline, C2D1, C3D1, and EOT. MRD- was defined as the absence of detectable ctDNA on-treatment. Pretreatment biopsies were sequenced by whole genome sequencing (WGS) and whole transcriptome sequencing (WTS). Results: At data cutoff (June 3, 2024), the median follow-up was 14.3 months. One-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 85.3% at 0.4 mg and 77.3% at 0.2 mg. Rates of MRD- increased over time but were consistently higher at 0.4 vs 0.2 mg, with values of 44% (14/32) vs 29% (8/28) at C2D1; 63% (17/27) vs 54% (15/28) at C3D1, and 90% (26/29) vs 73% (19/26) at EOT, respectively. Interim MRD- at C3D1 strongly predicted EOT MRD-; all 0.4 mg pts and all but two 0.2 mg pts who were MRD- at C3D1 remained MRD- at EOT. In contrast, fold-changes from baseline ctDNA were similar between 0.4 mg and 0.2 mg. The early molecular response rate (≥102-fold drop from baseline at C2D1) was 81.2% (26/32) at 0.4 mg and 82.1% (23/28) at 0.2 mg. The major molecular response rate (≥102.5-fold drop from baseline at C3D1) was 88.9% (24/27) at 0.4 mg and 85.7% (24/28) at 0.2 mg. Across genetically defined pt segments, EOT MRD- at 0.4 mg was prevalent for both COO subtypes measured by the Hans algorithm: 94% (17/18) among germinal center B-cell (GCB) and 75% (6/8) among non-GCB pts. Of the 29 pts with baseline genomics, 13 were genomically high risk: p53 mutant (VAF >0.5), DZsig and/or A7 subtype. In these pts, EOT MRD- was 80% (4/5) at 0.4 mg but only 20% (1/5) at 0.2 mg. In high baseline ctDNA (>102.5 hGE/mL) pts who were high-risk for R-CHOP failure, EOT MRD- at 0.4 mg was 86.7% (13/15) vs 57.1% (8/14) at 0.2 mg. There was an association between high baseline ctDNA and lower PFS at 0.2 mg (HR, 4.56 [95% CI, 0.53-39.12]), but interestingly the association decreased at 0.4 mg (HR, 2.10 [95% CI, 0.19-23.5]). Combining both arms, MRD- at both C3D1 and EOT trends with improved PFS (C3D1: HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.2114-2.523]; EOT: HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.1103-2.592]); longer follow-up may be required to demonstrate significance. Conclusions: Interim and EOT levels of MRD- were higher at 0.4 mg vs 0.2 mg GOLCA, with a one-year PFS of 85.3% vs 77.3%, respectively. Although pt numbers were small, the data suggest that 0.4 mg is efficacious in high-risk ctDNA and high-genomic risk pts, independent of COO, and support the 0.4 mg GOLCA + R-CHOP regimen in the randomized phase 3 trial GOLSEEK-1. Interim MRD- may play a role in future adaptive trial designs.

Introduction: Adults older than 60 years constitute 20-25% of newly diagnosed classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) and have inferior outcomes compared to younger patients (pts). Salvage therapy followed by an autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is a potentially curative option for pts with relapsed/refractory (R/R cHL). There is limited data regarding outcomes of older adults with R/R cHL who undergo ASCT in the current era where novel agents are employed in the R/R setting, in comparison with younger patients. Methods: This multicenter, international, retrospective study of 18 participating institutions included adults with R/R cHL who underwent ASCT from January 1, 2010 through December 31 2020. Retrospective chart review was performed to collect data on patient and disease characteristics at relapse, including lines and type of salvage therapy, pre-ASCT response by PET, and use of brentuximab vedotin (BV) as consolidation post-ASCT. Study objectives were to assess progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the probability of non-relapse mortality (NRM) with relapse as a competing event. NRM was defined as death without preceding relapse. Results: Of the total 1172 adults with R/R cHL enrolled in the parent cohort, 96 (8.1%) were age 60 years or older at the time of ASCT. In this older cohort, the median age was 66 years (range: 60-72). 54 (56%) were age 60-64, 31 (32%) were of age 65-69 and 11 (11%) were of age 70-72. 59 (61%) were male, 63 (66%) had advanced stage disease, 17 (18%) had bulky disease, 37 (39%) had B symptoms and 38 (40%) had extranodal disease. All patients (pts) received ABVD or ABVD-like frontline therapy. The median time to relapse was 6 months (range: 0-174). 48 pts (50%) relapsed within a year after completion of frontline treatment and 25 (26%) had primary refractory disease. Salvage therapy prior to ASCT included platinum-based chemotherapy (65%), BV-based regimen (34%), and PD-1 inhibitor-based regimens (3%). 16 pts (16%) underwent ASCT after >1 line of salvage therapy and 75 (78%) underwent ASCT after achieving a complete metabolic response (CMR). 14 pts (14.6%) received BV consolidation. Median follow-up for entire population was 53.4 months (range: 0.3-199.0). In older adults, the 5-year PFS was 54.2% (CI95: 43.4-67.6) not statistically different compared to pts <60 years (67.7% (CI95: 64.3-71.3), p=0.2). However, 5-year OS was inferior in older adults: 71.9% (CI95: 43.4-67.6) vs. 82.6% (CI95: 43.4-67.6) in pts <60 years (p <0.0001)). In pts ≥60, 26 (27%) died including 12 (12.5%) without preceding relapse. Older adults had 3-month, 1-year and 5-year probability of NRM of 5.2% (CI95: 2.2-12.2), 7.5% (CI95: 3.6-15.3), and 10.9% (CI95: 5.8-20.8), respectively. NRM was significantly higher in older adults compared to pts <60 who had 3-month, 1-year and 5-year probability of NRM of 0.3% (CI95: 0.1-1.0), 0.9% (CI95: 0.5-1.7), and 2.5% (CI95: 1.6-3.9), respectively (p<0.0001). Older adults had 3-month, 1-year and 5-year probability of relapse of 1% (CI95: 0.2-7.3), 7.5% (CI95: 3.6-15.3), and 28.6% (CI95: 19.1-42.1), respectively, which did not differ significantly from younger pts (p=0.3) who had 3-month, 1-year and 5-year probability of relapse of 0.6% (CI95: 0.3-1.3), 5.1% (CI95: 3.8-6.6), and 29.9% (CI95: 26.6-33.5), respectively. Conclusions: Although older adults with cHL are more likely to relapse after frontline treatment, only a minority of pts (<10%) in this large multicenter cohort underwent ASCT at age ≥60. In select older adults who underwent ASCT, the risk of relapse was similar to younger pts, but NRM was significantly higher, especially in the early post-ASCT period. Detailed assessment of comorbidity scores, toxicities of salvage therapies, and prognostic factors will be presented at the conference.

Background: Approximately20% of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) will experience disease progression or death within two years of years (POD24) of immunochemotherapy (IC) (Casulo et al, JCO 2015). A proportion of patients with POD24 have histologic transformation (HT), which heightens the risk of lymphoma-related death (Freeman et al, Blood 2019). To clarify the impact of HT on prognosis in POD24, we analyzed data from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Consortium of Real-World Evidence (CReWE) to compare differences in outcomes among patients with POD24 with retained FL histology versus POD24 with HT. Methods: This was a multicenter study among 8 academic cancer centers. Eligible patients hadgrade 1-3a FL at diagnosis between 2003 and 2022, with POD24 following first line IC treatment with BR, R-CHOP, or R-CVP. POD24 was defined as disease recurrence within 24 months of IC. Patients with prior lines of treatment for FL were excluded. Patients with HT at first line IC were excluded. Biopsy at POD24 was obtained at the discretion of the treating physician. Three groups of POD24 were defined: POD24 with biopsy-proven retained FL histology (POD24_FL), POD24 with biopsy-proven HT to aggressive lymphoma (POD24_HT), and POD24 either without a biopsy or indeterminate histology on biopsy (POD24_I). We evaluated second-line treatments at time of POD24. Survival probabilities from second-line treatment initiation were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results A total of1,122 patients with FL were screened and308 patients with POD24 were identified.Median age at POD24 was 58 years (IQR 50-65).Among available data, race and ethnicity was reported as 76% non-Hispanic White, 3% non-Hispanic Black/African American, 9% Hispanic/Latino (any race), and 1% other minorities. First line therapy was R-CHOP in45% (140/308), BR in 33% (102/308) and R-CVP in 21% (66/308). Most patients (52%) had biopsy-proven retained FL at POD24 (162/308); 30% had no biopsy or indeterminate histology at POD24 (94/308), and 17% had biopsy-proven HT at POD24 (52/308). In the POD24_HT group, 52% received R-CHOP and 21% received intensive salvage chemotherapy as second line therapy. Patients with POD24_FL and POD24_I had similar rates of salvage chemotherapy (21% and 18%), BR (13% and 18%), R-CHOP (19% and 24%), and targeted therapies (8% and 5%), respectively, at second line. Consolidative autologous stem cell transplant was more common in POD24_HT patients at 21% versus 16% in POD24_FL and 6% in POD24_I. Patients with POD24_HT had significantly worse overall survival (OS) compared to POD24_FL (ref), with a hazard ratio of 3.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.46-5.84), even after adjusting for age, FLIPI score, and first-line IC treatment. At 5 years, patients with POD24_HT had OS of 31% compared with an OS of 71% for patients with POD24_FL. Patients with POD24_I had similar outcomes to those with POD24_FL (5-year OS 75% versus 71%, respectively). Event-free survival (EFS) was also significantly lower in POD24_HT compared to POD24_FL: At 2 years, EFS was 27% for POD24_FL (21-35%) and 10% for POD24 _HT (4-23%). At 5 years, lymphoma remained the leading cause of death among patients with POD24, with 20% probability of lymphoma-related death in those with POD24_FL (95% CI 14.2-27.8) compared to 53% probability of lymphoma-related death in patients with POD24_HT (95% CI 40.6-70.7). Conclusions: In our multicenter cohort, we identified remarkable differences between the two biopsy-demonstrated entities of POD24 (i.e., with and without HT). Patients without a biopsy or indeterminate histology had similar outcomes as those with POD24_FL. Patients withearlyrelapse of FL after first-line IC remain a heterogeneous group with poor outcomes and a heightened risk of lymphoma-related mortality particularly compared with nonPOD24 groups. Even with retained FL histology, patients with POD24 had 20% probability of lymphoma-related death within 5 years of second-line treatment initiation. We demonstrate that poor survival is driven in part, but not entirely, by HT. Despite most patients receiving appropriate aggressive treatment, those with POD24_HT represent a distinctly vulnerable population warranting further study in directed prospective studies of both FL biology and clinical trials.

Background and Significance Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and other LBCLs account for 35-40% of non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases in North America, Europe, and East Asia. Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), typically administered for 6 cycles, is the standard therapy for DLBCL and is curative in ~60-70% of patients (pts). However, 30-40% of pts have relapsed/refractory (RR) DLBCL following treatment with R-CHOP, with poor clinical outcomes. International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 are used to identify high-risk (HR) pts who are more likely to be RR following treatment. Additionally, pts with IPI scores of 1-2 who also have bulky disease and/or very high lactate dehydrogenase levels (LDH), have been identified as a HR subset with similar outcomes to pts with an IPI score of 3 (Maurer et al. ASH 2023, #4512). First-line therapy represents the greatest opportunity to address the unmet need for these pts. Golcadomide (GOLCA) is a potential first-in-class oral cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD™) agent purposefully designed for the treatment of lymphoma. GOLCA co-opts cereblon to induce targeted degradation of the transcription factors Ikaros/Aiolos, inducing deep, rapid, and extensive tumor killing, independent of cell of origin, and enhanced immunostimulatory activity. In the phase 1b study CC-220-DLBCL-001, GOLCA combined with R-CHOP was well tolerated, showing promising activity and combinability with high rates of durable responses irrespective of cell of origin in pts with previously untreated aggressive BCL, including those with HR disease (Hoffmann et al. EHA 2024, S235). Additionally, GOLCA has shown encouraging efficacy and safety profiles in pts with RR DLBCL, both as a monotherapy (Michot et al. ICML 2023, P90) and in combination with rituximab (Chavez et al. ASH 2023, P4496). The efficacy and safety data observed in early-phase studies suggest promising activity and a manageable safety profile. This supports further investigation of the GOLCA + R-CHOP combination in the phase 3 setting. Here, we present the study design of GOLSEEK-1, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study (NCT06356129) comparing the efficacy and safety of GOLCA + R-CHOP vs placebo + R-CHOP in pts with previously untreated HR LBCL. Study Design and Methods Approximately 850 pts with previously untreated LBCL will be randomized 1:1 to either GOLCA + R-CHOP or placebo + R-CHOP. Pts must have a histologically confirmed diagnosis of LBCL according to WHO 2022 classification, including: DLBCL, not otherwise specified (NOS) including ABC and GCB subtypes; high-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 rearrangements, or NOS; T-cell/histiocyte-rich LBCL; Epstein-Barr Virus-Positive DLBCL. Other key inclusion criteria include an IPI score of 1 or 2 considered HR (LDH > 1.3 × upper limit of normal and/or bulky disease, defined as a single lesion of ≥ 7 cm [Maurer et al. ASH 2023, #4512]), or IPI score ≥ 3; and measurable disease as defined by the Lugano classification. Key exclusion criteria include other lymphoma subtypes such as primary mediastinal LBCL; primary cutaneous DLBCL-leg type, grade 3b follicular lymphoma (FL); transformed indolent lymphoma; anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive LBCL; primary effusion lymphoma; and Burkitt lymphoma, as well as documented or suspected central nervous system involvement. Randomization will be stratified by IPI score (1-2 with risk factors and 3 vs 4-5) and bulky disease (> 7 cm vs ≤ 7 cm). After a screening period of ≤ 4 weeks, pts will receive GOLCA (0.4 mg) or placebo orally once daily for 7 consecutive days in each of 6 cycles in combination with R-CHOP in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint of this study is progression-free survival (PFS) in untreated HR LBCL, assessed by investigator based on the Lugano Response Criteria. Key secondary endpoints include PFS in untreated non-high-grade BCL, event-free survival in pts with untreated HR LBCL, independently assessed complete metabolic response rate, undetectable minimal residual disease by PhasED-Seq (defined as undetectable circulating tumor DNA levels at treatment end), and overall survival. Patient follow-up will occur for up to approximately 67 months after beginning treatment. This study is recruiting at 293 sites in 37 countries, across the United States, Europe, Latin America, and East Asia.