Desai, Amrita

Abstract Secondary central nervous system (CNS) large B-cell lymphoma (SCNSL) occurs in the de novo setting, as a CNS-isolated relapse, or synchronous (concomitant CNS and systemic) relapse. SCNSL is a devastating event without therapeutic consensus. Thus, we aimed to evaluate treatment outcomes in an international cohort. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR, estimated using competing-risk models) were reported. Prognostic factors were identified in a 6-month landmark multivariate analysis. Outcomes after thiotepa autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (CAR-T) delivered at relapse were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). A total of 1139 patients were included in the analysis (de novo: 537; relapsed SCNSL: 602). Two-year PFS estimates were 40.4%, 43.9%, and 16.2% for de novo SCNSL, CNS-isolated relapse, and synchronous relapse, respectively. Patients with CNS-isolated relapse demonstrated low rates of systemic recurrence (24-month CIR, 6%). Thiotepa-ASCT correlated with longer survival in de novo SCNSL (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .005; and OS: HR, 0.62; P = .023) and CNS-isolated relapses (PFS: HR, 0.55; P = .002; and OS: HR, 0.39; P< .0001). ASCT (thiotepa or no thiotepa) also associated with improved survival in synchronous relapses (PFS: HR, 0.57; P = .023; and OS: HR, 0.48; P = .019). Higher survival with thiotepa-ASCT than CAR-T was observed after PSM (PFS: HR, 0.45; P = .005 and OS: HR, 0.41; P = .014). These data support thiotepa-ASCT in eligible patients, particularly de novo disease and CNS-isolated relapses. CNS-isolated relapse was infrequently associated with systemic recurrence, supporting treatment regimens adopted from primary CNS lymphoma.

Introduction: Scant data exist on prognostic factors, survival and treatment (Tx)-related outcomes in SCNSL. We conducted a multicenter international analysis to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in SCNSL at diagnosis (de novo), or after frontline Tx (1L) either with (concomitant) or without (isolated) systemic (syst) relapse. Methods: This study collected data from patients (pts) treated between 2001-2023 at 35 centers. Overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated from SCNSL diagnosis to first event (death for OS, relapse/death for PFS) or last follow-up. Uni- (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) Cox analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors; Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Results: 1173 (US: 863, UK: 273, Canada: 37) pts with SCNSL were included. Baseline characteristics were median age: 62 years (interquartile range 52.5-69), male sex: 58.7%, elevated LDH: 71.1%, stage III/IV: 88.6%, HIV: 3%, transformed LBCL (tLBCL): 13.8%, non-germinal center B-cell like (non-GCB) subtype: 52.3%, double expressor (DE): 40%, MYC rearrangement (MYC-R): 28.3%, MYC/BCL2 double hit: 16.6%, MYC/BCL2/BCL6 triple hit (TH): 6.1%. Among 522 pts with de novo SCNSL, 84.2% had involvement of a single CNS compartment (44.7% brain parenchyma; 40.4% leptomeningeal [lepto]). 1L regimens included 36.2% R-CHOP with high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), 12.5% MARIETTA-type, and 9.8% R-CODOX-M/IVAC; 54.6% received intrathecal chemotherapy. Consolidation Thiotepa-based autologous stem cell transplant (TT-ASCT) occurred in 15.3%. The majority of pts who underwent TT-ASCT had previously achieved CR or PR in syst (92.5%) and CNS (72.5%) compartments. At median follow-up 25.7 months (mos), subsequent relapse was observed in 27.5% TT-ASCT recipients: 36.3% had isolated CNS, 27.4% syst, and 36.3% concomitant. 588 pts presented with SCNS after 1L (66.2% isolated, 33.8% concomitant). Brain parenchyma involvement was observed in 56.8%, lepto in 22.6%. Tx included 31.6% HD-MTX combination (eg, R-MPV, MTR); 18.4% HD-MTX +/- rituximab; 16.2% MARIETTA-type; and 9.4% platinum-based regimen. Consolidation TT-ASCT occurred in 22.4% (n=132), and 13.8% (n=81) received CAR-T cell therapy (excluding subsequent relapses in de novo group). Syst (65.1%) & CNS (69.1%) responses (CR/PR) were higher before TT-ASCT compared to CAR-T cell (49.5% & 54.5%, respectively). After TT-ASCT, 52 pts (39.3%) relapsed, mainly in the CNS (n=30, 57.7%), with only 4 (7.7%) concomitant. After CAR-T, 48 pts (59.3%) relapsed: 15 (31.2%) isolated in CNS and 15 (31.2%) concomitant. 12-month cumulative incidence of relapse (with death as competing risk) was 21.1% after TT-ASCT and 55.8% after CAR-T. In 63 pts (5.4%), the first CNS event occurred >2 lines of Tx. With median follow-up of the entire cohort of 24.6 mos, median PFS and OS were 11 and 21 mos, respectively. mPFS and mOS were significantly better in pts with de novo SCNSL (13.4 & 47.4 mos) compared to SCNSL after 1L (10.4 & 14.2 mos) and >2 lines of Tx (6.5 & 9.7 mos); P<0.0001. Factors associated with significantly shorter OS in UVA across all presentations were age >60, male sex, GCB subtype, MYC-R, tLBCL, DE, TH, elevated LDH, ECOG PS ≥2, SCNSL after 1L (vs. de novo), and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L. Of these, age >60, male sex, MYC-R, ECOG PS ≥2, and failure to achieve response to 1L remained significant in MVA. In de novo cases, age >60, DE, ECOG PS≥2, and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L were associated with poorer OS; for pts with SCNSL after 1L, age >60, GCB subtype, and ECOG PS ≥2 were significant. Pts treated with HD-MTX-based regimens after 1L experienced longer OS than those treated with platinum regimens or high-dose cytarabine. In de novo cases, TT-ASCT was significantly associated with longer OS (HR=0.58; P=0.025) in MVA after adjusting for significant factors, 1L type, and response. For SCNSL at relapse, TT-ASCT (HR=0.34; P<.0001) and isolated SCNSL presentation (vs. concomitant HR=0.70, P=0.007) were associated with longer OS, adjusting for significant factors, type of second-line Tx, & site of CNS relapse. Conclusions: This study represents the largest analysis of SCNSL inclusive of all modes of presentation. Concomitant SCNSL at relapse was associated with poor outcomes, while TT-ASCT consolidation was associated with improved OS in de novo & relapsed disease. Despite advances in LBCL SCNSL remains an unmet therapeutic need.

Abstract Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a commonly chosen frontline treatment for grade 1-2 (G 1-2) follicular lymphoma (FL). This regimen resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and less toxicity compared to R-CHOP in the STiL trial [Rummel et al., 2013] and similar results were observed when comparing BR vs. R-CHOP/R-CVP in the confirmatory BRIGHT trial [Flinn et al., 2014, updated ASCO 2017]. Importantly, patients (pts) with grade 3A (G 3A) FL were excluded from these studies, yet the conclusions are often extrapolated to the treatment of G 3A pts. Notably, G 3A pts were included in the GALLIUM trial which used both bendamustine as well as CHOP backbones. Several retrospective studies of FL pts treated with frontline R-CHOP have demonstrated equivalent or improved overall survival (OS) for G 3A relative to G 1-2 FL (Koch et al., 2016, Mustafa et al., 2017, Yuan et al., 2017, Maeshima et al., 2013). Early disease progression after diagnosis and treatment with frontline R-CHOP has been identified as a strong predictor of poor OS in FL pts [Casulo et al. 2015], but has not been assessed in pts treated with frontline BR. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of a large cohort of FL pts treated with frontline BR and stratified the results based on histologic grade and early vs. late progression. Methods: We reviewed medical records of adult (age >18) pts with FL treated with frontline BR at 18 US cancer centers. There was no central pathology review; each academic institution confirmed the diagnosis and grade of FL. Pts with unknown grade, grade 3B, or cutaneous FL were excluded. Baseline characteristics between grades were evaluated with the Chi-Square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Outcomes were calculated from time of initiation of BR. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had progression of disease within 24 months of BR initiation (POD24). OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Results: 687 pts were included (616 G 1-2, 71 G 3A). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years (range 21-94) with 53% men. The median time from diagnosis to treatment with BR was 1 month (range 0-139). The median duration of follow up for the entire cohort was 39 months. Characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, ECOG, stage, LDH, and FLIPI are shown in the Table, and did not significantly differ between G 1-2 and G 3A pts. Rates of complete response (CR) and partial response (PR) to BR were similar between G 1-2 and G 3A (72%/22% vs. 66%/21%, respectively, p=0.114) but progressive disease (PD) was higher in G 3A pts (11.9%) relative to G 1-2 (4.8%, p=0.025). As shown in the Figure (A and B), 3-year PFS and OS was significantly longer for G 1-2 vs. G 3A pts (75% vs. 65%, log rank p= 0.035 and 90% vs. 86%, log rank p=0.007, respectively). Seventy-six (12.3%) of the 616 G 1-2 pts and 13 (18.3%) of the 71 G 3A pts experienced POD24 (p=0.19). For pts with both G 1-2 and G 3A FL, POD24 was associated with inferior OS (3-year OS 95% vs. 57% for G 1-2 pts, log rank p<0.0001 and 3-year OS 93% vs. 37% for G 3A pts, log rank p<0.0001) compared to patients without POD24. Conclusions: G 3A FL pts have an inferior OS and are significantly more likely to have PD to frontline BR compared to G 1-2, which differs from the published experience with R-CHOP. Similar to outcomes after frontline treatment with R-CHOP, POD24 after frontline BR for FL is associated with very poor OS. Future studies are needed to address optimal frontline management of pts with G3A as well as for pts with any grade FL with POD24 after frontline BR. Disclosures Nastoupil: Novartis: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therappeutics: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Honoraria. Cerhan:Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Smith:Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Lossos:Affimed: Research Funding. Portell:TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding. Calzada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Cohen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium: 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; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BioInvent: Consultancy. Ghosh:Spectrum: Consultancy; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics, an Abbvie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Forty seven Inc: Research Funding. Barta:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck, Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, Bayer: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation; Genentech: Other: Advisory Board PArticipation, Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board Participation. Danilov:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Kamdar:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy. Kahl:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; CTI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Hill:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

SummaryBendamustine (B) with rituximab (R) is a standard frontline treatment for medically fit follicular lymphoma (FL) patients. The safety and efficacy of maintenance rituximab (MR) after BR induction has not been formally compared to observation for FL, resulting in disparate practice patterns. Prospective trials have shown benefit of MR after R‐CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) or R‐CVP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone), yet recent data from the GALLIUM study comparing outcomes of patients treated with chemotherapy with R or obinutuzumab (G) showed higher than anticipated fatal adverse events with BR/BG. In order to assess the efficacy and tolerability of MR after BR, we retrospectively collected data on 640 newly diagnosed patients treated with FL. We found that patients who achieved partial remission (PR) after ≥4 cycles of BR had improved duration of response (DOR) with MR vs. no maintenance, whereas those in complete remission did not. These findings were confirmed in a validation cohort. In the entire study population, the known fatal adverse event rate after BR was 2·5% and did not significantly differ in those receiving MR versus no maintenance. [Correction added on 14 January 2019, after online publication: The preceding sentence has been corrected in this current version.] Within the limitations inherent to retrospective analysis, these data suggest that FL patients with a PR to BR experience prolongation of remission with MR with an acceptable safety profile.