Micallef, Ivana N.

Purpose Selection bias in clinical trials has consequences for scientific validity and applicability of study results to the general population. There is concern that patients with clinically aggressive disease may not have enrolled in recent diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) trials due to the consent process and the inability to delay therapy for eligibility evaluation. We have examined the diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) and its association with clinical factors and outcome in a clinic-based observational cohort of patients with DLBCL from the United States. Validation of results was performed in an independent, clinical trial-based cohort from Europe. Patients and Methods Patients were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa and Mayo Clinic Specialized Programs of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER; N = 986) or the Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) LNH-2003 clinical trials program (N = 1,444). All patients received anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy at initial diagnosis. Associations of DTI with clinical factors and outcome were examined. Outcome was assessed using event-free survival at 24 months from diagnosis (EFS24). Results Median (range) DTI was 15 days (0 to 155 days in the MER and 23 days (0 to 215 days) in LYSA. Shorter DTI was strongly associated with adverse clinical factors, including elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, poor performance status, B symptoms, and higher International Prognostic Index in both cohorts (all P < .001). Longer DTI was associated with improved EFS24 in both the MER (per-week odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74 to .0.87) and LYSA (per-week odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.94); association with EFS24 remained significant after adjustment for International Prognostic Index. Conclusion DTI is strongly associated with prognostic clinical factors and outcome in newly diagnosed DLBCL. DTI should be reported in all clinical trials of newly diagnosed DLBCL and future trials should take steps to avoid selection bias due to treatment delay.

Summary This study aimed to describe the patterns of care and outcomes of diffuse large B cell lymphoma ( DLBCL ) after failure of front line anthracycline‐based immunochemotherapy ( IC ). Patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were prospectively enrolled in Molecular Epidemiology Resource ( MER ) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellzence. All DLBCL and primary mediastinal B‐cell lymphoma ( PMBL ) patients treated with front‐line anthracycline‐based IC were followed for relapse. Patients with relapse on follow‐up and subsequently retreated were included in this analysis. 1039 patients received anthracycline‐based IC between 2002 and 2012, of which 244 relapsed and were subsequently retreated. Across all therapies, overall survival at 4 years ( OS 4) from relapse was 28% and 103 patients ultimately underwent autologous haematopoietic cell transplant (auto HCT ) with OS 4 from auto HCT of 51%. Patients relapsing after 12 months from initial diagnosis had OS 4 of 47% but those with a transient or no response to initial therapy had OS 4 of only 13%. Outcomes of relapsed or refractory DLBCL differ substantially when categorized by response to initial therapy, timing of relapse and opportunity to undergo auto HCT . The design and interpretation of uncontrolled trials should account for this heterogeneity in patients with relapsed DLBCL .

SummaryHistological transformation (HT) of follicular lymphoma (FL) to an aggressive lymphoma after chemotherapy remains a key issue. The incidence of HT after radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is unknown. This single institution study analysed the risk of HT in FL after treatment with yttrium‐90 ibritumomab tiuxetan in 115 consecutive patients treated during 1987–2012. RIT was administered for progressive FL in 111 (97%) patients and as first‐line therapy in the remaining 4. 28% (n = 32) had HT, occurring at a median of 60 months from diagnosis and 20 months after RIT. 48% (12/25) of patients who received fludarabine developed HT. The estimated 10‐year risk of HT in the fludarabine and non‐fludarabine groups was 67% and 26% respectively (P = 0·015). Only prior fludarabine was significantly associated with predicting the risk of HT after RIT. 8% (9/115) of patients developed therapy‐related myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukaemia (tMDS/AML) at a median of 41·4 months (range, 5–89). The estimated 10‐year risk of tMDS/AML in non‐fludarabine treated patients (n = 90) versus fludarabine treated (n = 25) was 13% and 29%, respectively. The estimated overall risk of FL undergoing HT at 10 years without fludarabine exposure appears similar to patients reported in the literature that have not received RIT. Patients with prior purine‐analogue therapy are at significantly higher risk of HT.

Key Points Pembrolizumab was first shown to be clinically active in CLL patients with RT. PD-1 and PD-L1 expression in tumor microenvironment are promising biomarkers to select RT patients for PD-1 blockade.

64 Background: The goals of our Lymphoma Survivorship Clinic (SC) are to coordinate care, educate patients, and create a survivorship care plan (SCP). The aim of this study was to determine if patient-centered outcomes are improved after a SC visit. Methods: From 11/13-5/15, surveys were mailed to recently-treated lymphoma patients who were within 4 weeks of their last visit and in remission. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with PROMIS and distress was measured with the Impact of Events scale. Responses between those who attended SC and those who were eligible but did not attend were analyzed. Results: There were 96 surveys sent to the SC group; 59 were returned (61% response rate). Of the non-SC group, 140 surveys were sent and 84 were returned (60% response rate). Mean age was 57 years (range 23-77) in the SC group and 59 years (23-88) in the non-SC group. There were more females in the SC group (52% vs 30%) but no differences in race, marital status, education, or health literacy. Those who attended the SC were more likely to recall receiving a summary of cancer treatment and recommendations for follow-up care (90% SC vs. 75% non-SC, p = 0.03). Furthermore, SC attendees were more likely to “definitely” recall discussion on improving health or preventing illness (89% vs. 53%), getting help in making changes in habits/lifestyle (76% vs. 50%), diet (80% vs. 31%), and exercise (82% vs. 51%), all p < 0.001. There were no differences in discussions regarding smoking, follow-up testing, and symptom monitoring. The SC group was less likely to need more information regarding sexuality (6% vs 20%, p = 0.045). There were no differences in need for information regarding anxiety, fitness, familial cancer risk, fertility, complementary therapies, and social issues. The SC group was slightly more confident that they could get information or advice related to cancer (completely confident 76% vs. 61%, p = 0.07). There were no differences in QOL or distress. Conclusions: A Lymphoma SC visit increased receipt of SCP and provided more information on survivorship issues, particularly health behaviors, but did not improve QOL or distress. Further study is needed to determine if this leads to long-term health benefits.