Habermann, Thomas M.

Abstract Low-grade B-cell lymphomas other than follicular and small lymphocytic lymphoma (LGBCL) account for 10% of all B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Despite improvements in survival outcomes for these patients, little is known about cause of death (COD) in the rituximab era. For a better understanding, we studied 822 newly diagnosed patients with marginal zone, lymphoplasmacytic, and unclassifiable low-grade B-cell lymphoma prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource from 2002 to 2015. COD was assigned based on medical record review using a standard protocol. At a median follow-up of 107 months, 219 (27%) patients had died. The incidence of lymphoma-related deaths when pooling across subtypes was lower than non–lymphoma-related deaths (10-year incidence, 8.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2-10.4 vs 13.6%; 95% CI: 11.2-16.6). The incidence of lymphoma-related deaths varied by subtype, ranging from 3.7% at 10 years in extranodal marginal zone lymphoma to 19.3% in lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Patients with early progression or retreatment events, defined using event-free survival at 24 months from diagnosis, had significantly higher likelihood of lymphoma-related death compared with patients without early events (10-year estimate: 19.1% vs 5.1%, respectively; P < .001), whereas the rates for non–lymphoma-related death were comparable in patients with or without early events (10-year estimates: 11.0% vs 15.3%, respectively). In conclusion, the most common COD in LGBCLs in the first decade after diagnosis was for causes other than lymphoma. Progression or retreatment within the first 2 years of diagnosis was a strong predictor for risk of lymphoma-related death.

Abstract Intravascular lymphoma (IVL) is a rare extranodal non‐Hodgkin lymphoma. We performed a retrospective analysis of 55 IVL patients who were treated at our institution 2003–2018. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years, and 64% were males. The most frequent presenting symptoms were skin rash 43% and weight loss 30%. MRI brain on IVL patients with CNS involvement (CNS‐IVL) showed multifocal involvement in 76% (13/17). 89% (17/19) of non‐CNS‐IVL patients with abnormal FDG‐PET had biopsy of an avid lesion resulting in definitive diagnosis. The top diagnostic biopsy site was the bone marrow (45%). 56% had multiorgan involvement. Based on CNS involvement, 36.5% (20/55) had CNS‐IVL and 63.5% (35/55) had non‐CNS‐IVL. CNS‐IVL group consists of clinically isolated CNS involvement (CNS‐only IVL) (22%;12/55) and mixed clinical CNS and peripheral site involvement (M‐IVL) (14.5%; 8/55). Non‐CNS‐IVL group consists of clinically isolated skin involvement (skin‐only IVL) (9%; 5/55) and peripheral IVL with or without skin involvement (P‐IVL); (54.5%; 30/55). Skin involvement was predominantly in the lower extremities. Pathologically, 89% (48/54) were B‐cell IVL. Rituximab + high‐dose methotrexate‐based regimen were used in 75% (12/16) of CNS‐IVL patients and RCHOP in 60% (17/28) of non‐CNS‐IVL patients. Estimated 5‐year progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort were 38.6% and 52%, respectively. Skin‐only IVL was associated with excellent survival. Platelet count <150x10 9 /L, age > 60Y, and treatment without Rituximab were poor prognostic factors. Further research is necessary to identify novel therapies.

Abstract Background: DLBCL is the most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype in western countries and is clinically heterogeneous. Gene expression profiling has identified two major biologically distinctive DLBCL subtypes defined by their cell-of-origin (COO): germinal center B-cell (GCB) - characterized by BCL2 rearrangement and C-REL amplification, and activated B-cell (ABC) - characterized by constitutive activation of the NF-kB pathway. We evaluated putative DLBCL risk factors for etiologic heterogeneity as defined by COO. Methods: We used a clinic-based study of newly diagnosed NHL cases and frequency matched controls, enrolled from 2002-2014, with a total of 687 DLBCL cases and 2253 controls for this analysis. Using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, we determined COO by either digital expression profiling (NanoString; classified as GCB, ABC, undetermined) or clinically using the Hans algorithm (immunohistochemical markers; classified as GCB, non-GCB, undetermined). Integrating these two sources of COO data, there were 271 GCB, 170 non-GCB, and 246 undetermined/missing (mainly due to lack of tissue) cases. Risk factor data were collected from self-administered questionnaires and included family history of hematologic malignancy; history of atopy, allergy, asthma, eczema, or autoimmune disease; blood transfusion; vaccination history; regular low-dose aspirin use; body mass index (BMI) 2 years prior diagnosis/enrollment; smoking history; alcohol consumption (never/current/former); leisure-time physical activity; and recreational sun exposure. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for COO subtypes, adjusted for age, sex and residence. Results: The median age of cases was 64 years with 55% male; the median age of controls was 64 years and 53% male. The association with BMI (30+ vs. 18.5-24.9 kg/m2) was stronger for non-GCB (OR=2.21; 1.40-3.49) than for GCB (OR=1.70; 1.21-2.40) DLBCL (P-heterogeneity 0.02), while a family history of hematologic malignancy was associated with non-GCB (OR=2.27; 1.47-3.50) but not GCB (OR=1.30; 0.86-1.96) DLBCL, although the P-heterogeneity was not significant (P=0.13). For GCB, there was an inverse association with former (vs. never) alcohol use for GCB (OR=0.57; 0.39-0.83) but not for non-GCB (OR=0.98; 0.61-1.57) DLBCL (P-heterogeneity 0.007), and an inverse association with regular use of low-dose aspirin for GCB (OR=0.64; 0.47-0.87) but not for non-GCB (OR=0.88; 0.61-1.25) DLBCL (P-heterogeneity 0.05). No other risk factors evaluated showed important heterogeneity by COO. Conclusions: These initial results suggest most DLBCL risk factors do not show etiologic heterogeneity by DLBCL COO, although associations with BMI and family history with non-GCB DLBCL and alcohol and low-dose aspirin use with GCB DLBCL warrant follow-up. Citation Format: Geffen Kleinstern, Dennis P. Robinson, Lisa M. Rimsza, Melissa C. Larson, Rebecca L. King, Grzegorz S. Nowakowski, Carrie A. Thompson, Stephen M. Ansell, Matthew J. Maurer, Andrew L. Feldman, Susan L. Slager, Anne J. Novak, Thomas M. Habermann, James R. Cerhan. Evaluation of etiologic heterogeneity for risk of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) subtype defined by cell-of-origin [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 741.

e19562 Background: Considerable healthcare resource utilization and financial burden have been associated with the treatment of Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM); however, the impact of health insurance status on patient outcomes has not been explored. We aimed to assess the insurance-based outcome relationship in WM using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods: We analyzed patient-level data obtained from the NCDB, a database representing more than 70% of newly diagnosed cancer cases nationwide. All newly diagnosed WM cases (n = 8540) between 2004 to 2017 were identified. Only patients who underwent treatment were included. Insurance status was recorded by assessing the primary payer at the time of diagnosis. Due to Medicare eligibility criteria, age-based (< 65 and ≥65 years) stratified analysis was conducted. Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to analyze survival. Time-to-event analysis was conducted based on date-of-diagnosis using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Results: Analysis was conducted on 3878 patients after meeting inclusion criteria, with a median follow-up time of 54.6 months. Among patients < 65 years (n = 1249; median age: 58 years; male: 62.4%), those with non-private insurance had inferior survival on multivariate analysis (Table) after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, income, education, treatment center characteristics, and treatment start time. Significant overall survival (OS) differences were seen in those < 65 years (log-rank p < 0.001), with 5-year OS highest among patients with private insurance 91.2%, compared to Medicaid 79.8%, uninsured 77.4%, and Medicare 70.2%. In patients < 65 years, compared to private insurance, uninsured patients were more likely to be of Black race, reside in lower income areas, and be treated at non-academic centers (all p < 0.05). Both Medicaid and Medicare patients < 65 years were more likely to have a higher Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index (> 1) and live in areas of lower educational attainment and household income compared to private insurance (all p < 0.05). In patients ≥65 years (n = 2629; median age: 75 years; 60.6% males), no insurance-based OS (log-rank p = 0.096) differences were seen. Conclusions: Based on our study, significant insurance-based disparities exist in WM, where patients < 65 years old who are uninsured, or non-privately insured are at a higher risk of mortality. While the root cause of these differences is not fully elucidated, efforts should focus on ensuring that all patients have equal access to care regardless of primary payer status.[Table: see text]

e19532 Background: The traditional approach to the treatment of early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) has been combined modality therapy (CMT) with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT). CMT has shown improved disease control, but RT can lead to long-term adverse effects, including secondary malignancies and cardiac toxicity. Multiple clinical trials have assessed treatment de-escalation strategies to chemotherapy-alone regimens, but results are conflicting. We aimed to assess the real-world implications of these trials by comparing patient outcomes based upon treatment with CMT or chemotherapy-alone. Furthermore, we proposed to assess differences in treatment outcomes stratified by disease bulk, favorable/unfavorable disease, and PET2 response. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multi-center cohort study of consecutive adult patients with early-stage (stage IA-IIB) cHL treated between January 2010-December 2020. Baseline characteristics, treatment modality, and outcomes were abstracted by chart review. Available PET2 scans (n=110) were independently reviewed by a blinded nuclear radiologist. Deauville score (DS) ≥4 was characterized as positive (+), and DS≤3 negative (-). All analysis was conducted using intention-to-treat principles based upon the initial treatment plan (CMT or chemotherapy-alone). Results: In 125 patients [58% male, median age 34 (range, 18-78)] with early-stage cHL, CMT was intended in 63 (50%) patients, with chemotherapy-alone in 62 (50%). Bulky disease was observed in 43 (34%), unfavorable disease in 81 (65%), and 15 (14%) were found to be PET2+. With median follow-up of 59.8 months (95%CI, 48.6 to 71.0), 5 (4%) deaths occurred, and 17 (14%) patients had relapsed/refractory disease. No significant differences in overall survival (OS) were seen based upon treatment intention. However, there was substantially reduced progression-free survival (PFS) (Table) with chemotherapy-alone in the whole cohort, and also in those with bulky, unfavorable, and PET2+ disease. No significant PFS differences were seen based upon treatment intention for patients with non-bulky, favorable, or PET2- disease. Conclusions: Based on our real-world experience, CMT appears particularly beneficial for patients with bulky disease, unfavorable prognostic factors, and PET2+ disease. However, while recent trials showed a benefit of CMT in non-bulky, favorable and PET2- patients, chemotherapy-alone may be comparable for these patients in actual clinical practice.[Table: see text]

7573 Background: While most patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) usually have favorable outcomes, those with refractory disease after first-line anti-CD20 based immunochemotherapy (IC), or progression within 24 months of diagnosis (POD24) have higher risk of premature death. There are no standard approaches for treating this vulnerable group and studies testing novel agents are ongoing in this setting. We sought to investigate clinical practice treatment choices and efficacy for pts with POD24 that align with eligibility criteria for the randomized SWOG1608 which compares IC with novel agents in this population. Methods: This was a multicenter observational cohort study from the LEO Consortium. Eligible pts had grade 1-3a FL diagnosed between 1/1/2002 and 2/1/2019, and initiated therapy after POD24 to first-line bendamustine or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) based IC. Observation, radiotherapy, or rituximab monotherapy were permitted prior to IC and pts with transformation prior to the subsequent therapy after IC were excluded as per S1608. Outcomes of interest were overall and complete response rate (ORR/CR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 196 eligible pts with early progression to IC (39% antiCD20 Benda; 61% antiCD20 CHOP) who received subsequent therapy. Median age at post IC treatment was 57 years, 78% grade 1-2 FL. Treatments for pts with POD24 included CHOP- or Benda-based in 31%, salvage/hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) in 27%, novel therapies in 10% (including phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors), antiCD20 monotherapy in 9%, and lenalidomide-based treatment in 8% (table); 21% of pts were treated on clinical trials. Across all treatments, ORR (CR) was 63% (37%) (95% CI: 55-70). At a median follow up of 6.2 years, 2 year PFS was 22% (95% CI: 17%-29%) and 5 year OS was 71% (95% CI: 65-79). Outcomes by regimen are shown in the table. Conclusions: Pts with FL experiencing POD24 following first-line IC are treated heterogeneously, with many pts still receiving IC as subsequent therapy. Despite modest CR rates and low 2-year PFS, 5-year OS appear to be improving compared to historical outcomes. This supports the ongoing need to investigate novel treatments in this population. [Table: see text]

Abstract Multiple clinical trials have assessed de-escalation strategies from combined modality therapy (CMT) to chemotherapy-alone for the treatment of early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), confirming similar outcomes. The application of these data to the real-world is limited, however. We conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study comparing CMT vs chemotherapy-alone in patients with early-stage cHL (stage IA-IIB) treated between January 2010 and December 2020. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans after chemotherapy cycle 2 (PET2) were independently reviewed by a nuclear radiologist (Deauville score ≥4, positive; ≤3, negative). Patient outcomes were compared by using an intention-to-treat analysis. Among 125 patients (CMT, n = 63; chemotherapy-alone, n = 62) with a median follow-up of 59.8 months (95% CI, 48.6-71.0), no differences in overall survival were observed (5-year overall survival, CMT 98.0% vs chemotherapy-alone 95.1%; log-rank test, P = .38). However, there was reduced progression-free survival (PFS) with chemotherapy-alone among all patients (2-year PFS, CMT 95.1% vs chemotherapy-alone 75.3%; log-rank test, P = .005) and in those with bulky (n = 43; log-rank test, P &lt; .001), unfavorable (n = 81; log-rank test, P = .002), or PET2-positive (n = 15; log-rank test, P = .02) disease. No significant differences in PFS were seen for patients with non-bulky (log-rank test, P = .35), favorable (log-rank test, P = .62), or PET2-negative (log-rank test, P = .19) disease. Based on our real-world experience, CMT seems beneficial for patients with early-stage cHL, especially those with PET2-positive and unfavorable disease. Chemotherapy-alone regimens can lead to comparable outcomes for patients with favorable, non-bulky, or PET2-negative disease. We conclude that although results seen in clinical trials are replicated in certain patient subgroups, other subgroups not fitting trial criteria do poorly when radiotherapy is excluded.

PURPOSE: Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year). CONCLUSION: Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

AbstractCastleman disease (CD) is a rare lymphoproliferative disease characterized by diverse clinical and pathologic features. Due to its rarity, there are limited studies comparing currently available therapies. The role of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in CD has not yet been established. In this paper, we describe the clinical characteristics, treatment choices, and outcomes in 34 Mayo Clinic patients diagnosed with multicentric CD from July 1, 2003 to April 30, 2018. Eighteen patients (53%) also met the criteria for POEMS, including 14 with the osteosclerotic variant. The first‐line treatments included: steroid monotherapy (4), cytotoxic chemotherapy (6), rituximab alone (8) or with chemotherapy (2), anti‐IL6 treatment (3), and ASCT (10). The median follow‐up was 4.8 (range: 0.1–15.2) years. The 5‐ and 10‐year overall survival rates were 84% and 71%, respectively. Sixteen patients received high‐dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT during their disease course. Among those, 14 had multicentric CD associated with POEMS. There were no transplant‐related deaths. All patients had at least a partial response to ASCT, most of whom achieved a complete response. The favorable outcomes seen with ASCT in this cohort suggest that transplantation may have a role in multicentric CD, particularly for patients with multicentric CD associated with POEMS.

Abstract Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) is an important clinical endpoint in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 with frontline immunochemotherapy have minimal loss of lifetime compared to age- and sex-matched general population. However, the prognostic role of EFS24 in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has not been well studied, possibly due to the perception of continued relapse pattern and poor survival outcome of MCL historically. A recent study from our group demonstrated evolving frontline therapy pattern from 2002-2009 ("Era 1") to 2010-2015 ("Era 2") which was associated with improved EFS and overall survival (OS) in Era 2. In the current study, we sought to explore the prognostic role of EFS24 in the two eras. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed MCL from 9/2002 through 6/2015 were identified from Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER), a prospective cohort study of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE. OS was defined as time from diagnosis (or the EFS24 defining event where applicable) to death from any cause and was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Expected OS accounting for age and sex was generated in R by using the general US population as the reference group. Observed versus expected OS was summarized by using standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of observed to expected deaths. Cumulative incidence of lymphoma-specific death was analyzed using Gray's test, with deaths from all other causes treated as competing events. Results: A total of 343 patients were included, 175 from Era 1 (median follow-up 13.0 years) and 168 from Era 2 (median follow-up 6.9 years). Age, sex and simplified MIPI score were similar between the 2 groups. Patients diagnosed in Era 2 had better OS, with a 5-year OS of 68.4% vs 59.2% (simplified MIPI-adjusted hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93). Patients diagnosed in both eras had inferior OS compared to the general population, with an SMR of 3.26 (95% CI 2.70-3.89, P&lt;0.001) in Era 1 and 2.63 (95% CI 2.03-3.36, P&lt;0.001) in Era 2. Patients diagnosed in Era 1 who achieved EFS24 (n=98) still had inferior OS compared to the general population, with an SMR of 2.23 (95% CI 1.67-2.92, P&lt;0.001) (Figure 1A). In contrast, for patients diagnosed in Era 2 who achieved EFS24 (n=99), no evidence of OS difference was found compared to the general population, with an SMR of 1.31 (95% CI 0.78-2.07, P=0.31) (Figure 1B). The primary cause of death after diagnosis was lymphoma-related for patients diagnosed in both eras. The 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 28.8% in Era 1 and 20.5% in Era 2. In patients who were diagnosed in Era 1 and achieved EFS24, the primary cause of death after achieving EFS24 remained to be lymphoma-related, with a 5-year rate of 19.8% compared to 6.2% for lymphoma-unrelated causes (Figure 1C). In contrast, in patients who were diagnosed in Era 2 and achieved EFS24, the rate of lymphoma-related death was no longer higher than that of lymphoma-unrelated death, with a 5-year rate of 2.1% vs 5.5%, respectively (Figure 1D). In a sensitivity analysis restricted to only patients who received standard frontline immunochemotherapy, similar results were obtained. For example, in patients who achieved EFS24, the SMR compared to the general population was 2.89 (95% CI 2.00-4.04, P&lt;0.001) in Era 1 and 0.89 (95% CI 0.43-1.64, P=0.82) in Era 2. The 5-year rates of deaths due to lymphoma-related vs lymphoma-unrelated causes were 20.7% vs 6.2% in Era 1 and 1.3% vs 4.9% in Era 2. Conclusions: MCL survival outcome has improved for patients first diagnosed in the more recent era (2010-2015, compared to 2002-2009), likely due to improved frontline therapy as well as better salvage treatments (such as lenalidomide and BTK inhibitors). In the more recent treatment era, patients who achieved EFS24 had survival approaching the age- and sex-matched general population. In addition, these patients had a low risk of dying from lymphoma and were more likely to die from other causes. Longer follow-up (e.g., in Era 2) and external validation in other series are necessary to confirm the prognostic role of EFS24. With more efficacious salvage treatment options and likely continued improvement of OS in MCL, EFS24 may become an important clinical endpoint in frontline therapy of MCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. Link: Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy. Farooq: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Witzig: Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Cerhan: Regeneron Genetics Center: Other: Research Collaboration; Celgene/BMS: Other: Connect Lymphoma Scientific Steering Committee, Research Funding; NanoString: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.