Lossos, Izidore S.

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: Due to recent advances, patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) have multiple treatment options with high response rates and durability. However, there is a gap in understanding how patient preferences influence treatment selection. To close this gap, we conducted a qualitative study using focus groups of adults with FL to understand their knowledge of treatment options, priorities, and decision-making process. We designed this study to inform the content of a planned discrete choice experiment in a larger population of patients with FL to better understand patient preferences and trade-offs around treatment delivery, side effects, outcomes, and quality of life. Methods: We conducted focus groups lasting 60-90 minutes, each with 3-5 participants recruited from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study. The LEO Cohort Study is a multi-institutional prospective cohort study of newly diagnosed adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma from July 2015 to present. Each focus group was co-led by two investigators (U.D. and M.T.) and conducted using Zoom video technology. Participants were asked to comment on their understanding about FL and available treatments, their ideal treatment, their decision-making process about prior therapies, and quality of life and side effects associated with treatment. We performed exploratory content analysis of participant understanding of FL and their treatment preferences. We will continue to conduct focus groups until we reach thematic saturation, which we anticipate will occur with one additional focus group. Themes from all focus groups were identified and agreed upon by both investigators (U.D. and M.T.) and were verified by additional investigators (J.D., M.L, M.H., B.K.L, C.C., M.M.). Results: To date, we conducted five focus groups with a total of N=21 participants (median age 60 [range 41-88], 66.7% female, 71.4% non-Hispanic White, 14.3% Hispanic, 9.5% Asian, 4.8% Black/Hispanic). We identified the following themes and representative quotes: 1) Holistic approach:Participants wanted their oncologists to view their care from a holistic perspective, discussing their individual priorities and options that would accommodate their fitness routine and ability to work. “[I wish] if doctors can consider not just the physical choices, but also the mental and emotional choices as well, the holistic person.” - Participant 13 “There's zero chance I can go back to working in the type of career where other people rely on me for things. I can't keep things straight.” - Participant 16 2) Ideal treatment:An ideal treatment would limit impact on fatigue, cognitive function, and have minimal toxicity to preserve quality of life and an active lifestyle. “I would say something that has minimal impact on daily life would be ideal and something that would make you feel better.” - Participant 6 3) Shared decision-making: Participants wanted to be better informed about available treatment options and often utilized second opinions to inform their decisions. “It helped to get the second opinion versus not. It would've been a completely different set of events.” - Participant 17 4) Treatment burden:Financial impact and effort required by patients to receive care (e.g., travel, number of office visits, and duration of therapy) were key factors in patient decision-making. “Part of my quality of life went down because I had to fight with my insurance company consistently, and we pay a lot of money.” - Participant 11 “Really explain the time options and calendarize the treatment and be more specific about the amount of time that you're going to spend at the hospital and the process.” - Participant 20 5) Representation: Minority participants raised concerns about not knowing if the available treatment data pertained to them. “[My end-goal would be] having an understanding of how the treatment is going to be for minority people. Many times the treatments are tested, they are not tested for minorities.” - Participant 21 Conclusions: The patient perspective is critical for treatment decision-making and education. People living with FL expressed a desire for a holistic and individualized approach to treatment decision-making that incorporated their lifestyle, minimized side effects, and limited overall treatment burden. These focus groups identified emerging themes that warrant further investigation for survivors with FL.

Abstract Progression of disease within 24 months of initial immunochemotherapy (POD24) is a negative prognostic factor for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL). There is no standard treatment after POD24. Assembling an academic-based cohort from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes Consortium for Real World Evidence, we evaluated patterns of care and outcomes for 220 patients with FL with POD24 and retained FL histology. Therapy after POD24 was heterogeneous, with no treatment category accounting for >25% of the total. Among patients initially treated with bendamustine-rituximab, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (R-CHOP) was the predominant second-line choice (48%). Among patients initially treated with R-CHOP, aggressive salvage therapy was the predominant second-line choice (38%). Overall response rate to therapy after POD24 was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56-70); complete response rate was 39% (95% CI, 32-46). The median event-free survival for therapy after POD24 was 9.8 months (95% CI, 7.3-12.1); 5-year overall survival (OS) was 71% (95% CI, 65-78). OS was inferior for patients aged >70 years (hazard ratio [HR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.27-4.20) and those with high-risk FL International Prognostic Index scores at diagnosis (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.23-3.60). No treatment category stood out with more favorable results. Cause of death was predominantly lymphoma related. Patients with follicular histology at their POD24 event had a low cumulative incidence of transformation (1.1% at 5 years). Our study is among the largest cohorts describing contemporary patterns of care for patients with POD24, providing a focused data set useful for interpreting and designing prospective clinical trials in this population.

Abstract Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) includes extranodal MZL (EMZL), splenic MZL (SMZL), and nodal MZL (NMZL) subtypes. Histologic transformation (HT) to large B-cell lymphomas is well documented but with a large variability in published cumulative incidence rates. We report results from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort on the cumulative incidence of HT (with death as competing risk) and the associated risk factors and outcomes. We also conducted a meta-analysis of available studies on the cumulative incidence of HT. From 2002 to 2015, 529 patients with MZL were enrolled in the MER study (69% EMZL, 16% SMZL, and 15% NMZL). The 10-year overall survival (OS) from diagnosis was 66%. HT occurred in 21 patients with a 5-year and 10-year cumulative incidence of 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.05) and 3.6% (95% CI, 0.02-0.06), respectively. HT was associated with an increased risk for death (subdistribution hazard ratio [HR], 3.95; 95% CI, 2.06-7.55). Predictors of HT were ≥2 extranodal sites and mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue International Prognostic Index score ≥2. The OS was 79% at 5 years and 55% at 10 years after HT. In the meta-analysis of 12 studies (6161 patients), the 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of HT across all subtypes were 5% (95% CI, 0.05-0.06) and 8% (95% CI, 0.07-0.09), respectively. These rates were lower in EMZL (3% and 5%) than in SMZL (7% and 13%) and NMZL (9% and 13%). Although HT is relatively uncommon in the first decade after MZL diagnosis, it is associated with an inferior outcome and needs new approaches for prevention and management.

Abstract Recent introduction of 2 different lymphoma classifications has raised concerns about consistency in diagnosis, management, and clinical trial enrollment. Data from a large cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice suggest that differences between the classifications will affect <1% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

Abstract Patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) that fail to achieve a complete response (CR) or who relapse early after anthracycline-containing immunochemotherapy (IC) have a poor prognosis and are commonly considered to have “primary refractory disease.” However, different definitions of primary refractory disease are used in the literature and clinical practice. In this study, we examined variation in the time to relapse used to define refractory status and association with survival outcomes in patients with primary refractory LBCL in a single-center prospective cohort with validation in an independent multicenter cohort. Patients with newly diagnosed LBCL were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiological Resource cohort (MER; N = 949) or the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes cohort (LEO; N = 2755) from September 2002 to May 2021. Primary refractory LBCL was defined as no response (stable disease [SD]) or progressive disease (PD) during, or by the end of, frontline (1L) IC (primary PD; PPD); partial response at end of treatment (EOT PR); or relapse within 3 to 12 months after achieving CR at EOT to 1L IC (early relapse). In the MER cohort, patients with PPD had inferior overall survival (OS; 2-year OS rate: 15% MER, 31% LEO) when compared with other subgroups considered in defining primary refractory disease, EOT PR (2-year OS rate: 38% MER, 50% LEO) and early relapse (2-year OS rate: 44% MER, 58% LEO). Among patients receiving 1L IC with curative intent, we identified that patients with PPD are the key subgroup with poor outcomes. We propose a definition of primary refractory LBCL as SD or PD during, or by the end of, 1L treatment.

AbstractTo address the current and long‐term unmet health needs of the growing population of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients, we established the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study (NCT02736357; https://leocohort.org/). A total of 7735 newly diagnosed patients aged 18 years and older with NHL were prospectively enrolled from 7/1/2015 to 5/31/2020 at 8 academic centers in the United States. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range, 18–99). Participants came from 49 US states and included 538 Black/African‐Americans (AA), 822 Hispanics (regardless of race), 3386 women, 716 age <40 years, and 1513 rural residents. At study baseline, we abstracted clinical, pathology, and treatment data; banked serum/plasma (N = 5883, 76.0%) and germline DNA (N = 5465, 70.7%); constructed tissue microarrays for four major NHL subtypes (N = 1189); and collected quality of life (N = 5281, 68.3%) and epidemiologic risk factor (N = 4489, 58.0%) data. Through August 2022, there were 1492 deaths. Compared to population‐based SEER data (2015–2019), LEO participants had a similar distribution of gender, AA race, Hispanic ethnicity, and NHL subtype, while LEO was underrepresented for patients who were Asian and aged 80 years and above. Observed overall survival rates for LEO at 1 and 2 years were similar to population‐based SEER rates for indolent B‐cell (follicular and marginal zone) and T‐cell lymphomas, but were 10%–15% higher than SEER rates for aggressive B‐cell subtypes (diffuse large B‐cell and mantle cell). The LEO cohort is a robust and comprehensive national resource to address the role of clinical, tumor, host genetic, epidemiologic, and other biologic factors in NHL prognosis and survivorship.

Introduction: The use of standardized, evidence-based classification systems is crucial for the accurate diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Moreover, standardized classification facilitates research and epidemiologic studies and promotes consistency in communication among healthcare professionals. Since 2016, the revised 4 th edition of the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM4R) has been the global standard for diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies. With the emergence of new data, 2 new classification systems were developed and published in 2022: the 5 th edition of the WHO Classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). Both WHO-HAEM5 and ICC maintain a shared fundamental concept of disease classification that integrates clinical, pathologic, and molecular data. However, they differ on nomenclature, establishment of new entities, and/or diagnostic criteria for some disease categories. To evaluate the impact of these differences on real-world diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), we examined the diagnostic classification of NHL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Methods: Initiated in 2015, LEO is an ongoing prospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed NHL. Patients are enrolled at 8 major U.S. medical centers. Clinical, epidemiologic, pathologic, and treatment data are abstracted at baseline and active follow-up is conducted for all patients. Lymphoma subtype is coded for each case based on expert hematopathology re-review of the diagnostic pathology slides, the pathology report, biomarker data, and clinical data. Of note, NHL subtype distribution is similar to SEER data. We studied all patients enrolled in LEO between 7/1/2016 (the date LEO pathology review started using WHO-HAEM4R diagnostic codes) and 5/31/2020. WHO-HAEM4R diagnoses and additional clinicopathologic data, when relevant, were used to map cases into the corresponding WHO-HAEM5 and ICC diagnoses. Differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC were annotated for each case as: None - same disease entity; Minor - difference in nomenclature with similar diagnostic criteria; Major - difference in disease category and/or diagnostic criteria; or Unevaluable - insufficient data to assign WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis. Results: LEO enrolled 6143 patients during the study period. Of these, comparison between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC was evaluable in 5730 (93.3%). Unevaluable cases included those without a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis at enrollment (N=384; e.g., patients with a low-grade B-cell lymphoma that could not be definitively sub-classified) and those with a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis, but with insufficient clinicopathologic data to assign a specific WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis (N=29). Of the 5730 evaluable cases, 5376 (93.8%) showed no difference between WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis, 311 (5.4%) showed minor differences (nomenclature only), and 43 (0.8%) showed major differences (Table 1). The 43 major differences all involved B-cell NHLs; 20 (46.5%) were attributable to different approaches to classifying double-hit lymphomas, 21 (48.9%) to classification of splenic/leukemic B-cell lymphomas, and 2 (4.6%) to classification of B-cell lymphomas occurring at specific anatomic sites (Table 2). Conclusion: In a large, prospective lymphoma cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice at 8 major U.S. medical centers, major diagnostic differences in the classification of NHL using WHO-HAEM5 or ICC classification criteria were seen in 0.8%, whereas the remaining 99.2% of diagnoses were either the same or showed differences in nomenclature only. The existence of 2 concurrent classification systems presents potential for discrepancies in pathologic diagnosis, clinical practice, clinical trials, and other lymphoma research. Furthermore, some of the differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC are clinically and potentially therapeutically significant, and their resolution requires further study. Nevertheless, our findings argue that the proportion of patients affected would be small in real-world practice settings. This appears largely related to incidence rates of specific lymphoma subtypes, with major differences between the 2 classifications predominantly affecting rare entities, while there is general concordance on the most common forms of NHL.

Introduction: PET/CT is the standard-of-care for staging and therapy response assessment in lymphoma. Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avidity in extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL) remains controversial with some variability by extranodal location. The current Lugano classification recommends the use of CT scans only in staging and follow-up for EMZL. However, emerging data from small studies have challenged this suggestion. In this study we aimed to determine the ability of PET/CT to detect FDG-avid EMZL during staging work-up. Methods: First, we retrospectively analyzed the University of Miami (UM) MZL database (period 2/2016-1/2023) searching for patients who underwent staging PET/CT. Images were reviewed by expert radiologists to ascertain avidity of tumor and not surrounding tissue, with specific attention to ocular and GI locations; if scans were not available (n=15), we retrieved data from reports (results presented in part at ICML2023). Next, we aimed to validate the initial UM results additionally analyzing data from imaging reports for patients prospectively enrolled in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) MZL cohort (period 7/2015-5/2020), excluding LEO patients from Miami to avoid overlap. Patients with high-grade transformation at diagnosis were excluded. For patients with &gt;1 extranodal site, each location was counted independently. We considered FDG-avid disease if SUVmax was ≥2 as this value is commonly observed between mediastinal blood pool (BP) and liver background. To normalize data, we calculated ratios of lymphoma SUVmax versus both BP and liver background, as available. Patients without measurable disease were excluded from analysis. Results: Among 210 patients with EMZL in the UM cohort, 152 had staging PET/CT and were analyzed. Twenty-two patients demonstrated &gt;1 extranodal site providing a total of 187 locations. The LEO cohort included 411 patients from 7 centers, with 235 having available imaging reports. Fifty-two patients in this cohort demonstrated &gt;1 extranodal site providing a total of 306 locations. Disease distribution is depicted in Table 1. Among 187 EMZL locations in the UM cohort, the most common were gastric (n=33, 17.6%), ocular (n=31, 16.6%), lung (n=30, 16%), skin and soft tissue (n=16, 8.6%, each). Similarly, lung (n=63; 20.6%), soft tissue (n=46; 15%), gastric and ocular (n=34 each; 11%) were common locations in the LEO cohort. EMZL demonstrated FDG-avidity (SUVmax ≥2) across all locations with identical values in both cohorts (UM= 78.1% & LEO= 76.5%). FDG-avidity by location is shown in Table 1A & B with salivary gland (100% & 100%), lung (93.3% & 95.2%), soft tissue (93.8% & 100%), and airways (90.9% & 100%) demonstrating high avidity in both cohorts. Contrarily, skin was commonly non-FDG avid (93.8% & 81%). The median size of FDG-avid lesions was 2.4cm (range, 0.7-17.4) in UM and 2.9cm (range, 0.1-12) in LEO cohorts. In patients with &gt;1 extranodal site FDG-avidity was nearly universal across sites (UM=93% & LEO=100%). We observed a significant correlation between lymphoma size and FDG-avidity for UM (r=0.33; P=0.001), and for LEO (r=0.55; P&lt;0.0001). In patients with background FDG-avidity data in the UM cohort (n=150), a BP index and liver index ≥1 detected lymphoma in 79.3% & 71.5% cases, respectively. We were unable to calculate indexes in LEO cohort since only limited data on BP (n=26) and liver (n=19) background was available in imaging reports. Conclusions: This study represents the largest analysis evaluating accuracy of PET/CT to determine initial tumor burden in 387 patients with EMZL. We demonstrate that EMZL is largely an FDG-avid disease across two cohorts, and PET/CT should be included in the staging of these patients while acknowledging possible limited sensitivity in GI locations due to physiologic uptake. Furthermore, we observed that patients with multiple extranodal locations demonstrate uniform FDG-avidity across all sites except for skin involvement. Based on our results we recommend the incorporation of PET/CT into standard staging of EMZL in planned revised Lugano classification guidelines. In those demonstrating initial FDG-avidity, a lower SUVmax threshold of SUVmax ≥2, comparison to mediastinal BP rather than to liver background activity and evaluating for resolution of focal FDG-avidity should be considered to assess treatment response in routine care and clinical trials.