Falade, Ayo

Introduction: Pembrolizumab Gemcitabine Vinorelbine and Liposomal Doxorubicin (P-GVD) has become a commonly employed regimen for the treatment of relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL), often preceding autologous stem cell transplant in patients with good response. The utilization of P-GVD is based on a 38-evaluable patient prospective trial (Moskowitz et al. JCO 2021). There remains minimal data regarding the efficacy of this regimen in a larger, real-world cohort. Methods:Patients with CHL who received P-GVD at 9 United States centers were retrospectively evaluated to estimate efficacy and safety, with a focus on the second line use of this regimen. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from medical records. Responses reflected Lugano criteria per local investigator assessment. Study objectives were overall response rates (ORR), complete response rates (CRR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. PFS and OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier. Results: Patients and Treatment: We identified 65 CHL patients who received P-GVD between July 2019 and June 2024, including 43 who were treated in the second line. Enrolled patients included a median age of 31 years (range 17-69 years), 36.9% (24) females, 75.4% (49) nodular sclerosing subtype, and 60% (39) stage III-IV at diagnosis. Patients included 64.6% (42) White and non-Hispanic, 15.4% (10) Hispanic or White and Hispanic, 10.8% (7) Black, 3.1% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.1% (2) other, and 3.1% (2) unknown. The median number of prior regimens was 1 (range 0-12); these included 3.1% (2) who had prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI), 50.8% (33) who had prior brentuximab vedotin (BV), and 3.1% (2) who had prior transplant. Patients with primary refractory disease [no initial complete response (CR)] comprised 58.5% (38), and 35.4% (23) had relapse within 1 year of completing initial therapy. The median number of cycles received was 3 (range 1-5). Treatment in a community practice setting was noted for 21.5% (14) patients. Efficacy: At a median follow up of 17.7 months, ORR and CRR after P-GVD were 95% (62/65) and 74% (48/65), respectively. This increased to 95% ORR and 81% CRR when limited to 43 patients who were treated 2nd line. Responses by line included: 1st [n=1; 100% ORR and CRR]; 3rd [n=15; 100% ORR, 73.3% CRR], 4th [n=3; 100% ORR, 33.3% CRR], 5th [n=2; 100% ORR, 0% CRR], and 13th [n=1; SD]. CRR in BV- and CPI-exposed patients were 60.6% and 50%, respectively. Ninety one percent (39) of 2nd line treated patients proceeded to autologous transplant, as well as all 3 patients > age 60. Among 41 response-evaluable second-line patients, CR was achieved in 94% (30/32) who received 2 or 3 cycles of P-GVD, and 56% (5/9) who received 4 cycles of P-GVD. For the entire cohort at 12 and 24 months after starting P-GVD, PFS was 95% (95% CI: 89-100%), 91% (95% CI: 83-100%) and OS was 98% (95% CI: 94-100%), 94% (95% CI: 86-100%), respectively. Ninety five percent (41) of 2nd line transplanted patients remain alive and in remission at a median of 18.5 months (range 3.5-38.7 months). In the primary refractory subset, PFS and OS at 24 months were 91% and 97%, respectively. For the cohort with 2 or more prior lines of therapy, PFS and OS at 24 months were 91% and 94%, respectively. Safety: Immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) were reported in 20% (13) of patients, of which grade 3 IRAEs per NCCN criteria version 1.2024 comprised 38.5%; all others were grades 1-2. Non-IRAE grade 3-4 toxicities per CTCAE version 5.0 were reported in 22% (14) patients. Of 29 patients evaluable for treatment-related interruptions, 7% (2) had therapy discontinued, and 34% (10) had holds, dose reductions, and/or delays. No deaths were attributed to P-GVD treatment. Conclusions:This retrospective study confirms the utility of P-GVD in treating relapsed/refractory CHL in a real-world population. Though fewer CRs and higher rates of grade 3 adverse events were observed, the vast majority of patients were able to proceed to transplant, and outcomes to date are highly encouraging.

AbstractBackgroundThere is growing interest in global health (GH) among medical trainees in the United States. However, providing GH training opportunities at the fellowship level presents several challenges. Understanding of barriers and facilitators to implementing GH training is essential for addressing these challenges.MethodsWe developed a comprehensive survey of 65 Likert‐scale multiple‐choice and open‐ended questions to assess perspectives of pediatric hematology/oncology fellowships leaders on GH training. The survey was electronically distributed to program leaders at all ACGME‐accredited pediatric hematology/oncology fellowships programs, and data were summarized using descriptive analysis.ResultsOf 73 eligible programs, we had a 45.2% response rate with 27 complete and 6 partial responses. Respondents represented programs across the United States, including 19 (57.6%) affiliated with NCI‐Designated Cancer Centers. Fourteen programs (43.8%) currently offer GH training opportunities, whereas 18 programs expressed interest in future opportunities (15, 83.3%) or plan to offer them soon (3, 16.7%). Major barriers identified include competing training priorities (23, 82.1%), lack of faculty mentors in the division (23, 82.1%), and lack of dedicated institutional funding (20, 71.4%). Key facilitators include the interest and initiative of current fellows (27, 96.4%), dedicated institutional funding (26, 92.8%), and having established international partnerships (26, 92.8%).ConclusionsThe study reveals strong interest in GH training in pediatric hematology/oncology fellowships. Despite challenges such as competing priorities and a lack of mentors, significant facilitators include current fellows’ initiatives, dedicated funding, and established international partnerships. These insights can help shape future initiatives to incorporate GH into pediatric oncology/hematology fellowship training.

PURPOSE The study assesses the current state of global oncology (GO)/hematology training opportunities in US fellowship programs. METHODS We developed a comprehensive survey of 64-Likert multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The survey was electronically distributed to fellowship program leaders at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited adult hematology/oncology fellowships. Program directors received three reminders after which survey was sent to assistant program directors or division heads for programs not represented. RESULTS A total of 171 programs were eligible for the survey. We received 42 (24.6%) responses; 40 were included in the analysis, and two were excluded for declined consent and incomplete responses. The programs include large academic (81.6%) and community hospitals (10.5%). Of the respondents, 18 (48.6%) reported offering some opportunities for global health training, and half reported interest among current fellows. Most programs (29, 82.9%) had three or fewer faculty engaged in GO research. Institutional training grants were available in 15 (39.5%) programs, of which six (40%) allowed for global health research. Of the 18 programs offering global health training activities, most (15, 83.3%) report less than a quarter of their trainees currently participate in GO experiences. The most commonly perceived barriers to GO opportunities include competing priorities (85.3%) and lack of faculty mentors with GO-related experience (82.4%). Conversely, the most commonly perceived facilitators include established partnerships outside the United States (97.0%) and dedicated institutional funding (93.9%). CONCLUSION Our survey demonstrates that although there is significant interest among fellowship trainees, a minority of the fellowship programs offer GO opportunities. Providing GO opportunities would require programs to establish partnerships with institutions outside the United States and to have systematic approaches of addressing other barriers, including enhancing funding and mentorship.

Introduction There is no prospective data to guide the utilization of peri-transplant radiation (PTRT) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). In retrospective analyses, PTRT has been associated with local disease control, however evidence supporting improved progression free survival (PFS) is less well defined (Milgrom SA et al Cancer. 2017; 123(8):1363-1371). Furthermore, the added benefit of PTRT in the era of recent advancement in salvage strategies, including brentuximab vedotin (BV) and checkpoint inhibitors (CPI), is unclear. In a multicenter, retrospective analysis, we evaluated the impact of PTRT on PFS for patients with R/R cHL. Methods We identified consecutive pts ≥7 years old at time of diagnosis with R/R cHL treated with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) at 5 US academic institutions between 2010-2021. PTRT was defined as radiation administered within 3 months of ASCT. The primary objective was to compare the post-ASCT PFS, defined as the time from ASCT to subsequent relapse or death from any cause, between the two groups. Univariable and Multivariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the impact of various relevant clinical factors on post-ASCT PFS. Results A total of 958 eligible pts were identified ( Table 1). The median age at cHL diagnosis was 31 (range, 7-72). At the time of first relapse/primary refractory disease, 406 (54%) pts had early-stage disease, 167 (24%) pts had bulky disease (≥5.0 cm), 308 (36%) pts had extra-nodal disease, 182 (22%) pts had B-symptoms (B-sx), and 338 (45%) had primary refractory disease. A total of 302 (32%) pts received >1 line of salvage before ASCT. Salvage treatment at any time point before ASCT included chemotherapy only for 457 (48%) patients, BV(+/- chemotherapy) for 308 (32%) patients, and CPI (+/- BV or +/- chemotherapy) for 193 (20%) patients. In total, 239 (24.9%) pts received PTRT, 139 (58.1%) before ASCT and 100 (41.8%) after ASCT. Among pts with available dosing information (23.3%), the median radiation dose administered was 28 Gy. The most common doses administered were 30 Gy in 77 (31.7%) pts, 36 Gy in 62 (27.8%) pts, and 18 Gy in 43 (19.2%) pts. Radiated sites included mediastinum in 172 (80.7%) pts, neck/cervical lymph nodes in 68 (31.9%) pts, and supra/infra clavicular region and axilla, each in 31 (14.6%) pts. Compared to the 719 pts that did not receive PTRT, patients treated with PTRT were more likely to have early stage disease (73% vs 47%, p<0.001), bulky disease (30% vs 22%, p = 0.048), primary refractory disease (56% vs 40%, p <0.001), >1 line of salvage treatment prior to ASCT (40% vs 29%, p<0.001), and <CR prior to ASCT (36% vs 27%, p = 0.007) (Table 1). Patients treated with PTRT were less likely to have RT at initial diagnosis (5.9% vs 22%, p<0.001), extra-nodal disease (19% vs 42%, p<0.001), B-sx (17% vs 25%, p=0.035), salvage treatment that included CPI (11% vs 23%, p<0.001), and BV maintenance (20 vs 31%, p<0.001). After a median follow up from ASCT of 4.5 years (range, 2.4-7.2), 2-year PFS was 76% (73%, 79%) and 5-year PFS was 70% (67%, 73%). In univariable analysis, receipt of PTRT showed non-significant reduced hazard for PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.05, p = 0.093) (Figure 1). In a multivariable model, PTRT showed significant association with PFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36-0.88, p=0.009) when adjusting for other clinically relevant factors at relapse such as stage, B-sx, bulk, primary refractory disease, BV(+/- chemotherapy) or CPI (+/- BV or +/- chemotherapy) in salvage, PET response prior to ASCT, and BV maintenance after ASCT. To determine if specific subgroups benefited from PTRT, we tested for interaction effects between PTRT and clinically relevant factors. Only bulk (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.85, p=0.013) and B-sx (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20-1.02, p=0.041) showed significant interaction with PTRT.Among pts with bulky disease, 5-year PFS was significantly improved with receipt of PTRT (81% vs 62%, p=0.013). Conclusion In this large multi-center analysis of pts with R/R cHL undergoing ASCT, there was no significant difference in PFS regardless of receipt of PTRT. However, after adjusting for known clinically relevant factors, receipt of PTRT was significantly associated with PFS and was particularly beneficial for patients with bulky disease or B-sx at relapse. We found decreased utilization of PTRT in pts receiving CPI-based salvage; therefore the role for PTRT for pts receiving CPI-based salvage is unclear.

Background: For patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), the standard of care remains salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for responding patients. Historical data suggest 40% of patients may relapse after ASCT, and these patients have generally a poor median overall survival (OS) of less than 2 years (Moskowitz et al., Br J Haematol. 2009;146(2):158-62). However, since these reports, the treatment landscape of R/R HL has dramatically improved, most notably with the introduction of two novel therapies, brentuximab vedotin (BV) and anti-PD1 agents. To refine our understanding of clinical outcomes in this context, we characterized patients who relapsed after ASCT in the modern era. Methods: We used a multicenter retrospective patient database at 5 transplant centers in the United States to identify patients with HL aged ≥ 12 years at diagnosis who had received ASCT on or after 1/1/2010. The primary objective was to determine the median OS for patients who relapsed after ASCT (post-ASCT-relapse OS), defining survival as the time from relapse after ASCT to subsequent death from any cause. Univariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the impact of various factors on post-ASCT OS. Outcomes by era were evaluated using three different eras based on approval dates of novel agents: (1) pre-BV approval (pre-7/31/2011), (2) post-BV approval (8/1/2011-4/30/2016), (3) post-anti-PD1 approval (5/1/16-present). Results: A total of 215 patients were identified. The median age at ASCT was 34. Before ASCT, 128 patients (62%) had no exposure to novel agents, 76 patients (35%) had received BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy, and 11 patients (5.1%) had received anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV. Conditioning was mostly with BEAM (59%) or CBV (32%). The median time to relapse after ASCT was 6 months (range: 1-109 months). Nearly half all relapses (47%) occurred within 6 months of ASCT. Only 14% of relapses occurred after 1 year. Among 126 patients with available treatment information, the median number of post-ASCT lines of therapy was 2 (IQR: 1, 4). Therapy for post-ASCT relapse included BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy in 41 patients (29%), anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV for 70 patients (50%), and no novel agents for only 15 patients (11%). The median followup time from the date of ASCT among survivors was 5.0 (IQR: 2.8, 7.8) years. The median post-ASCT-relapse OS was not reached ( Figure 1). The 2- and 5-year post-ASCT-relapse OS were 75% (95% CI: 70%-81%) and 59% (95% CI: 53%-67%), respectively. On univariable Cox regression for post-ASCT-relapse OS ( Table 1), time to relapse greater than 6 (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.85) or 12 months (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96) were significantly associated with improved post-ASCT-relapse OS. Increasing age at relapse was associated with worse OS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.07). Receipt of a novel agent (compared to chemotherapy alone) as the first salvage regimen for post-ASCT relapse was associated with improved post-ASCT OS (BV: HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.96; anti-PD-1: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-1.08). Outcomes improved over time as regulatory approvals for novel agents occurred (post-BV-approval: HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39-1.24; post-anti-PD-1 approval: HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.91). Conclusion: We show prolonged overall survival post-ASCT relapse compared to historical data likely due to the introduction of BV and anti-PD1 agents. This report represents one of the largest datasets of post-ASCT relapse in cHL, and this data should serve as an updated benchmark for future evaluations.

Background: Maintenance therapy with brentuximab vedotin (BV) after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improved progression-free survival (PFS) among high-risk patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the phase III AETHERA trial. However, cHL treatment has changed significantly since that trial with frequent incorporation of BV and PD-1 inhibitors into earlier lines of therapy. The efficacy of BV maintenance may be different among pts who receive novel agents before ASCT. Methods: Pts with a diagnosis of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT between 2010 and 2022 were identified at 5 US transplant centers. Pts receiving no systemic post-ASCT maintenance or BV maintenance were included, while pts receiving investigational maintenance treatments were excluded. Medical records were reviewed to identify clinical variables. Results: 921 pts were identified. Median age was 32 yrs (IQR 24-44). 641 pts (70%) had primary refractory disease or relapsed within 12 months of frontline therapy, 326 (35%) had extranodal disease at relapse, and 173 (19%) had B symptoms at relapse. Pts received a median of 2 (1-9) lines of therapy before ASCT, including 295 (32%) who received ≥3 lines. 425 (46%) pts received BV before ASCT (including 24 pts as part of frontline treatment). 70 pts (8%) were BV-refractory (defined as failure to achieve an objective response to any BV-based treatment). 169 (18%) received a PD-1 agent with salvage treatment. 638 pts (69%) had a complete response on pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET). BEAM (71%) or CBV (21%) conditioning were used for most pts and 236 pts (26%) received peri-ASCT radiation. 224 pts (24%) received post-ASCT BV maintenance (including 37% of pts undergoing ASCT from 2015-2022). Compared to pts receiving no maintenance, pts receiving BV maintenance were more likely to have primary refractory/early relapsed disease (79% vs 67%, p<0.001), have received only 1 salvage regimen (79% vs 65%, p=0.001), and received BEAM conditioning (83% vs 67%, p<0.001). BV maintenance pts were less likely to receive peri-ASCT radiation (20% vs 28%, p=0.022). The median number of BV maintenance cycles was 10 (1-18) and the most common reason for discontinuation was neuropathy. Median post-ASCT follow-up was 4.9 yrs. 5-yr PFS and OS after ASCT were 70% (95% CI 67-74%) and 85% (83-88%), respectively. Because BV-refractory pts were much less likely to receive BV maintenance (p=0.0044) and had inferior PFS (HR 2.2, p<0.001) (and therefore would serve as a confounder), we excluded BV-refractory pts from additional analyses. Use of BV maintenance was associated with improved PFS (5-yr 81% vs 67%, HR 0.47 [0.33-0.69], p<0.001) and OS (5-yr 92% vs 83%, HR 0.38 [0.20-0.73], p=0.004). The benefit of BV maintenance depended upon pre-ASCT therapy. BV maintenance was associated with a significant improvement in PFS for pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.41 [0.25-0.65], p<0.001), but not for BV-treated (HR 0.69 [0.38-1.25], p=0.22) or PD-1-treated pts (HR 0.63 [0.13-3.03], p=0.56) ( Figure). Among pts with 0-1 modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance was not associated with a significant PFS benefit in any treatment subgroup (no novel agents, HR 0.50, p=0.087; BV-treated, HR 1.28, p=0.67; PD-1-treated, HR 2.97, p=0.44). For pts with 2+ modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance significantly improved PFS in the no novel agent group (HR 0.35, p<0.001) but not in the BV-treated (HR 0.55, p=0.099) or PD-1 treated groups (HR 0.24, p=0.19). In multivariable analyses that included key variables (age, year of ASCT, conditioning regimen, peri-ASCT radiation, early relapse/primary refractory disease, B symptoms, extranodal sites, pre-ASCT PET, lines of therapy), BV maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit among pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.27 [0.12-0.65], p<0.001), but not for pts treated with BV (HR 0.56 [0.28-1.10], p=0.091) or PD-1 blockade (HR 1.10 [0.22-5.56], p=0.91) before ASCT. Conclusions: In this large cohort, BV maintenance was associated with the clearest benefit among pts who received only chemotherapy before ASCT. We were unable to identify a significant improvement in PFS for pts receiving novel agents before ASCT (which could be due to insufficient power to detect a small benefit in this population), suggesting that if these pts benefit from BV maintenance, its impact is likely more limited.

Introduction: Single arm studies incorporating PD-1 blockade and/or brentuximab vedotin (BV) to salvage regimen have produced encouraging results in transplant-eligible relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) and are increasingly used in practice. As prospective randomized studies comparing PD1 based salvage to other salvage regimens are lacking, we conducted a retrospective study comparing post-transplant outcomes of R/R cHL patients who received PD1-based regimen and other novel and conventional regimen. Methods: Consecutive adult patients with R/R cHL who received salvage therapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) between 2010 and 2021 at 5 United States academic institutions were included. Demographics and clinical variables were recorded at relapse by electronic health records review. Study Objectives were post-ASCT progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 981 pts of R/R cHL were identified. At relapse, median age was 31 (IQR: 21-43) years, 504 (52%) were male, 323 (49%) had advanced stage, 353 (41%) had extranodal disease (END), 185 (22%) had B symptoms, 345 (45%) were refractory to frontline therapy and 317 (32%) relapsed within a year of frontline therapy.308 (31%) received >1 line of salvage before ASCT. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on salvage therapy received: 1) 195 (20%) patients received a PD-1 agent with or without BV at any point before ASCT (PD-1 group), 2) 312 (32%) patients received BV at any point before ASCT without PD-1 (BV group), and 3) 474 (48%) patients received no novel agent before ASCT (chemo group). PFS was significantly higher in PD1 group (2-yr PFS 93.1 (CI 95: 89.4-96.9)%); compared to BV (2 yr PFS 73.9 (CI 95: 69.1-79.1)% , p <0.0001) or chemo groups (2 yr PFS 71.6 (CI 95: 67.6-75.9)% , p<0.0001). PFS was not different between the BV and chemo groups (p=0.88) (Figure 1). OS was not significantly different between PD-1 group (2 yr OS 96.2 % (CI 95: 93.2-99.2), p=0.06), BV group (2 yr OS 94.3% (CI 95: 91.7-97.0), p=0.2) and chemo group (2 yr OS 91.8% (CI 95: 89.3-94.4)). Amongst pts who were transplanted in complete metabolic response (CMR), we assessed post-ASCT PFS and OS based on salvage therapy received immediately before ASCT. Pts who received PD-1 as last salvage therapy had improved PFS compared to chemo (HR: 0.15 (CI 95: 0.07-0.3), p= <0.0001) and BV (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.08-0.5), p= <0.001). Pts receiving PD-1 immediately before ASCT also had higher OS compared to those receiving chemo (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.05-0.8), p= 0.02) but not BV (HR: 0.8 (CI 95: 0.4-1.3), p=0.1). There was no difference between BV and chemo group in regards to PFS and OS. In multivariable analysis that included time to relapse, B symptoms, END, pre-ASCT response, number of salvage therapy lines before ASCT, year of transplant and BV consolidation, PD-1 salvage therapy had significantly higher PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.3 (CI 95: 0.2-0.5), p= <0.001). BV group had significantly lower PFS (HR: 3.34 (CI 95: 1.8-6.0), group=0.002) compared to PD1 group. PFS was not different between BV and chemo group (p= 0.7). OS was similar between all 3 groups. Similar PFS and OS were seen among patients receiving PD-1 + BV (n=83) and PD-1 with or without chemo (n =112) (p=0.96 for PFS; p= 0.72 for OS); as well as for patients receiving PD-1 as part of their first salvage therapy (n=151) or later salvage treatments (n=44) (p=0.45 for PFS, p= 0.3 for OS). Patients who received PD1 based regimen as last salvage therapy pre-ASCT had significantly better PFS (HR: 6.8 (CI 95: 2.4-19.2), p= <0.0001) and OS (HR: 10.6 (CI 95: 2.5-44.8), p= 0.0001) compared to patients who received PD1 prior to their last line of salvage therapy per-ASCT. Conclusion: Receipt of PD-1 based salvage therapy at any point before ASCT is associated with significantly improved PFS compared to either BV or chemotherapy-based salvage treatments. In the subgroup of patients transplanted in CMR, PD1 based last salvage regimen were associated with higher PFS compared to chemotherapy and BV and higher OS compared to chemotherapy. PD1 based last salvage therapy pre-ASCT was associated with better survival compared to PD1 prior to last salvage therapy. Results of this study strongly support the use of PD-1 based salvage therapy for patients with R/R cHL. S.D., R.M., H.S contributed equally. R.S., M.M. contributed equally.