Ghesquières, Hervé

Background: Splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL) is a rare indolent disease with a median overall survival (OS) of more than 10 years, although a proportion of patients may develop aggressive histology transformation. In a previous report from this large, international dataset, the 10-year cumulative incidence of transformation was 17% (95% 13-21) and in another study of 186 patients, the 10-year cumulative incidence was 14%Click or tap here to enter text.. In this report, we focus on risk factors for transformation as well as clinical characteristics and outcomes of transformed SMZL (tSMZL). Patients and methods: Adults diagnosed with SMZL in 2000-2018 were identified through regional or nationwide population-based registries or from hospital registries. Only patients likely to have SMZL as defined by Matutes et al. were included. Those with discordant lymphoma and/or transformation at diagnosis were excluded. Medical records were reviewed by local clinicians with experience in hematology/oncology, and detailed information on clinical characteristics, treatment lines, and outcomes was collected. Only histologically confirmed high-grade transformations (HT) were included. OS was defined as the time from transformation to death or censoring at last follow-up. Additional analyses stratified by treatment exposure prior to HT and treatment of HT were conducted. Multivariable Cox analyses were performed to determine clinicopathological features associated with transformation and OS. Results: Out of 940 patients with SMZL, 111 developed HT during a median follow-up of 9.1 years. The median time from diagnosis to HT was 3.4 years with an interquartile range of 1.6-7.4 years. Median age at HT was 71 years. Patients with HT shared similar baseline characteristics to those without in terms of age at diagnosis (66.4 vs 67.6), f:m ratio (1.5 vs 1.1) and ECOG ³2 (7.2% vs 7.4%). The 5-yr OS from the time of HT was 42% (CI 95%, 32-54). Of the 111 patients with tSMZL, a complete treatment history from SMZL diagnosis until HT was available for 88 included in the following analyses. By the time of HT, 46 had not received any prior systemic therapy (37 only splenectomy, 9 no therapy), 6 patients had received rituximab alone or combined with splenectomy, and 36 patients had received chemotherapy alone or as part of combined modality treatment. In a uni- and multivariable models for HT, we assessed age, treatment at diagnosis, sex, extra-hilar lymphadenopathy, and extranodal involvement. In both the uni- and multivariable model, age >70 (HR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.4), immediate treatment including splenectomy (HR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.05-3.6), and extra-hilar lymphadenopathy (HR 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.3) were associated with higher HT hazard, while extranodal involvement (HR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.84) was associated with a lower HT hazard. At the time of first-line treatment, multivariable analysis revealed similar results and with no association between risk of transformation and treatment strategy (i.e splenectomy alone, rituximab monotherapy or chemotherapy with /without rituximab or splenectomy, and other). At the time of HT, patients who had been previously treated with chemotherapy had an inferior 5-year OS of 24% (95%CI: 13-44%) versus 54% (95%CI: 41-71%) for those who had not received chemotherapy prior to HT. In contrast, there was no difference in the survival of patients that transformed less than or more than 24 months from diagnosis with 5-year OS after HT of 35% (95%CI 20-60%) and 45% (95%CI, 33-61%) respectively. In a multivariable Cox regression analyses of age at time of HT, sex, time since last treatment <24 months, chemo-exposure in previous treatment lines and anthracycline-containing therapy (+/-R) at the time of HT, only prior chemo-exposure was borderline associated with poorer OS (HR 1.8, 95%CI: 0.9-3.5). Conclusion: Patients with SMZL face a notable risk of developing tSMZL over time. Patients in need of immediate treatment at first SMZL diagnosis, age >70 and extrahilar lymphadenopathy had a higher risk of tSMZL and outcomes at the time of HT were poor if patients had been exposed to prior chemotherapy after adjustment for age, sex, and time since last treatment.

Introduction Relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is very aggressive, with a historically low complete response (CR) rate (Blood. 2017; 130[16]:1800-1808). Recent research has focused on achieving complete and durable responses in this population, which translate to improvements in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results from the randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS, PFS, and objective response rate with brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with lenalidomide (Len) and rituximab (R; BV+Len+R) vs placebo+Len+R in patients (pts) with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior systemic therapies. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with a best overall response (BOR) of CR (n=67). Methods Pts in the study were randomized (1:1) to receive BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks, in combination with R (375 mg/m2) and Len (20 mg) once daily. In these subgroup analyses, eligible pts had a BOR of CR and some ended study treatment and received any subsequent anticancer therapy. BOR was assessed by investigators according to the Lugano 2014 classification. Duration of response was defined as the time from the start of the first documented CR to the first documented tumor progression per Lugano 2014 or death. Pts who initiated a subsequent nonpalliative anticancer therapy were censored at the most recent prior response assessment. Subsequent nonpalliative anticancer therapies were defined as any systemic therapy received after the end of study treatment. P values are descriptive. Results Of the 112 pts in the BV+Len+R group, 45 (40.2%) had a BOR of CR. Of the 118 pts in the placebo+Len+R group, 22 (18.6%) had a BOR of CR. The median duration of CR was 18.9 months (95% CI, 11.1 months-not estimable [NE]) with BV+Len+R vs not reached (NR) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.527; 95% CI, 0.200-1.389; P=.1891). The median time to CR was 1.58 months (range, 1.2-7.3 months) with BV+Len+R and 1.61 months (range, 0.7-4.6 months) with placebo+Len+R. With a median follow-up of 14.3 months, the median OS in pts with a BOR of CR was 31.5 months (95% CI, 20.3 months-NE) in the BV+Len+R group vs NR in the placebo+Len+R group (HR, 1.044; 95% CI, 0.331-3.298; P=.9407). Median PFS in pts with a BOR of CR was 21.5 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-NE) in the BV+Len+R group vs NR (95% CI, 5.4 months-NE) in the placebo+Len+R group (HR, 0.6333; 95% CI, 0.256-1.567; P=.3198). Results of NR in the placebo+Len+R group are likely attributable to limited follow-up and small sample size. Additional data on baseline characteristics of pts who had CR will be presented. Of the 45 pts with CR in the BV+Len+R group, 42 (93.3%) received no subsequent anticancer therapy. Of the 22 pts with CR in the placebo+Len+R group, 17 (77.3%) received no subsequent anticancer therapy. Conclusions BV doubled the CR rate in pts with R/R DLBCL compared with placebo, and outcomes in pts with CR were durable, with only 6.7% of pts treated with BV+Len+R receiving subsequent systemic anticancer therapy, compared with 22.7% of pts treated with placebo+Len+R receiving subsequent therapy. Overall, BV+Len+R demonstrated a survival benefit in the ECHELON-3 study and is a promising option to achieve complete and durable responses in third- or later-line therapy for pts with R/R DLBCL.

LBA7005 Background: Despite recent advances, there remains a need for novel therapies for pts with R/R DLBCL. BV, an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, has shown efficacy and safety when combined with lenalidomide (len) and with rituximab (R) in heavily pretreated populations (Bartlett 2022; Ward 2022). The double-blind, global phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) compared BV with R+len (R2) vs R2 in pts with R/R DLBCL who are ineligible for HSCT or CAR T-cell therapy. Here, we present results from the interim analysis (IA) for overall survival (OS). Methods: Pts with R/R DLBCL received BV+R2 or placebo+R2 (randomized 1:1). Pts received BV (1.2 mg/kg) or placebo q3w, R (375 mg/m2) q3w, and len (20 mg) qd. The primary endpoint was OS in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR) rate. The preplanned IA was performed at 134 OS events with a prespecified efficacy boundary of 2-sided P=0.0232. Results: 230 pts were randomized: 112 to BV+R2 and 118 to R2; all but 2 pts (both in R2 arm) received ≥1 dose of study drug. Median age was 71 yrs (range, 21-89), 56.5% were male, and 10.9% had an ECOG of 2. Median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2-8); 29% had prior CAR T-cell therapy and 68% were CD30- (<1% CD30 tumor expression). At median follow-up of 16.4 months (mos) (range, 0.1-31.5) (cut-off: January 22, 2024), median OS was 13.8 mos (95% CI: 10.3-18.8) with BV+R2 vs 8.5 mos (95% CI: 5.4-11.7) with R2 (HR 0.629; 95% CI: 0.445-0.891; P=0.0085); OS benefit was consistent across key subgroups. Median PFS was 4.2 mos (95% CI: 2.9-7.1) with BV+R2 vs 2.6 mos (95% CI: 1.4-3.1) with R2 (HR 0.527; 95% CI: 0.380-0.729; P<0.0001). ORR was 64.3% (95% CI: 54.7-73.1) with BV+R2 vs 41.5% with R2 (95% CI: 32.5-51.0; P=0.0006); CR rate was 40.2% vs 18.6%, respectively. In CD30+ vs CD30- subgroups, ORR/CR was 72.2%/38.9% vs 60.5%/40.8% with BV+R2, respectively, and 50.0%/26.3% vs 37.5%/15.0% with R2, respectively. Efficacy analysis including cell of origin will be presented. The safety profile of BV+R2 was tolerable vs R2: Grade (Gr) ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 88% vs 77%, serious TEAEs were 60% vs 50%, and Gr 5 TEAEs were 12% vs 8%, respectively. Most common TEAEs were neutropenia (46% vs 32%), anemia (29% vs 27%), and diarrhea (31% vs 23%). Rates of peripheral neuropathy for BV+R2 vs R2 were 31% vs 24% (all Gr) and 6% vs 2% (Gr 3). Median treatment duration was 3.6 mos with BV+R2 vs 2.0 mos with R2. Conclusions: Treatment with BV+R2 triplet, compared to R2, demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in all key efficacy outcomes including OS in high-risk subgroups, with manageable safety. This triplet regimen represents a novel treatment option for pts with heavily pretreated R/R DLBCL. Clinical trial information: NCT04404283 .

Introduction: Splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL) is a rare, indolent disease. There is no universally accepted standard therapy and long-term outcome data are limited. Rituximab monotherapy is increasingly used over splenectomy in the first-line setting despite a paucity of comparative studies. In the absence of randomized trials, large-scale international real-world data studies are critical to evaluate outcomes of different treatment interventions and to understand the natural history of SMZL in the rituximab-era. Methods: Adult patients with SMZL diagnosed between Jan 1 st 2000 and Dec 31 st 2018 were identified using regional/nationwide population-based registries or hospital registries in Europe, the UK, North America, and Australia. Medical records and pathology reports from eligible patients were reviewed locally by clinicians with specialty experience in hemato-oncology. SMZL cases were required to meet the diagnostic criteria by Matutes et al. Detailed data on clinico-pathological features, comorbidities, treatments (including treatment intention), treatment responses and survival outcomes were entered in a central study database. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from diagnosis until death from any cause or censoring at last follow-up unless stated otherwise. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until histological transformation, initiation of new chemotherapy or death from any cause. Survival probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cumulative risk of transformation was estimated with death as a competing risk. Primary endpoints were 10-year OS and 5-year EFS respectivly. Results: A total of 934 patients from 25 sites were included. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (IQR 60-76) and 54% were female. Bone marrow involvement was present in 96% (564/590) of those assessed, anemia (Hb &lt;12g/dL for women or &lt;13g/dL for men) in 58%, LDH &gt;UNL in 46%, lymphocytosis (&gt;5 x10 9/L) in 34%, and B-symptoms in 34%. Treatment data were available for 97% of patients. Median follow-up was 9.1 years (range 0-23). Watch and wait was the initial strategy in 28% and 88% of patients received at least one line of treatment during follow-up with the most common being splenectomy (45%), immuno-chemotherapy (19%) or rituximab monotherapy (8%). Fifteen percent received “other” treatments (i.e., combinations of listed therapies and/or radiation). The overall response rate to first-line treatment was 88% (95%CI: 85-90%) with 61% (95%CI: 57-64%) achieving CR. Second line (2L) therapy was needed in 34% during follow-up, 3L in 20% and 4L+ in 9%. The 5-year EFS and OS for all patients were 61% (95%CI: 57-65%) and 77% (95%CI: 74-80%) respectively. The 10-year OS and lymphoma-specific mortality (with non-SMZL deaths as competing risk) estimates were 60% (95%CI: 57-64%) and 11% (95%CI: 9-14%) respectively. The 5-year OS after 2L and 3L were 61% (95%CI: 55-68%) and 51% (95%CI: 42-61%) respectively (figure 1). The 10-year cumulative risk of histological transformation was 17% (95%CI: 13-21%), with 5-year post-transformation OS of 42% (32-54%). At the time of transformation, 60% were chemo-naive and 52% had never been treated for SMZL. The 5-year OS for chemo-naive patients with transformation was 54% (95%CI: 41-71%) versus 24% (95% CI: 13-44%) for transformations after (immuno)chemotherapy (p = 0.01). When comparing patients intended for treatment in first line with splenectomy (n=312) versus rituximab (n=70), patients treated with splenectomy more frequently presented with extra-hilar lymphadenopathy (35% vs 18%), splenomegaly (92% vs 87%) and anemia (64% vs 48%). OS was similar for the two groups (Figure 2, p = 0.53). The 5-year EFS were 63% (95%CI: 57-68%) and 64% (95%CI: 54-77%), respectively (p = 0.31). Conclusions: To date, this is the largest real-world study of SMZL with detailed treatment and outcome data. The study shows that histological transformation was not uncommon with 10-year risk of 17%. However, outcomes for the entire cohort were excellent irrespective of initial treatment and both OS and EFS were similar after first line rituximab versus splenectomy. Long-term survival remained relatively high even following multiple lines of therapy.

7526 Background: The TRANSFORM primary analysis (PA; NCT03575351) confirmed the superior efficacy of liso-cel vs SOC as 2L therapy in patients (pts) with primary refr or early rel LBCL (Abramson et al. Blood 2022). Response to first-line (1L) therapy (refr vs rel), which was a study randomization stratification factor, may influence future treatment response. Here, we present results for refr and rel LBCL subgroups from the TRANSFORM PA. Methods: TRANSFORM is a randomized phase 3 study of liso-cel vs SOC (salvage chemotherapy [CT] followed by high-dose CT [HDCT]/autologous SCT [ASCT]) in adults ≤ 75 y with LBCL primary refr to or rel ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy and eligible for HDCT/ASCT. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS); key secondary endpoints were CR rate, PFS, and OS. In this predefined subgroup analysis, refr was SD, PD, PR, or CR with rel < 3 mo after 1L therapy; rel was CR with rel ≥ 3 mo and ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Results: 92 pts were randomized to each arm. Most pts in the liso-cel and SOC arms had refr disease (73% and 76%, respectively; rel disease, 27% and 24%). Baseline characteristics in the refr and rel subgroups, respectively, were generally balanced: median LDH (U/L; liso-cel, 228.5 and 225; SOC, 259 and 259); median SPD (cm2; liso-cel, 11 and 12; SOC, 15.5 and 18); high-grade B-cell lymphoma (liso-cel, 27% and 16%; SOC, 27% and 9%); diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (liso-cel, 58% and 56%; SOC, 49% and 73%). Consistent with the overall study population, EFS, CR rate, and PFS favored liso-cel vs SOC in both subgroups (Table). Safety was also consistent. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NE) were low in refr (1% and 4%) and rel (0 and 4%) subgroups, respectively, with no grade 4/5 CRS or NEs. Conclusions: In TRANSFORM, liso-cel showed benefits in EFS, PFS, and CR rate vs SOC irrespective of prior response to 1L therapy. As refr LBCL is historically difficult to treat, outcomes for liso-cel in this subgroup are encouraging. Clinical trial information: NCT03575351 . [Table: see text]