Epperla, Narendranath

Abstract The prognostic relevance of diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in patients with newly diagnosed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is unknown. Hence, we sought to evaluate the impact of DTI on outcomes in MCL using 3 large datasets (1) the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource, (2) patients enrolled in the ALL Age Asthma Cohort/CALGB 50403, and (3) a multisitecohort of patients with MCL. Patients were a priori divided into 2 groups, 0 to 14 days (short DTI) and 15 to 60 days (long DTI). The patients in whom observation was deemed appropriate were excluded. One thousand ninety-seven patients newly diagnosed with MCL and available DTI were included in the study. The majority (73%) had long DTI (n=797). Patients with short DTI had worse eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS ≥2), higher lactate dehydrogenase, bone marrow involvement, more frequent B symptoms, higher MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI ≥6.2), and were less likely to receive intensive induction therapy than long DTI group. The median progression-free survival (2.5 years vs 4.8 years, p<0.0001) and overall survival (7.8 years vs. 11.8 years, p<0.0001) were significantly inferior in the short DTI group than the long DTI cohort and remained significant for progression-free survival and overall survival in multivariable analysis. We show that the DTI is an important prognostic factor in patients newly diagnosed with MCL and is strongly associated with adverse clinical factors and poor outcomes. DTI should be reported in all the patients newly diagnosed with MCL who are enrolling in clinical trials and steps must be taken to ensure selection bias is avoided.

Abstract Background Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is relatively rare, accounting for 3-15% of extranodal NHL and less than 1% of all NHL. Patients often present with pain and swelling or pathologic fracture of the affected area of the skeleton, and B symptoms are often less prevalent. Many cases are limited stage at presentation. Patients are usually treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or similar induction therapy. Based on older studies showing improved outcomes associated with the addition of radiation (many completed prior to the rituximab era), patients often still receive combined-modality therapy today. However, it remains unknown whether consolidative radiation therapy (RT) confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction. We sought to address this question in a multicenter retrospective study. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes in a modern cohort of patients who underwent treatment for primary bone DLBCL using chemotherapy regimens in the rituximab era either with or without consolidative RT. Data was collected from 13 academic medical centers in the U.S., with patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Patients were identified using each institution's hematologic malignancy registries. Analysis was limited to patients with primary bone DLBCL, with stage I-II disease (primary site +/- locoregional lymph nodes) that could be encompassed in a radiation field. Patients who received CIT alone or CIT followed by RT were included. Treatment selection was at the treating physician's discretion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for: demographics, chemotherapy regimens, radiation treatments, and PET scan data. Local IRB approval was obtained at sites. All data was distributed in a de-identified fashion. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included: response after induction CIT induction and the need for additional therapies. Chi-square test analysis was used to compare categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous and ordinal measures. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups via the log-rank test. Multi-variable analysis (MVA) for OS and RFS was performed using RT vs no RT, PET status post CIT (negative vs positive) and rituximab in induction (Y/N) as variables. Results A total of 127 patients were included: 91 who received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 36 who received CIT alone (no RT group). The median age of patients at diagnosis in the RT group and no RT group was 58.5 and 57.0, respectively. For CIT, the majority of patients received R-CHOP (84%). Despite focusing on 2005-2019, a small percentage of patients (5 - 14%) in each group (RT and no RT) did not receive rituximab with their induction therapy. The OS at 10 years was 74.5% in the RT group and 86.5% in the no RT group (p = 0.29). The RFS at 10 years was 70.9% in the RT group and 78.2% in the no RT group (p = 0.85). Among the 91 patients who received RT, 67 (77.0%) received a dose of 36 Gy or higher. There was no difference in OS (p = 0.63) or RFS (p = 0.90) in patients who received > 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy of radiation. On MVA for OS, RT was not associated with improved OS, although rituximab as part of induction was (p = 0.048). On MVA for RFS, neither RT nor rituximab were associated with improved RFS. For rituximab the trend was in the direction of rituximab benefit (p = 0.11). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that, in the rituximab era, patients with limited stage primary bone DLBCL have excellent outcomes overall. In this study, neither RFS or OS appeared to be improved with the addition of consolidative RT. Rituximab, however, was associated with improved OS on MVA. Outcomes do not appear to differ based on the dose of RT (> 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy). Our data suggests that RT may have less benefit for primary bone DLBCL in the rituximab era, although it is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from consolidative radiation therapy. A larger data set would likely be needed to evaluate this. We plan to present data regarding PET responses at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Caimi: XaTek: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from patents (wife); Amgen Therapeutics.: Consultancy; ADC Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Epperla: Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Genzyme: Honoraria. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; SeaGen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Fenske: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare B‐cell lymphoproliferative malignancy. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto‐HCT) is considered in a subset of WM patients with relapsed disease. While registry data has shown a benefit for auto‐HCT in relapsed WM, there is a paucity of data on outcomes of patients relapsing after auto‐HCT. Eligibility criteria included adult patients with relapsed/refractory WM who underwent auto‐HCT between 2007 and 2017. The primary endpoint was post‐relapse overall survival (PR‐OS). Secondary endpoints were to identify factors prognostic of PR‐OS. Of the 48 patients with WM who underwent auto‐HCT, 22 (46%) experienced relapse following auto‐HCT. Median PR‐OS of relapsed WM patients after auto‐HCT ( n = 22) was not reached (NR) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.5 months‐NR). Among patients who relapsed <1 year versus ≥1 year from auto‐HCT, the median PR‐OS was 18.4 months (95%CI: 0.8‐NR) months and NR (95%CI: 17.5‐NR), respectively ( p = 0.06). Of note, disease status at the time of transplant, CR/VGPR versus partial remission did not appear to impact PR‐OS. The median PR‐OS was significantly longer in patients who received ibrutinib in the post‐transplant setting compared to those who did not (NR vs. 18.4 months, 95%CI: 9.1‐NR, p = 0.02). On univariable analysis, the presence of complex karyotype (RR = 4.87, 95% CI = 1.22–19.53) and a higher number of prior lines of therapy (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.23–2.67) were associated with a significantly higher risk of relapse. This is the only study to date that evaluated outcomes of WM patients who relapsed following auto‐HCT and provides a benchmark for future trials evaluating survival following auto‐HCT relapse.

SummaryIn young and fit patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), intensive induction therapy followed by a consolidative autologous haematopoietic cell transplant (autoHCT) is the standard of care in the front‐line setting. Recently, time‐to‐event analysis has emerged as an important risk assessment tool in lymphoma, though its impact in MCL is not well defined. We utilized the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database to evaluate the effect of post‐autoHCT time to relapse on overall survival (OS) over time in 461 patients who underwent autoHCT within 12 months of MCL diagnosis. On multivariate analysis, the impact of relapse on OS was greatest at the six‐month [hazard ratio (HR) = 7·68], 12‐month (HR = 6·68), and 18‐month (HR = 5·81) landmark timepoints. Using a dynamic landmark model we demonstrate that adjusted OS at five years following each landmark timepoint improved with time for relapsing and non‐relapsing patients. Furthermore, early relapse (<18 months) following autoHCT defines a high‐risk group with inferior post‐relapse OS. This retrospective analysis highlights the impact of time to relapse on OS in MCL patients undergoing up‐front autoHCT and emphasizes the need to consider novel therapeutic approaches for patients suffering early relapse.

AbstractIntroductionWhile most patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) receive therapy shortly after diagnosis, a subset of patients with indolent‐behaving disease can safely defer treatment. In this subgroup, we evaluated the importance of treatment intensity in patients with MCL who defer initial therapy.MethodsOut of 1134 patients with MCL from 12 academic centers, we analyzed 219 patients who initiated therapy at least 90 days after diagnosis. Patients who received induction with high‐dose cytarabine and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in first remission were considered to have received intensive therapy (n = 88) while all other approaches were non‐intensive (n = 131).ResultsThere was no difference in progression‐free (PFS; P = .224) or overall survival (OS; P = .167) in deferred patients who received non‐intensive vs. intensive therapy. Additionally, univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were performed for PFS and OS. Treatment at an academic center (HR 0.43, P = .015) was associated with improved OS in both univariate and multivariate models, while intensity of treatment was not associated with improved OS in either model.ConclusionsThese results indicate that intensified initial treatment is not associated with improved survival after deferring initial therapy, although prospective studies are needed to determine which of these patients with MCL may benefit from intensive therapy.