Nastoupil, Loretta J.

PURPOSE Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that is approved for the treatment of relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Little is known about the long-term survivorship after CAR T-cell therapy. METHODS We previously reported the results of 298 patients who were leukapheresed with the intent to receive standard-of-care axi-cel (n = 275 infused) after two or more previous lines of therapy at a median follow-up of 12.9 months. Here, we report extended follow-up of this cohort to a median of 58 months, with a focus on late survivorship events. RESULTS Among axi-cel–infused patients, progression-free survival at 5 years was 29% and overall survival (OS) at 5 years was 40%. The 5-year lymphoma-specific survival was 53% with infrequent late relapses. However, the 5-year nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 16.2%, with over half of NRM events occurring beyond 2 years. Patients who were 60 years and older had a lower risk of relapse ( P = .02), but a higher risk of NRM compared with patients younger than 60 years (NRM odds ratio, 4.5 [95% CI, 2.1 to 10.8]; P < .001). Late NRM was mainly due to infections and subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs). In total, SMNs occurred in 24 patients (9%), including therapy-related myeloid neoplasms (n = 15), solid tumors (n = 7), and unrelated lymphoid malignancies (n = 2). CONCLUSION In the standard-of-care setting, axi-cel exhibits outcomes consistent with those reported in clinical trials, with sustained, durable responses observed at the 5-year time point. However, late infections and the development of SMN are key survivorship issues that reduce long-term survival after CAR T-cell therapy, particularly in the elderly.

Abstract Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials remains a persistent challenge. Restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria have been shown to exacerbate this problem. We previously identified that up to 24% of patients treated with standard immunochemotherapy would have been excluded from recent first-line trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) based on 5 laboratory-based criteria. These ineligible patients had worse clinical outcomes and increased deaths related to lymphoma progression, suggesting the potential exclusion of patients who could have benefited most from the novel therapies being evaluated. Using data from the prospectively enrolled Lymphoma Epidemiology Outcomes cohort study, with demographics broadly similar to the US patients diagnosed with lymphoma, we evaluated the impact of laboratory eligibility criteria from recent first-line DLBCL trials across various racial and ethnic backgrounds. There were significant differences in the baseline laboratory values by race/ethnicity with Black/African American (AA) patients having the lowest mean hemoglobin and highest creatinine clearance. Based on recent clinical trial eligibility criteria, AA and Hispanic patients had higher rates of laboratory-based ineligibility than non-Hispanic White patients. The largest gap in the clinical outcomes between eligible and noneligible patients was noted within AA patients with an overall survival hazard ratio based on POLARIX clinical trial criteria of 4.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.83-9.14). A thoughtful approach to the utility of each criterion and cutoffs for eligibility needs to be evaluated in the context of its differential impact across various racial/ethnic groups.

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.

Abstract During the manufacturing period of autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, patients may experience a decline in their condition due to cancer progression. In this study, we investigated the impact of bridging therapy (BT) on the outcome of patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received antilymphoma treatment between leukapheresis and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) infusion. We conducted our analysis using data from the multicenter US Lymphoma CAR-T Consortium, with a median follow-up of 33 months (range, 4.3-42.1). Out of the 298 patients who underwent leukapheresis, 275 patients received axi-cel. A total 52% of patients (n = 143) who received BT had a higher baseline risk profile than patients who did not receive BT, and these patients, as a group, had inferior outcomes compared with those who did not receive BT. However, after propensity score matching between the 2 groups, there were no statistically significant differences in overall response rate (77% vs 87%; P = .13), complete response rate (58% vs 70%; P = .1), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; P = .23), and overall survival (HR, 1.39; P=.09) between the BT group and the no-BT group, respectively. Analyzing the effects of BT in the whole cohort that underwent leukapheresis regardless of receiving axi-cel (intention-to-treat analysis) showed similar results. Radiation BT resulted in outcomes similar to those observed with nonradiation BT. Our findings suggest that BT may be safe without a significant impact on long-term survival for patients who require disease stabilization during the manufacturing period. Moreover, our results suggest that there is no clear advantage to using radiation-based BT over nonradiation-based BT.

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.

Background: Recently, large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs) have undergone major shifts in classification and treatment paradigm, particularly with the advent of CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T). Initially approved as third-line treatment in LBCL in 2017, as of early 2022 CAR-T is indicated for second-line therapy (2L) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) disease within 12 months of frontline treatment or who are not candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Given this quickly changing landscape, we aimed to describe disease characteristics, patterns of care, and survival outcomes in patients with R/R LBCL receiving two or more lines of systemic therapy across modern treatment eras. Methods: We developed a database of patients with R/R LBCL from 8 U.S. academic centers in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort study (NCT02736357) and Consortium for Real World Evidence (CReWE). Unlike the SCHOLAR-1 dataset (M Crump et al, Blood 2017), our cohort included any patient receiving 2L, regardless of timing of progression/relapse. For this analysis, eligible patients were aged ≥18 years and received 2L between 2002-2022. Patients with histologic transformation, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder, primary CNS lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, or plasmablastic lymphoma were excluded. Prognostic factors, therapy details (including intent for ASCT and/or CAR-T), and outcomes, including treatment response, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS), were abstracted for all lines of therapy. Treatment eras were defined as pre-CAR-T (2002-2010), CAR-T available via clinical trial (2011-2017), and post-FDA approval of CAR-T (2018-2022). Results: Of 1760 patients initiating 2L for R/R disease, 1523 were eligible for analysis. Median age at start of 2L was 62 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-70), and 65% were male; 11% were non-White, and 8% were Hispanic. High-grade subtypes comprised 16% of all cases. IPI was available for 1013 patients at time of 2L therapy, with 54% having IPI 3-5. Median time from diagnosis to 2L was 8.7 months (IQR 5.6-18.5), with 834 patients not having achieved complete response (CR) to 1L, 285 patients relapsing &lt;12 months after 1L, and 404 patients relapsing ≥12 months after 1L. The median number of total lines of therapy received was 4 (range 2-18), with 586 and 347 receiving ASCT and CAR-T, respectively, at any line of treatment. At a median follow-up of 48 months from the start of 2L, 926 patients (61%) had died. Progressive lymphoma was the primary cause of death in 75% of deceased patients, with 8% of reported deaths due to therapy. 2L was received at an academic medical center in 83% cases, and 209 patients (14%) received 2L on a clinical trial. ASCT and/or CAR-T was planned at 2L for 989 patients (65%), of whom 463 ultimately received ASCT, 88 received CAR-T, and 21 received allogeneic transplant at 2L. 494 patients were not considered for ASCT or CAR-T at 2L, and 40 were unknown for ASCT/CAR-T intent. Breakdown by treatment era (n = 1518 with available treatment start date) is shown in the Table. Median EFS from start of 2L was 4.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-4.8). Median OS from start of 2L was 18 months (95% CI: 17-22), and 2- and 5-year OS estimates were 46% (95% CI: 44-49%) and 35% (95% CI: 33-38%), respectively. EFS and OS improved significantly for patients initiating 2L between 2011-2017 compared to 2002-2010. However, EFS and OS in the 2018-2022 era remained similar to 2011-2017 (Figure). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first-ever large-scale attempt to describe patterns of care and outcomes in LBCL 2L in the modern era, inclusive of all treatment approaches. The rich and unique LEO CReWE dataset captures evolving practice approaches over time in terms of both intent for and receipt of cellular therapies. Likely reflecting the rapid development of many novel immune effector cell products and bispecific antibodies, we observed increased enrollment on 2L clinical trials in the 2018-2022 period, including a substantial proportion of patients receiving CAR-T in 2L. Importantly, survival increased in treatment eras during which CAR-T was available. Ongoing analyses of factors associated with improved survival will be presented at the meeting.

Background: We previously reported thatearly events in follicular lymphoma (FL), defined as progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) or early transformation to a more aggressive histology, are significantly associated with increased risk of lymphoma related death. To refine clinical management, the FLIPI24 prognostic model was developed to predict the risk of early events after starting immunochemotherapy (IC) (Maurer et al, 2022). The FLIPI24 model was found to be significantly superior to standard clinical models for prediction of both event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) and overall survival (OS) in internal and external validation sets of patients receiving IC. We sought to evaluate the prognostic ability of the FLIPI24 model in patients with FL not receiving IC. Methods: The cohort consists of prospectively enrolled patients in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the multicenter Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohorts. Data were collected from medical records by standard protocol with all events verified by medical record review. Eligible patients were those diagnosed with grades 1-3A FL and initiated observation, rituximab monotherapy, radiation, or other non-IC therapy. The FLIPI24 model utilizes 5 continuous variables: age (linear 60-90 years with inflection at age 75), HGB (linear 8-17 g/dL), WBC (linear 4-11x10 9/L), LDH/ULN (linear 0.5-5), and B2M (linear 1-10 mg/L). FLIPI24 risk is grouped as follows: low risk (≤10%], low-average risk (10-15%], average risk (15-20%], high risk (20-40%], very high risk (&gt;40%) for an early event. EFS was defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, (re)treatment, histologic transformation, or death due to any cause. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis until death from any cause. Cox models and Kaplan Meier curves were used to evaluate association between FLIPI24 and EFS or OS. Results: 1542 patients initiating non-IC management approaches at diagnosis from 2002-2020 were identified. 51% were &gt;60 years (IQR 52-70), and 49% were male. Most patients (86%) had FL grade 1-2. 61% of patients met any criteria for high tumor burden per GELF, BLNI, or GITMO based on available variables. Treatment approaches were 833 observation (54%), 315 rituximab monotherapy (20%), 186 radiation (12%), and 208 other non-IC approaches (14%). At median follow-up of 58 months, EFS24 was 73.8% (95% CI: 71.6%, 76.1%), 5-year OS was 90.9% (95% CI: 89.3%, 92.5%) and 253 (16%) patients died. The FLIPI24 score identified poor outcomes among patients with high/very high-risk score (FLIPI24 &gt;20%), with median EFS of 1.8 years (95% CI, 1.3, 3.28) and 5 year OS of 65.1% (95% CI: 55.9-75.8) (Figure 1). When evaluating patient subsets, for patients with high tumor burden (defined based on available variables) and high/very high-risk score, median EFS was 1.6 years and 5 year OS was 64.6% (95% CI: 54.9%-76.1%). Among patients with low tumor burden FL and high/very high-risk score, median EFS was 2.0 years (95% CI: 0.84-NA) and 5 year OS was 66.2% (95% CI: 42.4%-100%). Patients undergoing observation with high/very high-risk score similarly had shortened median EFS of 1.53 years (95% CI: 1.25-NA) and 5 year OS of 68.9% (95% CI: 56.4%-84.1%). The FLIPI24 had superior concordance for OS (c=0.726) compared to the FLIPI (c=0.646) when evaluated in patients not treated with IC. Results were comparable in the subsets of patients observed (c=0.706 vs 0.596) and receiving rituximab monotherapy (c=0.764 vs 0.721). Conclusion: The FLIPI24 model has been previously validated to provide an individual risk score at diagnosis for the likelihood of experiencing an event within 24 months from starting IC. Here we demonstrate that a high FLIPI24 score predicts for poorer outcomes following non-IC strategies including observation, treatment with radiation, and rituximab monotherapy. The FLIPI24 has better prognostic performance for OS than FLIPI in this non-IC population. High FLIPI24 in patients not treated with IC identifies a patient population who should be considered for IC and/or novel frontline therapies when feasible.