Paludo, Jonas

Purpose The predominant pattern of relapse for patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who undergo anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy (CART) involves sites previously involved by NHL. Bridging radiotherapy (BRT) has shown to be an effective bridging treatment with excellent local control rates. Our previous work defined limited/oligometastatic lymphoma as disease involving <5 sites. This study is the first to report on the role of BRT for patients with limited (<5 involved sites) disease prior to CART. Methods Following Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective review from 2018 to 2023 across 3 Mayo Clinic sites (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota) was performed and identified 139 patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell NHL without bone marrow involvement who received CART and had <5 disease sites prior to leukapheresis. Ann Arbor staging was used to define the number of involved disease sites. An involved disease site included the Ann Arbor anatomical lymph node region(s) harboring the pathological lymph node(s) or any extranodal lesion. Bridging treatment (radiation and/or systemic therapy) was defined as treatment administered between leukapheresis and CART infusion. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS),defined from CART infusion to any disease progression or initiation of post-CART consolidative/salvage therapy. Secondary endpoints included progression -free survival (PFS),defined from CART infusion to any disease progression, and overall survival (OS), defined from CART infusion to death. Results Prior to CART infusion, 44 (32%) patients received BRT and 95 (68%) did not. Bridging systemic therapy was given to 5 (11%) and 34 (36%) patients in the BRT and no BRT groups, respectively (p=0.003). The median number of involved disease sites prior to leukapheresis was 2 (range: 1-4). There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics prior to CART infusion between the BRT and no BRT groups, except for extranodal involvement that was more common in the BRT group (Table 1). The median equivalent 2 Gy dose was 27 Gy (Interquartile range 23-34), and the most common BRT regimen was 20 Gy in 5 fractions. Among the 44 BRT patients, 34 received radiation to all visible PET-avid disease sites, and 10 received radiation to some but not all disease sites. The median follow-up was 20 months. The rate of grade ≥2 cytokine release syndrome was 41% in both groups (p=0.99). The rate of grade ≥2 immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome was 21% and 37% in the BRT and no BRT groups, respectively (p=0.059). There were no observed grade ≥3 BRT-related toxicities. Objective response rate by PET 5 point scale was higher in the BRT group (93% versus 79%; p=0.036). Crude rates of progression were 30% in BRT and 55% in no BRT patients, with 9/13 (69%) and 43/52 (83%) patients relapsing in pre-existing sites of disease present prior to CART infusion in the BRT and no BRT group, respectively. Seven (16%) BRT patients relapsed in the radiation field. The 2-year EFS was 50% in the BRT group and 39% in the no BRT group (p=0.01). The 2-year PFS was 55% in the BRT group and 45% in the no BRT group (p=0.017). The 2-year OS was 55% in the BRT group and 62% in the no BRT group (p=0.7). Intriguingly, patients who received BRT to all visible PET-avid disease sites (n=34) had further improvement in 2-year EFS (67% vs 39%, p=0.003) and 2-year PFS (71% vs 46%, p=0.008) compared to no BRT or patients who received BRT to some but not all visible disease sites (n=105). Nine patients (2 in BRT and 7 in no BRT groups) received consolidative radiotherapy for day 30 residual disease with only one patient subsequently experiencing progression. Twenty-five patients (6 in BRT and 19 in no BRT groups) received salvage/palliative RT for post-CART relapsed disease. Thirty-seven (39%) patients in the no BRT group remained without disease progression and did not receive radiation in the bridging, consolidative or salvage/palliative setting. Conclusion Bridging radiotherapy prior to CART infusion for patients with limited (<5 involved disease sites) r/r NHL appears to improve response rate, EFS, and PFS without causing significant toxicities. Approximately one third of patients who do not receive BRT will require subsequent post-CART radiation, and another third will remain free of radiation and disease progression.

Background: Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma with two-year overall survival (OS) rates of 66-70% reported in prospective clinical trials. Induction therapy with high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) followed by consolidation has become the mainstay of treatment, however, there are few contemporary and robust prognostication indices widely available for clinical use. Some of the most used indices were developed prior to the routine use of rituximab and include the International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group (IELSG; 1980-1999), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC; 1983-2003), Nottingham/Barcelona (NB; 1986-2001), and Taipei Score (TS; 2003-2015). Herein, we describe a contemporary comparison of clinical prognostication indices using a single-center cohort of PCNSL patients treated at the Mayo Clinic. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of PCNSL who received HD-MTX as part of induction therapy at Mayo Clinic between October 2010 and June 2022 were identified and retrospectively reviewed. Patients with prior or concurrent systemic lymphoma were excluded. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) defined as time from diagnosis to relapse, progression, or death due to any cause; and OS defined as time from diagnosis to death due to any cause. PFS and OS were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared by risk scores using a log-rank test. The association between baseline characteristics and survival outcome were assessed in univariate Cox regression models. Any characteristics showing significant (p-value <0.05) association with outcome were combined using a multivariate Cox regression model. All characteristics that maintained significant association with outcome were combined into a new prognostic model. We compared the performance of each prognostic index model using Harrell's C (HC). Results: A total of 148 patients were identified (50.7% female) with median age at diagnosis of 66 years (range 29-85), with 48 patients (32.4%) age >70 (Table 1). Most had multifocal disease (60.1%) and deep brain involvement (67.6%) at diagnosis with elevated CSF protein (58.1%) but no documented CSF involvement (93.9%). In total, 117 patients (79.1%) received methotrexate, rituximab, and temozolomide (MRT) induction therapy, and the remaining 31 patients (20.9%) received methotrexate and rituximab (MR) induction therapy with various consolidation strategies. The median follow-up for all patients was 4.5 years and the two-year OS was 79% (95% CI: 73-86%). This cohort was stratified using previously published prognostication indices (Table 1). Upon analysis, PFS was not accurately predicted using the IELSG (score 4-5: HR 0.7 (CI 0.3-2.0); HC 0.6), MSKCC (3: 1.3 (0.4-4.0); 0.5), NB (3: 0.9 (0.4-2.5); 0.6), or TS (3: 0.9 (0.1-7.2); 0.5) prognostication indices. Furthermore, OS was not accurately predicted using the IELSG (4-5: 1.5 (0.6-4.0); 0.6), MSKCC (3: 1.2 (0.5-3.2); 0.6), NB (3: 1.2 (0.5-3.2); 0.6), or TS (3: 1.3 (0.2-9.8); 0.6) prognostication indices. Upon multivariate analysis, no variables listed in Table 1 were associated with PFS within this cohort. The two variables predicting a worsened OS were an ECOG performance status of 2 or more (1.9 (1.01-3.6)) and an MR induction regimen instead of MRT (2.1 (1.05-4.3)) (Figure 1). The two-year OS with no risk factors was 86.1% (95% CI: 78.8-94.1%), one risk factor was 75.7% (95% CI: 63.6-90.1%), and two risk factors was 61% (95% CI: 43-86%) (Figure 1). Conclusions: This study reports overall improved outcomes in patients with PCNSL compared to prior prospective and retrospective cohorts, likely in part due to treatment advances and supportive care strategies. This single-center, retrospective cohort of rituximab-exposed patients with PCNSL were not well prognosticated using previously published indices, indicating that further study and more sophisticated approaches to prognostication are warranted. Although multivariate analysis did not demonstrate any variables associated with PFS, it did demonstrate an inferior OS with a performance score of 2 or more and in patients treated with MR rather than MRT.

Background: In patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), continuous once-daily ibrutinib-based therapy has been associated with long-term progression-free survival. In addition, patients who continued ibrutinib-based treatment had better survival outcomes than those who discontinued treatment within the first few years. Evidence based on a single-center retrospective study suggests that dose reduction (DR) can be used to effectively manage ibrutinib-related adverse events (AEs) and avoid early treatment discontinuation. However, real-world data on outcomes in patients with WM after ibrutinib DR are limited. In this real-world study, we analyzed short-term (1-year follow-up) dosing patterns and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) in patients with WM, with and without DR, who were receiving first-line (1L) ibrutinib. Methods: Medicare Fee-for-Service closed-claim medical or pharmacy records were used to identify patients diagnosed with WM who initiated 1L single-agent ibrutinib (420 mg/day) from January 2014 to December 2020. Observed patients were enrolled in Medicare ≥12 months before and after ibrutinib initiation and had post-initiation AEs (both prevalent and incident AEs with DR recommendation from the US Prescribing Information), as identified via ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes. Ibrutinib DR was defined as a reduction of the starting dose following the first AE within the 1-year follow-up period. Patients without a DR were defined as those who had received ibrutinib 420 mg per day during the 1-year follow-up period. Patients with a DR in the absence of AEs and patients with a DR prior to any AE were excluded from the analysis. Demographics, clinical characteristics, time to first AE, and TTD were analyzed among cohorts with and without DR. TTD was defined and evaluated as the time from first observed AE after ibrutinib initiation to the earliest occurrence of (1) a gap of >120 days between the end of 1L therapy and the follow-up period, (2) initiation of a next line of therapy, or (3) death. TTD was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methodology, log rank test, and a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for baseline and time-varying covariates. Results: We identified 404 patients (DR, n = 58 [14%]; no DR, 346 [86%]). Overall, 249 patients (62%) were men, 267 patients (66%) had hypertension, 55 patients (14%) had atrial fibrillation, and 114 patients (28%) had other cardiovascular conditions at baseline. The mean ± SD age at baseline was 77 ± 8 years. In both cohorts, the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 4.0. Among the 404 patients, mean ± SD time from ibrutinib initiation to first AE was 28 ± 44 days. Mean ± SD time between first AE and DR was 137 ± 102 days. Mean TTD was 8.3 months (DR) and 6.2 (no DR) ( P = 0.018; Figure). At 6 and 12 months of follow-up, fewer patients with DR discontinued treatment compared with patients without DR (6 months: 24% vs 46%, P = 0.002; 12 months: 36% vs 50%, P = 0.064). After controlling for baseline and time-varying demographic and clinical characteristics, patients with DR were not significantly more likely to discontinue treatment compared with patients without DR (hazard ratio [95% CI], DR vs no DR: 1.24 [0.86-1.78]). Conclusion: These short-term (1-year follow-up) findings suggest TTD was not impacted by DR of ibrutinib following AEs. Thus, ibrutinib DR can be an effective strategy to manage AEs while maintaining clinical efficacy. Of note, causal association between AE and subsequent DR cannot be inferred from the claims database due to the cross-sectional nature of this study.

Background Central nervous system (CNS) involvement is a rare complication (<5% of cases) of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and is associated with poor outcomes, highlighting the need for novel treatment approaches. We report the outcomes of a large cohort of patients (pts) with CNS MCL from Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). Methods MCL pts with CNS involvement seen at Mayo Clinic and MSKCC between 1/2000-1/2021 were included. CNS involvement was defined by histologically confirmed CNS MCL, CSF analysis demonstrating lymphoma cells, and/or neuroimaging findings compatible with CNS lymphoma. Medical records were reviewed for baseline characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. First-line MCL chemotherapy was categorized into higher intensity chemotherapy (i.e., anthracycline-based +/- high-dose cytarabine), moderate intensity chemotherapy (i.e., bendamustine-based regimens or single agent chemotherapy), and other. CNS treatment regimens were categorized as intrathecal (IT) therapy alone, systemic therapy (with CNS penetration such as IV cytarabine or IV methotrexate) with/without IT therapy, regimens with Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi), chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy, or radiation alone. Kaplan-Meier method was used for time to event analysis. Forest plots were developed using univariable Cox proportional hazards models. Results Seventy patients were included in the cohort, 34 from MSKCC and 36 from Mayo Clinic. Median age at MCL diagnosis was 65 years (range 56-72) and 52 were male (74%). MIPI score was available in 60 pts: low (n=10, 17%), intermediate (n=20, 33%), and high (n=30, 50%) risk. First line therapy included: higher intensity chemotherapy (n=42, 60%), moderate intensity chemotherapy (n=25, 36%) and other (n=3, 4%). Twenty-five (36%) pts underwent autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in CR1. Median time from initial MCL diagnosis to CNS involvement was 24 months (m) (range 0-167). Four (6%) pts had CNS involvement at initial diagnosis. Abnormal CNS imaging was reported in 53 (76%) pts: leptomeningeal (n=37), leptomeningeal and parenchymal (n=4), parenchymal (n=8), orbital (n=4). The most common regimen following CNS diagnosis was systemic therapy with or without IT therapy (n=34, 54%) followed by treatment including BTKi (n=13, 21%), IT alone (n=10, 16%), radiation alone (n=3, 5%), and treatment including CAR-T (n=3, 5%). Three patients elected hospice care and four patients had missing/unknown CNS treatment. The overall CNS response to therapy was available in 54 patients: CR in 22 (41%) pts, PR in 8 (15%), SD in 11 (20%), and PD in 13 (24%) pts. Of the 70 patients, 63 died. Median follow up was 6.9 years (range: 1.6-11.2) from initial MCL diagnosis and 2.1 years from CNS diagnosis (range: 0.4-7.9). Median OS from MCL diagnosis was 3.4 years (95% CI: 2.4-4.6). In univariable Cox models, sex, stage, performance status, Ki67, or first line systemic chemotherapy type were not significantly associated with OS from MCL diagnosis. Low risk MIPI score (score < 5.7) was associated with favorable OS (HR 0.31, 94% CI: 0.12-0.77; p value 0.01) compared to high risk. First-line treatment and treatment intensity were not associated with a significant difference in OS. Median PFS for the first CNS-directed therapy was 2.4 m (95% CI: 1.7-4.3). Cause of death was disease-related in a majority (n=49, 78%) of pts and therapy-related in 10% (n=6). The remaining 8 deaths had cause of death reported as missing or other (13%). Median OS from CNS involvement was 5.1 m (95% CI: 3.3-10.0) (Figure 1). When assessing OS from time of CNS diagnosis, treatment regimens incorporating BTK inhibitors were associated with a more favorable OS compared to systemic therapy +/- IT therapy (HR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.89, p value=0.03) (Figure 2). Conclusions Our dual center series confirms patients with CNS involvement by MCL have poor outcomes. When evaluating OS from the time of CNS diagnosis, novel therapies, including BTKi and CAR-T, may be more effective than CNS-penetrant chemotherapy for treatment of CNS relapse suggesting newer therapeutic approaches are required to improve outcomes.

Introduction: Our group previously published that the infusion autograft inhibitor KIR2DL2 (CD158b+CD337-) and activating NKp30 (CD158b- CD337+) Natural killer (NK) cells receptors were predictors of clinical outcomes in lymphoma patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (APBHSCT) (Porrata et al. Leukemia Research 2019; 81: 1-9). To assess if these subsets of NK cells still hold clinical relevance, we set up to investigate their prognostic ability to predict clinical outcomes at Day 100 post-APBHSCT. Methods: 107 lymphoma patients who participated in our double-blind phase III trail (Porrata et al, Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation 2016; 22(6); 1017-1023) and had clinical assessment at Day 100 post-APBHSCT were included in this study. Nkp30 and KIR2DL2 at Day 100 were assessed by flow cytometry analysis. Results: With a median follow-up for the entire cohort from Day 100 was 94.7 months (range: 4.83-158.1 months). Figure 1 shows the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) based on the absolute numbers of KIR2DL2 and Nkp30 NK cells. At Day 100, patients with a KIR2DL2 < 0.08 and Nkp30 ≥0.19 experienced superior OS and PFS compared with patients with a Day 100 KIR2DLD2 ≥0.08 and NKp30 < 0.19. In the multivariate analysis both the KIR2DL2 [OS: HR = 1.767, 95%CI, 1.302-30.31, p < 0.04; and PFS: HR = 2.663, 95%CI, 1.108-6.403, p < 0.03] and Nkp30 [OS: HR = 2.594, 95% CI, 1.239-5.432, p < 0.01; and PFS: HR = 3.676, 95% CI, 1.875-7.206, p < 0.01] were independent predictors for OS and PFS. Conclusion: Day 100 inhibitory KIR2DL2 and activating NKp30 NK cells are prognostic immune-biomarkers in lymphoma patients undergoing APBHSCT.

572 Background: The DEFeNDR (Decreasing the burden of Febrile Neutropenia through Dynamic RPM) program leverages in-home technology and centralized nurse monitoring to facilitate ambulatory management as an alternative to hospital-based care for cancer patients with neutropenic fever (NF). The objective of this study is to assess 30-day care utilization outcomes and patient satisfaction at 12 months after program implementation. Methods: Adult cancer patients hospitalized with NF were assessed daily for DEFeNDR program eligibility including MASCC score ≥21 (per ASCO guidelines) and no cellular therapy (CAR-T, BMT) in the prior 100 days. Patients agreeing to participate in the 30-day program received a cellular-enabled tablet with pre-connected devices for twice-daily vital signs and symptom assessments. Patient generated data were EHR-integrated in real-time. Embedded decision trees facilitated alerts for adverse trends. Virtual RPM nurses responded to alerts and utilized predefined care pathways. The primary endpoint was the mean proportion of evaluable days spent inpatient (mPEDI) within 30 days of eligibility comparing those who participated in the program (RPM) with those who declined (no RPM). Results: Of 85 eligible patients, 62 were offered DEFeNDR participation. Of those, 34 (54.8%) participated and 28 (45.2%) declined. Baseline characteristics and care utilization outcomes are summarized in Table 1. RPM patients experienced significantly lower mPEDI compared with unmonitored patients [5.1% (Standard Error [SE], 1.9%) vs 12.4% (SE, 2.1%); Wilcoxon Rank Sums p-value, 0.032]. RPM patients also experienced a trend toward fewer total hospital days and lower 30-day readmission rate, as well as shorter mean length of stay and lower rate of ICU utilization when readmitted. Non-visit care activities (EHR clinical communications, documentation, and patient messaging) were decreased from pre-hospital baseline for 58.8% of RPM patients versus 46.6% of those unmonitored. All RPM patients completing a patient satisfaction survey (n=9) indicated that they would recommend the program to patients with a similar condition. Conclusions: Cancer patients with NF participating in the DEFeNDR program experienced a significant reduction in mPEDI and care utilization compared with those who declined. Further studies are warranted to assess comparative effectiveness of this model vs usual care.[Table: see text]

518 Background: Oncology has entered the digital era, accompanied by changes in patient interactions and expectations involving telemedicine. While much emphasis is appropriately placed on digital interactions with patients, little is known about modern non-digital interactions with patients in oncology practices. Methods: We analyzed Medical Oncology Pager (MOP) data from 7/1/18 – 4/14/23, during which patients had access to the electronic health record and messaging capabilities. The MOP for Mayo Clinic (Rochester) is covered by the medical oncology fellows, including after hours (6PM – 7AM). It covers consults and direct patient calls after hours and during weekends, in addition to critical results back up and inpatient oncology matters at all times. We also analyzed Medical Oncology Call Center (MOCC) data since 6/1/22, which takes inbound patient calls during working hours (7AM – 6PM) and is staffed by appointment office employees. Results: The MOP received a total of 17,679 pages during the analyzed period for a mean of 10.1 pages per day. Of these, 6,319 pages occurred after hours. The most after-hours pages were received on Fridays (n=1,091) and the least on Sundays (n=701); of those years with fully available data, 2022 had the highest volume (n=1,405) (Table 1). When comparing the MOP activity pre-pandemic (7/1/18 – 3/10/20) and intra-pandemic (3/11/20 – 4/14/23), the mean number of after-hours pages per day was relatively stable with 3.47 pre-pandemic and 3.69 intra-pandemic. Since 6/1/22, the MOCC has averaged 6,464 inbound calls per month during working hours, each of which had an average talk time of approximately five minutes. The majority of inbound calls occur on Monday mornings between 9 – 11AM, with over 6,500 recorded throughout the previous year. Conclusions: Telemedicine is multi-faceted, comprised of both digital and non-digital patient interactions. We show that many oncology patients utilize telephone communication with the healthcare system despite increased availability of digital capabilities. These data have implications for addressing the digital divide for those with limited digital access, serving older patient populations unfamiliar with digital technologies, healthcare navigation, trainee responsibilities, and resource allocation. Further work and standardization in non-digital telemedicine is necessary as it remains a pillar of modern healthcare delivery and oncology practices.[Table: see text]

Introduction: The differential diagnosis of a spinal intradural extramedullary mass lesion is broad and includes meningioma, schwannoma, neurofibroma, leptomeningeal metastasis, and myxopapillary ependymoma. Though rare, lymphoma should be included in the differential diagnosis of a dural mass lesion. Case Report: A 38-year-old man presented with back pain that progressed over 1 month with associated focal tenderness over his mid to lower thoracic spine. He developed intermittent numbness of the bilateral lower extremities, nuchal rigidity, difficulty sleeping, and night sweats. A magnetic resonance imaging of the thoracic spine demonstrated a dorsal intradural extramedullary enhancing lesion from T7 to T10 extending outside the spinal canal. Dural thickening across the entire circumference of the spinal cord was noted. Computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsy of the thoracic lesion was performed, and pathology was consistent with follicular lymphoma. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography:CT demonstrated no systemic disease. Bone marrow biopsy was negative for malignancy. Symptoms resolved with dexamethasone therapy. He was treated with bendamustine and rituximab with follow-up positron emission tomography:CT 2 months later demonstrating a complete response. Conclusions: Lymphoma can rarely present as an isolated dural lesion and should be considered in the differential diagnosis of intradural extramedullary spinal mass lesions. Prompt diagnosis and initiation of treatment can lead to complete response and resolution of symptoms.