Citations

Introduction Patients (pts) with progressive disease after ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy are unlikely to derive additional benefit from current salvage immunochemotherapies, and survival declines significantly with each subsequent treatment. Pts with refractory disease following second-line therapy have worse outcomes, with reported overall response rates (ORRs) of 1% to 14% and overall survival (OS) of 5 months (Blood. 2017;130[16]:1800-1808). While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has become a preferred strategy in the second- and third-line settings, pts with R/R disease following CAR-T experience dismal survival, with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS as low as 3 and 5 months, respectively, and no agreed standard of care post CAR-T (Blood. 2022;140[24]:2527-2529). The randomized, global, phase 3 ECHELON-3 study (NCT04404283) was conducted in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior therapies who were ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant and/or CAR-T. Here, we present subgroup analyses in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, refractory disease, or prior CAR-T. Methods In these subgroup analyses of ECHELON-3, eligible pts had 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, disease refractory to the last prior therapy, or prior exposure to CAR-T. Pts could qualify for ≥1 subgroup and were analyzed separately. Refractory disease was defined as stable or progressive disease as best overall response to last line of treatment or relapse ≤6 months from the end of treatment. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive brentuximab vedotin (BV; 1.2 mg/kg) or placebo every 3 weeks (q3w), in combination with rituximab (R; 375 mg/m2) q3w and lenalidomide (Len; 20 mg) once daily. Efficacy was assessed by investigators per Lugano 2014 classification. The primary endpoint was OS, with key secondary endpoints of PFS and ORR. P values are descriptive. Results In total, 230 pts were enrolled in ECHELON-3 from April 2021 to November 2023, with a median follow-up of 16.4 months (range, 0.1-31.5 months). Overall, 94 pts with 2 prior lines of systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=48) or placebo+Len+R (n=46). Median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 12.6 months-not estimable) with BV+Len+R vs 8.5 months (95% CI, 4.1-15.8 months) with placebo+Len+R (hazard ratio [HR], 0.557; 95% CI, 0.317-0.977; P=.0388). Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-12.6 months) with BV+Len+R vs 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-4.0 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.462; 95% CI, 0.279-0.764; P=.0020). ORR was 68.8% (95% CI, 53.7%-81.3%) with BV+Len+R vs 43.5% with placebo+Len+R (95% CI, 28.9%-58.9%; P=.0216); complete response (CR) rate was 52.1% vs 13.0%, respectively. Additional data for pts by lines of therapy received will be presented. In total, 194 pts with disease refractory to the most recent systemic therapy were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=98) and placebo+Len+R (n=96). Median OS was 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.8-16.3 months) with BV+Len+R vs 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.5 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.566; 95% CI, 0.396-0.808; P=.0015). Median PFS was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.4 months) with BV+Len+R vs 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.6 months) with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.508; 95% CI, 0.363-0.712; P<.0001). ORR was 59.2% (95% CI, 48.8%-69.0%) with BV+Len+R vs 29.2% (95% CI, 20.3%-39.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P<.0001); CR rate was 34.7% vs 11.5%, respectively. Overall, 67 pts who received prior CAR-T were enrolled and randomized to BV+Len+R (n=32) and placebo+Len+R (n=35). Median OS was 15.6 months with BV+Len+R vs 4.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.2-0.75). Median PFS was 3.0 months with BV+Len+R vs 1.4 months with placebo+Len+R (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76). ORR was 65.6% (95% CI, 46.8%-81.4%) with BV+Len+R vs 25.7% (95% CI, 12.5%-43.3%) with placebo+Len+R (P=.0014); CR rate was 37.5% vs 11.4%, respectively. Conclusions BV+Len+R demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in all key efficacy outcomes, including CR and OS, in pts with 2 prior lines of therapy, disease refractory to prior treatment, or prior CAR-T. This treatment benefit was generally consistent with that observed in the overall ECHELON-3 study population. Therefore, BV+Len+R has the potential to address an unmet need for effective and tolerable therapy in heavily pretreated pts, as described above.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec) received regulatory approval for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on the MajesTEC-1 study. The risk of CRS and ICANS with Tec is well established with a manufacturer's recommendation of inpatient observation for 48-hours for CRS/ICANS monitoring after the initial 3 step up doses. There are limited real-world data on the characteristics of and risk factors for CRS and ICANS with Tec. Such data could inform management of Tec patients (pts), including patient selection for inpatient or outpatient step-up dosing. Methods: RRMM pts treated with standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in this analysis. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. CRS and ICANS classification was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the effects of covariates on CRS and ICANS events, with a particular focus on grade ≥2 CRS, any-grade ICANS, and the combination of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS. Results: 385 pts were included in the analysis, with a median of 6 lines of prior therapy. Median age was 68 years (range 31-92), 88 patients (25% of pts with available data) had ECOG ≥2, and 301 pts (78%) would have been ineligible for MajesTEC-1. 48 (33%) of 145 evaluable pts with a baseline bone marrow (BM) prior to Tec had >50% BM plasma cells, 139 pts (36%) had extramedullary disease (EMD) (either paraskeletal or true-EMD) and 5 pts (1%) had plasma cell leukemia prior to start of Tec. 224 pts (59%) received Tec with an accelerated step-up dosing regimen, defined as having at least one step-up dose interval of ≥ 2 days. 220 pts (57%) developed any-grade CRS [Grade 1: 46% (N=179), grade 2: 10% (N=37), grade 3: 0.8% (N=3), grade 4: 0.3% (N=1)]. Median time to CRS from start of Tec was 3 days (range, 0-15). Fifty-four pts (14%) developed any-grade ICANS [Grade 1: 7% (N=26), Grade 2: 5% (N=18), grade 3: 3% (N=10), grade 4: none]. There were no grade 5 CRS or ICANS events. Median time to onset of ICANS from start of Tec was 4 days (range, 0-25). There was one case of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the entire cohort. 38% of pts received tocilizumab and 17% of pts received corticosteroids. In univariate analysis (UVA), baseline platelet <50, triple-class refractory, penta-refractory status, and EMD prior to start of Tec were associated with increased risk for CRS grade ≥2 (p-values <0.1) and incorporated in MVA. Baseline platelet <50, age >60, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, and ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile were associated with increased risk for any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Baseline platelet <50, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile, and prior BCMA exposure were associated with increased risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Accelerated step-up dosing, renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min) and baseline LDH in the upper quartile were not associated with an increased risk of either CRS or ICANS in UVA. Baseline BM plasma cells >50% was excluded from multivariable analysis (MVA) due to high number of missing data, since most pts (62%) did not undergo BM biopsy prior to start of Tec. In MVA, risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 included baseline platelet <50 at the start of Tec treatment (OR: 2.35, 95% CI 1.08-5.08; p=0.03) and penta-refractory disease (OR: 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.45; p=0.02). Risk factors for any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 4.18, 95% CI 1.88-9.28; p=0.0004), age >60 (OR: 7.54, 95% CI 1.63-34.89; p=0.01) and CRP in the upper quartile (OR: 2.51, 95% CI 1.16-5.43; p=0.02). Risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 2.65, 95% CI 1.42-4.94; p=0.002) and ECOG ≥2 (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.19-3.61; p=0.01). Conclusions: This real-world analysis of RRMM pts treated with Tec revealed comparable rates CRS and ICANS relative to the MajesTEC-1 study, and these were mostly limited to grade 1/2. MVA demonstrated a significantly higher risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in pts with baseline platelet <50 and/or ECOG ≥2, the former may reflect BM disease burden. These results may help identify pts who are at higher risk for IEC related toxicities with Tec that would warrant inpatient monitoring during initial step-up dosing. OP, AA, & LF: co-first authors. AG, HCL & JK: co-senior authors

*Authors contributed equally. Introduction. Two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have been FDA approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel). Prior work from our consortium identified racial and ethnic differences in safety and response to ide-cel among patients treated in the standard of care (SOC) setting; despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity. Here, we extend this work to investigate racial and ethnic differences in safety, efficacy, and outcomes in a larger cohort of patients treated with SOC ide-cel with longer follow-up and patients treated with SOC cilta-cel. Methods. Data for RRMM patients who underwent leukapheresis by 12/31/2022 and were treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel were pooled across 19 institutions in the U.S. Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. We compared Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic (any race) patients, excluding other racial and ethnic groups due to small sample sizes that precluded sub-group investigations. Separately for each CAR T-cell therapy, racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics, safety, and treatment responses were examined using chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests were used to examine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by race and ethnicity. Results. Among 332 RRMM patients treated with ide-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 17% and 10% of the cohort, respectively. Hispanic patients were younger at infusion compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Non-Hispanic White patients (55.5 vs. 63 vs. 66 years, p<0.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients had a higher disease burden (≥ 50% bone marrow plasma cell percentage) compared to Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic patients (35% vs. 20% vs. 19%, p=0.05), while a higher proportion of Non-Hispanic White patients had high-risk cytogenetics compared to Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients (37% vs. 23% vs. 10%, p=0.003). Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to develop severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 30 (p<0.001) and day 90 (p=0.01) post-infusion, and these differences were particularly driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients at these time points. Non-Hispanic White patients were more likely to achieve a best response of partial response (PR) or better (82%) compared to Non-Hispanic Black (75%) and Hispanic patients (63%, p=0.02). No other racial and ethnic differences in baseline patient characteristics (including cytopenias), safety, PFS, and OS were observed (p>0.05). Among 222 RRMM patients treated with cilta-cel, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients comprised 12% and 9% of the cohort, respectively. At baseline, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to have anemia (p=0.01), and Non-Hispanic Black patients were more likely to have thrombocytopenia (p=0.02) and neutropenia (p=0.06) compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. No other differences in baseline patient characteristics were observed by race and ethnicity. While not statistically significant, a higher rate of severe (≥ grade 3) cytopenia at day 90 post-infusion was observed among Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (33% vs. 44% vs. 21%, p=0.07), similar to the ide-cel cohort. This finding was primarily driven by higher rates of severe neutropenia among Non-Hispanic Black patients and higher rates of anemia among Hispanic patients. No other racial and ethnic differences in safety, responses to cilta-cel, PFS, or OS were not observed in the cilta-cel cohort (p>0.05). Conclusion. In a large cohort of RRMM patients treated with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel, we observed a higher rate of cytopenias post-infusion and inferior ide-cel responses among racial and ethnic minority patients compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. Despite these differences, survival was similar across race and ethnicity, suggesting that both available CAR T-cell therapies for RRMM patients can be utilized across all populations. Future studies that include larger patient cohorts of racially and ethnically diverse patients should be conducted to confirm these findings and additionally evaluate long-term outcomes.

Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) scan is the imaging modality of choice for initial staging and response assessment of follicular lymphoma (FL). Quantitative parameters such as standardized uptake value (SUV) have been investigated as putative prognosticators in FL, with high baseline SUVmax predicting aggressive disease. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of histologic transformation (HT). Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, are more beneficial than R-Bendamustine (BR) in these pts. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of frontline R-CHOP and BR in newly diagnosed FL pts based on the SUVmax at baseline PET (bPET). Patients and Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed, biopsy-proven FL1-2 and FL3A who had a bPET scan and who received either first-line R-CHOP or BR within 6 months of diagnosis between 2002 and 2022 were evaluated. Analysis was restricted to pts with age < 70 years to reduce confounding of age with treatment selection. Cohorts included were the FOLL12 (n=562, Luminari et al JCO 2022) and the R-chemotherapy arm of the RELEVANCE (n=216, Morschhauser et al NEJM 2018) clinical trials, the prospectively enrolled Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohorts (n=288) and a retrospective cohort from 13 Australian centers (n=219). Choice of chemotherapy regimen was per treating physician. Maintenance was per protocol (FOLL12/RELEVANCE) or per treating physician (MER/LEO/Australia). Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were defined as time from treatment initiation to progression, relapse, retreatment or death; both were censored at 72 months due to varying follow-up across cohorts. SUVmax was grouped by tertile within each cohort to account for potential differences in SUVmax distributions and patient populations across cohorts. Kaplan Meier curves and multivariable Cox models cohort-stratified and adjusted for clinical factors (FLIPI, ECOG PS, age, grade 3A) were used to evaluate outcomes. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 57 years (IQR 49-64). 651 (51%) pts were treated with R-CHOP and 634 (49%) with BR. Within the study cohorts, there was a prevalence of cases receiving BR compared to R-CHOP in the Australian (90% vs 10%) and MER/LEO (68% vs 32%) cohorts, while the opposite was observed in the RELEVANCE (16% vs 84%) and FOLL12 (37% vs 63; p<0.001) trials. Pts receiving R-CHOP were slightly younger (median 56 vs 58 years, p=0.005), more frequently had grade 3A (17% vs 7%, p<0.001), elevated LDH (27% vs 22%, p=0.029), bulky disease > 7 cm (44% vs 37%, p=0.019), lower ECOG PS (PS >1 7% vs 13%, p<0.001), and higher rate of high risk FLIPI (37% vs 30%, p=0.005). Baseline SUVmax was slightly lower in R-CHOP (median 10.7, IQR 7.9-14.9) vs BR (median 11.0, IQR 8.2-14.2) treated pts (p=0.0045). At a median follow-up of 56 months (range, 1-72 months), 415 pts (32%) had an event and 103 (8%) died. Higher SUVmax was not associated with EFS (middle tertile HR=0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.22; upper tertile HR=0.86, 95% CI 0.68-1.09; p=0.45) or OS (middle tertile HR=1.28, 95% CI 0.80-2.05; upper tertile HR=0.97, 95% CI 0.59-1.59; p=0.44) in multivariable models stratified on cohort and adjusted for treatment and clinical factors. We then compared outcomes by treatment within tertiles of SUVmax. In multivariable models, R-CHOP had modestly inferior EFS to BR in low (HR=1.27, 95% CI 0.84-1.93) and middle tertiles (HR=1.49, 95% CI 0.99-2.25), and modestly superior OS to BR in low (HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.23-1.47) and middle (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.37-1.71) tertiles. Both EFS (HR=1.06, 95% CI 0.71-1.58) and OS (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.45-2.30) for R-CHOP were similar to BR in the highest tertile. No comparisons identified a statistically significant benefit for either therapy in multivariable models when evaluating SUVmax tertile subsets. Conclusions: In this large multicenter study of newly diagnosed FL pts with bPET who received frontline immunochemotherapy, higher baseline SUVmax was not associated with inferior outcomes after adjusting for treatment and clinical factors. Within the caveats of retrospective studies and confounding of treatment selection, these data provide no clear insights for SUVmax-based therapy selection in first-line follicular lymphoma pts treated with immunochemotherapy.

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.

Background Hispanic patients continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. To better understand the factors that impact clinical trial participation, we surveyed patients with NHL receiving care at an academic institution on their perspectives on clinical trials, barriers to care, and helpful aids to encourage clinical trial participation. Here we report the findings of the Hispanic patients and non-Hispanic white patients; accrual is ongoing for other cohorts of patients. Methods Consecutive patients ≥ 18 years old with histologically confirmed NHL who received care at MD Anderson Cancer Center in the Texas Medical Center in Houston, Texas were invited to participate regardless of treatment status. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess patient sociodemographic factors, perceptions and willingness to participate in different clinical trial scenarios as well as participant perceived barriers to care and facilitators of trial participation. The questionnaire included a total of 53 items with an additional 13 demographic items. The questionnaire was available in English and Spanish. Results Of the 1204 patients invited, 316 consented to participate and 285 ultimately completed the survey (participation rate 23.7%). Among the total participants, this cohort included 100 self-identified Hispanic (H) participants and 103 non-Hispanic white (NHW) participants diagnosed with NHL who completed the survey and were included here. The histology of our cohort included Follicular Lymphoma (FL) [35.6%]; Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [18.2%], Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) [18.7%], T-cell Lymphoma (TCL) [9.4%] Marginal Zone Lymphoma [7.8%]. Compared with NHW participants, Hispanic patients were younger (Median age of 60 vs 66 years), less likely to be male (H 54% vs NHW 66%), less likely to commute more than an hour away from the doctor's office (54% vs 71.8%), had lower household income (income > $100,000 was 32% vs 41.7%) and less likely to have a bachelors' degree or higher (38% vs 50.5%). There were similar prevalence histologies such as DLBCL (H 20% vs NHW 16.5%) and FL (H 36% vs NHW 35%) compared to rarer histologies such as MCL (H 11.1% vs NHW 26.2%) and MZL (H 12% vs NHW 3.9% ) which had disproportional prevalences. Hispanic patients were less likely to have previously participated in a clinical trial (28% vs 51.5%) and less likely to have discussed clinical trials as an option (49% vs 70.9%). A majority of Hispanic (81.0%) and NHW (92.3%) respondents stated that they understood what was meant by a “clinical research study” or “clinical trial” somewhat well or very well. Less than half of Hispanic participants (38.0%) and NHW participants (48.5%) reported being very willing to participate in a cancer clinical trial as their initial course of treatment. The most prevalent concern of both Hispanic and NHW participants respectively was the cost of a clinical trial (34.0%, 22.3%). Other top concerns included distance to the treatment center (32.0%, 13.6%) and frequency of contact with the care team (26.0%, 14.6%). Participants identified access to written materials (69.0%, 60.2%), insurance aid (65.0%, 68.0%), and access to videos (64.0%, 51.5%) as extremely helpful resources that could reduce the burden of participating in a clinical trial. Participants identified that it was most important that a treatment may improve their quality of life by decreasing pain level, increasing activity level, or other symptoms (76.0%, 91.3%). Conclusions Although most Hispanic and NHW participants reported a very good understanding of clinical trials and similar facilitators/barriers for trial participation, Hispanic patients were less likely to have discussed trials as an option with their care teams and less likely to have previously participated in a trial. Evidence-based interventions to address various barriers to clinical trials exist but data on their effectiveness and application is limited. Implementing strategically designed evidence-based interventions to address identified barriers and facilitators will be necessary to improve participation in lymphoma clinical trials.

Background: The FDA package inserts for all approved chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies state that patients should universally refrain from driving for 8 weeks following infusion. However, there are no clear data to support this recommendation, particularly in multiple myeloma (MM) which all CAR-T therapies use 4-1BB as opposed to CD28 costimulatory domains. Specifically, no seizures were reported in the KarMMa, KarMMa-3, CARTITUDE-1, or CARTITUDE-4 trials. Because patients typically return to their referring oncologists after Day (D) +28 following CAR-T infusion, an additional month of driving restrictions can create confusion for referring oncologists, impose significant burdens for patients and caregivers, and potentially even affect the choice of MM therapy for patients living in remote areas. Methods: We conducted a two-part study within the US MM Immunotherapy Consortium. Firstly, we analyzed data from commercial idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) recipients (leukapheresis cutoff December 31, 2023) to identify the prevalence of CRS, ICANS, or death between Weeks 5-8 (D+29 to D+56) following CAR-T (Day 0). Patients with index hospital stays lasting over 4 weeks and patients with <8 weeks of post-CAR-T follow-up were excluded. Secondly, we surveyed Consortium members about the prevalence of impaired driving risk (defined as “anything that could impair a patient's ability to drive safely, e.g. seizures, altered mental status, blindness, etc.”) and used 1-5 Likert scales to gauge the perceived importance of driving restrictions (assuming no FDA guidance existed) during Weeks 0-4 vs 5-8. This anonymous IRB-exempted survey was distributed via email to 63 CAR-T-prescribing physicians within the Consortium. Results: Of 553 analyzed patients, 41% (n=224) had received cilta-cel and 59% (n=329) ide-cel. The median age was 64 (IQR 58-70), 42% (n=231) were female, 78% White (n=434), 13% (n=72) Black, and 9% (n=51) Hispanic. ECOG PS at infusion was ≥2 in 11% (n=63) of patients, and 5% (n=28) had had previous CNS co-morbidities such as prior strokes. One patient (0.2%) developed Grade 2 CRS during Weeks 5-8 (onset D+47, resolution one day later); no patients had de novo ICANS after D+28. There were 16 cases of non-ICANS neurotoxicity (including 2 cases of Parkinsonism) diagnosed a median of 24 days after CAR-T (range: 17-147 days), of which 3 cases (all non-Parkinsonian) were first diagnosed during Weeks 5-8. There were 10 deaths (2%) during Weeks 5-8, one due to infection and the remainder from progressive MM. The survey was completed by 45 oncologists (71% response rate), 41 of whom had managed both >5 ide-cel and >5 cilta-cel recipients. Regarding impaired driving during Weeks 0-4, 20% of physicians felt this was never a risk, 36% a risk for 1-2% of patients, 29% a risk for 3-10% of patients, and 16% a risk for >10% of patients. The distribution was significantly different (p < 0.01) for Weeks 5-8: 49% never a risk, 36% a risk for 1-2% of patients, 16% a risk for 3-10% of patients, while no respondents felt this remained a risk for >10% of patients. For Weeks 0-4, 73% agreed that patients should be advised not to drive while 9% disagreed. In contrast, for Weeks 5-8, 14% of physicians agreed with driving restrictions while 78% disagreed (p < 0.01 compared to Weeks 0-4). Discussion: Our two-part study demonstrates that driving restrictions following Week 4 after CAR-T therapy in MM may not be required. The incidence of de novo CRS or any-type neurotoxicity being diagnosed during Weeks 5-8 was <1%, and - if such toxicities developed - patients and physicians could be expected to set appropriate restrictions at that juncture. While 73% of CAR-T-prescribing oncologists agreed that patients should refrain from driving during Weeks 0-4, 78% disagreed with this recommendation during Weeks 5-8. These findings complement other real-world studies (Wesson, Dima, et al, TCT 2024; Ahmed et al, Blood Advances 2024) reporting the rarity of CRS and ICANS after the first month in both MM and lymphoma. Our study is limited by a lack of patient-reported data, which was done intentionally to avoid asking patients about activities undertaken against medical advice. Nevertheless, we believe that narrowing universal driving restrictions to Weeks 0-4 following CAR-T therapy would constitute an evidence-based modification to the package inserts for ide-cel and cilta-cel.

Background: Rituximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx) is a commonly utilized chemoimmunotherapy regimen for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), especially for patients ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR T). R-GemOx is used as a comparator arm in several active phase III clinical trials for R/R DLBCL, including the POLARGO (polatuzumab vedotion and R-GemOx), STARGLO (glofitamab and GemOx), SUNMO (mosunetuzumab and polatuzumab vedotin), LOTIS-5 (loncastuximab tesirine and rituximab), and EPCORE DLBCL-1 (epcoritamab) studies. However, real-world data are limited to understand the patterns of use and outcomes of R-GemOx in the US. Methods: We developed a retrospective multicenter US cohort (known as LEO CReWE) of patients with R/R DLBCL and other aggressive B-cell lymphomas at the eight US academic centers participating in the LEO Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Patients first diagnosed with DLBCL (including transformed and high-grade B-cell lymphoma) from 2007 - 2022 who received second line (2L) or later therapy for R/R DLBCL with R-GemOx were included. Baseline characteristics, treatment, and follow-up data were abstracted by chart review. Index line of therapy was defined as the first receipt of R-GemOx therapy in the 2L or later setting. Intent for CAR T and/or ASCT was evaluated at each line of therapy based on medical records at the time of treatment initiation. Subgroup analyses were pre-planned in groups of special interest, including those treated with R-GemOx without intent for ASCT or CAR T, those treated as a bridge to CAR T, and those aged 70 and older. Results: 183 patients with R/R DLBCL treated with R-GemOx were included. At time of initiation of R-GemOx, median age was 68 years (range 21-88), with 71 patients (39%) aged 70+ and 18 (10%) aged 80+. Many patients had high risk features including 13% with high grade B-cell lymphoma and 56% with IPI 3 or greater. 21% had an ECOG performance status of 2 or greater. Patients received a median of 2 lines of therapy prior to the index line of R-GemOx (range 1-7). 52% of patients did not achieve a complete response (CR) to first-line therapy, and 20% relapsed <12 months from an initial CR. In all patients receiving R-GemOx, the overall response rate (ORR) was 45% (29% CR). At a median follow-up of 39 months, median EFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.8-3.2), with 12-month EFS of 21% and a 24-month EFS of 15%. Median OS was 13.5 months (95% CI: 9.6-18.1), with a 12-month OS of 52% and a 24-month OS of 38%. In patients treated without intent for ASCT or CAR T, ORR was 33% (18% CR). Median EFS was 2.0 months (95% CI: 1.6-2.5) with 12- and 24-month EFS of 14% and 9%, respectively. Median OS was 9.5 months (95% CI: 6.6-16.1) with 12- and 24-month OS of 45% and 29%, respectively. In patients receiving R-GemOx as bridging to ASCT or CAR T, ORR was 57% (35% CR). 35% received CAR T and 14% received ASCT, while the remainder did not receive the intended therapy as part of this line. Median EFS was 3.6 months (95% CI: 1.8-5.2) with 12- and 24-month EFS of 28% and 25%, respectively. Median OS was 17.4 months (95% CI: 13.4-NR); 12- and 24-month OS were 61% and 50%, respectively. In patients aged 70+, ORR was 53% (33% CR). Median EFS was 2.3 months (95% CI: 1.6-5.2), with 12- and 24-month EFS of 20% and 18%, respectively. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI: 8.6-30.2); 12- and 24-month OS were 57% and 39%, respectively. Conclusion: This study represents the largest reported cohort of patients treated with R-GemOx in US academic centers to date. The ORR of 45% and CR rate of 29% CR, as well as median EFS and OS of 2.3 and 13.5 months, respectively, are consistent with findings from previous phase II studies; these results highlight that responses to R-GemOx are not durable and the vast majority of patients require additional therapy. This study demonstrates real-world evidence of the efficacy of R-GemOx in a large cohort of patients with R/R DLBCL from the US over a long period, including both transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients, and patients treated in the CAR T era. These data aid in providing a benchmark for active clinical trials in the rapidly evolving landscape of R/R DLBCL therapies and allow potential comparison to a real-world cohort of patients with a broad range of clinical characteristics.

Background: TP53-mutated (TP53mut) myeloid neoplasms (MN) have particularly poor survival. Discrepancies in defining TP53mut MN have impact on diagnostic work up, therapeutic decisions, and clinical trial enrolment. Methods: MN cases harboring TP53mut (variant allele frequency, VAF ≥2%) were classified based on bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) blast % using the 4th revision of the WHO classification (WHO-4R). Biallelic loss was defined as (i) ≥2 mutations each with VAF ≥2%; (ii) single TP53mut VAF ≥2% plus 17p loss detected on karyotype, FISH, or SNP; or (iii) single TP53mut VAF ≥50%, whereas monoallelic loss was defined as single TP53mut VAF <50% without 17p loss. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) from diagnosis. Conditional Inference Trees (CIT) analysis was used to determine the true effect of a predictor. Results: We identified 580 cases including WHO-4R defined acute myeloid leukemia (AML, BM/PB blasts ≥20%, n=219, 37.8%), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) with excess blasts-2 (EB-2, BM 10-19% or PB 5%-19%, n=92, 15.9%), MDS with excess blasts-1 (EB-1, BM 5-9% or PB 2-4%, n=75, 12.9%), and the remaining were MDS with low blasts (-LB, BM <5% and PB ≤1%, n=194, 33.4%). Of the 578 cases evaluable for allelic status, 437 (75.6%) and 141 (24.4%) had biallelic and monoallelic TP53 loss, respectively. Higher frequency of biallelic loss was observed with increasing blasts. 63.2%, 73.3%, 78% and 86.3% of cases with MDS-LB, MDS-EB1, MDS-EB2, and AML had bi-allelic TP53 loss (P<0.0001). In a multivariable analysis, WHO-4R categories, VAF ≥10%, and biallelic loss were independent predictors of poor survival. CIT analysis further stratified the cohort into 4 groups with distinct survival: (1) MDS-LB (n=194, 33.4%); (2) MDS-EB1/EB2 and AML with VAF <10% (n=38, 6.6%); (3) MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% (n=149, 25.7%); and (4) AML with VAF ≥10% (n=199, 34.3%). MDS-LB cases could be further stratified based on allelic status and complex karyotype (CK): OS was poor for cases with biallelic TP53 loss and monoallelic TP53mut with CK compared to monoallelic TP53mut without CK, who had the most favorable survival (12.7 vs. 13 vs. 34.8 months, P<0.0001).MDS-EB1/EB2/AML with VAF<10% could also be stratified by CK: MDS-EB1/EB2/AML with VAF<10% cases without CK had the favorable survival compared to their counterparts with CK and MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% cases (26.2 vs. 5.6 vs. 6.3 months, P=0.003).MDS-EB1/EB2 with VAF ≥10% was a homogenous subgroup: Biological characteristics including the proportion of cases with biallelic TP53 loss, CK (P>0.9), monosomal karyotype (MK, P>0.9), del 5q (P=0.6), del 7q (P=0.4), and del 17p (P=0.2) were comparable between MDS-EB1 and -EB2 with VAF ≥10%. Importantly, median OS of MDS-EB1 and EB2 with VAF ≥10% was comparable (9.6 vs. 7.2 months, P=0.12). OS in this group was comparable regardless of the blast %, allelic status, or presence of CK.AML with VAF ≥10% had extremely poor survival: Median OS was 3.9 months. Survival of AML was equally poor irrespective of the mono- or biallelic (3.6 vs. 3.9, P=0.89) and non-CK vs. CK (1.8 vs. 3.9 months, P=0.09). Combined, our model would acknowledge poor survival of 514 (89.1%) cases. In contrast, retrospective application of the 5th edition of the WHO classification (WHO-5) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) would classify only 211 (36.4%) and 468 (80.7%) cases as biallelic/multi-hit TP53mut MN, respectively. Finally, the Harrell's c-index of the proposed model, WHO-5, and ICC was 0.66, 0.571, and 0.617, respectively. Conclusion: We provide evidence for subsequent refinements in classifying MN harboring TP53mut. Our salient findings include: (i) acknowledgement of CK as ‘biallelic equivalent’ in MDS-LB; as well as EB1/EB2/AML with VAF 2 to <10% cases; and (ii) demonstration of poor survival of MDS-EB1 and -EB2 with VAF ≥10% regardless of the allelic status. In conclusion, our proposed model acknowledged poor survival of a higher proportion of cases as TP53mut MN compared to the current models with a higher c- index.

Background: Beside fibril-forming proteins, amyloid deposits contain other proteins which can influence organ toxicity, disease initiation and clearance. We investigated the association between the amyloid plaque proteomic signature of diagnostic renal biopsies from patients achieving deep and sustained hematologic remissions and renal organ response in AL amyloidosis. Methods: Retrospective study of newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients between 2010-2020. Patients were eligible if; (1) they had a baseline renal biopsy which had undergone laser micro-dissection and mass spectrometry, (2) were assessable for renal response [RenR, non-selective proteinuria ≥1g /24 hours, predominantly albumin], (3) were not on renal replacement therapy and did not experience renal progression within 3-months of diagnosis and (4) had RenR measurements, at least twice annually in the first year from treatment and annually thereafter. Patients who did not obtain a renal complete response (RenCR) required a hematologic very good partial response (VGPR) or better within 6 months of treatment initiation, sustained for a minimum of 6 months. Hematological and renal responses were graded according to consensus criteria. Overrepresentation analyses of differentially expressed proteins were performed using the WebGestalt 2019 and the reactome pathway database. A false detection rate corrected p value <0.05 was used to identify significantly overrepresented proteins and pathways. Results: We defined two organ response categories, to capture the extreme ends of the spectrum: renal suboptimal responders (n=24), patients for whom the best renal response was ≤partial response (RenPR), and renal complete responders (n=29), patients who obtained a RenCR at best response. Overall, the median follow-up was 6.7 years (IQR: 5.4-9.2), 6.6 years (IQR: 5.4-8.1) for complete responders, and 8.4 years (IQR: 6.1-11.3) for suboptimal responders. Between renal suboptimal responders and complete responders there was no significant difference in median age (63 vs 63 years, p=0.7), lambda light chain isotype (66% vs 79%, p=0.3), first-line therapy received and renal stage (Stage III: 14% vs 8%, p=0.9). The median time to RenCR was 52-months (IQR: 31-63). Protein pathways over-represented in renal complete responders included 14-3-3 proteins (YWHAG, YWHAH, YWHAQ, YWHAZ), early components of the complement cascade and complement regulatory proteins (C3, C4A, C4B, C8A, complement factor H), keratins, cytoskeletal proteins (tubulin, actin, filamen) and collagen IV. Protein pathways over-represented in renal suboptimal responders included terminal/effector components of the complement cascade (C5, C6, C8B, C9), amyloid signature proteins (ApoA1 and E, vitronectin, clusterin), proteoglycans (heparan sulfate proteoglycan), transgelin and metallopeptidase inhibitor 3. Proteins with the highest-fold increase in renal complete responders included serine protease inhibitor (SERPINA3) and F-box and leucine rich repeat protein (FBXL6), 9.0 x 106 & 7.7-fold, respectively. Proteins with the highest-fold increase in renal suboptimal responders included complement 6 and 8B, 3.5 & 3.6-fold, respectively. Conclusion: This is the first study to identify proteomic determinants of organ response in AL amyloidosis. Molecular chaperones involved in protein aggregate homeostasis, such as the 14-3-3 proteins are upregulated in renal complete responders, similar to what we have shown in our prior work. This suggests that organ responders may have a more favorable microenvironment which “primes” them for organ response after the amyloidogenic light chain has been cleared from the circulation. Renal suboptimal responders (≤RenPR) have elevated levels of terminal complement proteins including membrane attack complex proteins and reduced levels of early components or complement regulatory proteins, which may be responsible for reno-toxic and reno-protective effects, respectively.