Citations

Introduction: Patients with non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), especially adolescents and young adults, can face late effects from treatment, including decreased fertility. Due to time constraints prior to treatment initiation and sometimes financial limitations, implementing fertility counseling and referral-based guideline care remains challenging. We aim to understand the occurrence and predictors of fertility counseling and preservation in patients with NHL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohort study. Methods: The LEO cohort prospectively enrolled newly diagnosed patients with NHL from 2015-2020 at 8 academic medical centers in the US. Clinical. Treatment data were abstracted from medical records, pathology was reviewed and classified by a LEO pathologist, and participants completed a self-administered questionnaire. Participants were then prospectively followed to identify outcomes and collect additional patient reported data, including a survivorship questionnaire at follow-up 3 years (FU3) after diagnosis that included items on fertility counseling and preservation. The questionnaire contained two fertility questions analyzed: whether healthcare providers discussed the impact of lymphoma treatment on fertility, and whether providers discussed the process of fertility preservation. This analysis was based on participants aged 18-50 years at enrollment and who completed the fertility questions at FU3. Women who had undergone natural or procedural menopause and men who had undergone vasectomy pre-treatment were excluded. We estimated the association of demographic and clinical factors with fertility preservation using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from univariate and multivariable logistic regression models. Results: Seventy-seven patients were included in the analysis: 36 females (46%) and 41 males (53%). The median age of diagnosis was 40 years (IQR 30-45), and 36 (47%) participants were in the age 18-39-year category. Participant self-identified race/ethnicity was 69% non-Hispanic White, 22% Hispanic, 4% Black and 3% Asian. Sixty (78%) patients were treated with alkylators, 12 (15.6%) with non-alkylators, and 5 (6.5%) with radiation. Fifty-five (71%) of the patients were classified as having aggressive lymphoma, with follicular, extranodal marginal zone, primary cutaneous follicle center, and nodal marginal zone B-cell lymphoma defined as indolent and remaining subtypes aggressive. Around 6% of female patients underwent fertility preservation after lymphoma diagnosis, compared to 12.2% of male patients. All the patients who had undergone fertility preservation after lymphoma diagnosis were in the 18-39-year age group. On univariate analysis, females were more likely to have undergone fertility toxicity and preservation discussions compared to males, with 72% of females and 59% of males recalling a discussion regarding fertility (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.7-4.9, p=0.21). Those age 18-39 were significantly more likely to have undergone fertility discussion compared to those aged 40-50 (OR 10.2, 95% CI 3.3-39.2, p<0.001). Patients treated with alkylating therapy were significantly more likely to undergo fertility discussion when compared to those on non-alkylating therapy (OR 9.0, 95% CI 2.3-45.5, p<0.01). In addition, 75% of those with aggressive lymphoma compared to 41% of patients with indolent lymphoma had fertility discussion (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.5-12.4, p=0.01). White patients were significantly less likely than Hispanic, Black and Asian patients to have fertility discussion (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.04-0.6, p<0.01). In the multivariable analysis, alkylating therapy (OR 8.9, 95% CI 1.6-66.7) and age 18-39 years (OR 10.9, 95% CI 2.9-55.3) remained significant predictors of fertility discussion; White race was also trending towards significance (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.04-1.0, p=0.08). Aggressive lymphoma subtype was not a significant predictor of fertility discussion. Conclusions: In this cohort of lymphoma survivors 3 years post-diagnosis, we found that Hispanic patients, those diagnosed at a younger age and exposed to alkylating chemotherapy agents were significantly more likely to undergo discussions regarding the effects of lymphoma treatment on fertility. Our study highlights the importance of all cancer patients of childbearing age having the opportunity to address fertility concerns during clinic visits.

Background Underserved patient populations characterized by low income, lack of insurance, low levels of education, and minoritized status face significant barriers when accessing clinical trials. To better understand these challenges, patients from a safety-net county hospital were surveyed on their perspectives on clinical trials, barriers to care, and facilitators of participation. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years old with histologically confirmed non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who received care at Lyndon B. Johnson Hospital, a safety-net county hospital in Houston, Texas, were invited to participate regardless of treatment status. A self-administered questionnaire was used and offered in English or Spanish. The questionnaire included a total of 53 items with an additional 13 demographic items assessing patient sociodemographic factors and knowledge of clinical trials. Questions also addressed barriers/facilitators of trial participation and respondent willingness to participate in a trial based on certain scenarios. Results Of the 136 patients invited to participate, a total of 49 participants diagnosed with NHL consented to the study and all completed the survey (participation rate 36%). Twenty-seven (55%) surveys were completed in Spanish. Participants self-identified as Hispanic (N=35, 71.4%), African American (N=6, 12.2%), non-Hispanic white (N=7, 14.3%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (N=1, 2%). This cohort included Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma NOS (DLBCL) [32%], Follicular Lymphoma (FL) [28%], Marginal Zone lymphoma (12%). There were several patients with rare histologies such as Burkitt's lymphoma (4.2%); Mantle Cell lymphoma (4.2%), Plasmablastic lymphoma (4.2%) and T-cell lymphoma (4.1%). The majority of participants reported a commute of less than an hour away to the doctor's office (83%) with almost all participants commuting less than 2 hours (98% with 2% missing an answer). Participants were a median age of 55 years old (range 22-80), majority female (51%), less than a bachelor's degree as highest education (91.8%) and earning < $35,000 (49%). Among respondents, 89.8% had not participated in a clinical trial for their cancer. Only 36.7% of respondents reported that they understood what a clinical research study as “somewhat well,” while 30.6% reported their understanding as “not very well.” Regardless, a majority were very willing (38.8%) or somewhat willing (36.7%) to participate in a trial as their initial course of treatment. Respondents' biggest concerns were the cost of a clinical trial (61.2%), not being able to contact the research team with questions (38.8%), and frequency of clinic visits (32.7%). The most helpful resources that participants identified to reduce participation burden were educational resources such as written materials (77.6%), videos (67.3%), an explanation of the study in their language (65.3%), insurance aid (75.5%), and flexible study visit times (65.3%). Notably, 26.5% of participants responded that they believed they had received medication from a doctor as part of an experiment without their permission. When asked which outcome would most influence their decision to participate in a trial, 79.6% of participants rated the possibility of improving quality of life by decreasing pain and increasing activity levels as very important. Fewer patients (55%) rated other outcomes such as types of side effects (55%) and possibility of pain/discomfort (59%) as very important. Conclusions The majority of patients with NHL who participated in this observational study had little or no previous exposure to or understanding of cancer clinical trials. We identified common barriers to participation including out-of-pocket costs, the ability to contact the research team, and the frequency of clinic visits that should be addressed with specific identified resources to reduce participation burden. Interventions guided by these data should be implemented and evaluated to improve clinical trial participation for patients with lymphoma.

Introduction: NPM1 mutations, seen in up to 30% of adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), often co-occur with FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD). Measurable residual disease (MRD) testing before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) for persistence of mutated NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD can identify patients with AML in complete remission (CR) at highest risk of relapse and death. Quantitative RT-PCR assays are currently recommended for NPM1 MRD testing, while FLT3-ITD MRD testing is DNA-based using next generation sequencing (NGS). DNA-based NGS assays for mutated NPM1 MRD testing may have several advantages but require validation. We performed NPM1 MRD detection in blood collected from patients with AML during first CR (CR1) prior to alloHCT on a subset of patients from the Pre-MEASURE study (PMID: 36881031) using a highly-sensitive, commercially available DNA-based NPM1 NGS MRD assay. Methods: Of the 531 patients aged 18 or older from the Pre-MEASURE study who received an alloHCT for NPM1mutated AML during CR1 at a CIBMTR reporting site in the USA between the years of 2013-2019, a subset of 190 were randomly selected to be included in this analysis. A commercially available research testing kit (IVS, Invivoscribe, San Diego, CA), which can detect DNA-based NPM1 MRD, was used to establish a workflow following clinical testing standards and validated to detect NPM1 insertion variants down to a variant allele fraction (VAF) of at least 0.005%. Results were compared to those previously reported using an anchored multiplex PCR-based (AMP) targeted NGS assay (detection limit 0.01%) and FLT3-ITD MRD results, where applicable. Overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of relapse were estimated with the day of transplant as time 0 using Kaplan-Meier estimation (log-rank tests), Fine and Gray model, and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: NPM1 NGS MRD testing was successful for 186 (98%) patients, of which 48 (26%) relapsed (median: 4.0 months; range: 0.7-52.5) and 64 (34%) died (median: 9.7 months; range: 0.4-58.9) post-alloHCT. The IVS assay detected NPM1 insertion variants in 71 patients with a median VAF of 0.0026% (range:0.0002-2.1%). Using a VAF threshold of ≥0.01% for MRD positivity, the IVS test showed that 24 patients tested positive for NPM1 MRD pre-alloHCT, which was associated with significantly increased rates of relapse (52% vs 20% at 3yrs; HR=4.3; P<0.001) and decreased OS (34% vs 71% at 3yrs; HR=3.6; P<0.001) compared to testing negative, in close alignment with those previously reported using the AMP assay. After removing the VAF threshold, an additional 47 patients were classified as NPM1 MRD positive, which remained associated with increased rates of relapse (40% vs 15% at 3yrs; HR=3.4; P<0.001) and decreased OS (50% vs 75% at 3yrs; HR=2.9; P<0.001). In multivariable analysis, residual NPM1 MRD burden prior to alloHCT was associated with risk of relapse and death in a dose-dependent manner. Patients were further subdivided based on their reported FLT3-ITD mutational status at baseline. Increased risk of relapse was seen for NPM1 MRD positive patients regardless of baseline FLT3-ITD. 123 (66%) patients were co-mutated for FLT3-ITD at baseline and previously tested for FLT3-ITD MRD using the IVS assay (PMID: 38696205). Defining MRD based on the presence of NPM1 vs NPM1 and/or FLT3-ITD revealed equivalent levels of relapse (45% vs 44%) and OS (45% vs 46%) at 3 years, with NPM1 MRD evaluation identifying 5 additional relapses. These results were confirmed in the full Pre-MEASURE cohort (n=317) using the AMP assay. NPM1 MRD positive patients receiving nonmyeloablative conditioning or reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) without melphalan (mel) had increased risk of relapse or death compared to patients receiving myeloablative conditioning or RIC with mel, regardless of FLT3-ITD co-mutational status (3yrs: relapse 87% vs 55%, P=0.006; OS 15% vs 42%, P=0.013). Conclusions: In patients with NPM1 mutated AML from the Pre-MEASURE study, we show that detection of residual NPM1 variants in pre-transplant blood during CR1 using a highly sensitive DNA-based assay is associated in a dose-dependent manner with a significantly increased risk of relapse and death after allo-HCT, which can be mitigated in part by conditioning regimen. In patients co-mutated for both FLT3-ITD and NPM1 at diagnosis, NPM1 should be prioritized as a target for NGS-MRD if only one test is available.

Background: Financial toxicity (FT), or the negative impact of medical expenses experienced by patients, is a known adverse effect of cancer treatment that result in worse health outcomes for patients. However, there is limited literature investigating FT in lymphoma with even less data on predictors such as age, gender, and socioeconomic factors. As lymphoma treatment options expand, it is vital to understand the impact of these treatments on patients' financial well-being. We investigate FT through patient reported outcomes from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO), a large multi-institution prospective cohort study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed NHL were enrolled into the LEO cohort from 2015-2020. Clinical, pathology and treatment data were abstracted from medical records, and participants were offered self-administered surveys at enrollment and selected follow-up time points. Participants were included if they completed at least four of six survey questions on FT adapted from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) within the first year after diagnosis. Questions focused on either material hardship (unable to cover costs; file for bankruptcy; borrow money; work extra job or hours) or psychological stress (worried about paying large medical bills). We evaluated FT as answering positively to any question (any vs none). Associations with FT were evaluated using chi-squared tests. All analyses were performed using R (v4.2.2). Results: 3202 patients completed at least four survey questions relating to FT. Mean age at diagnosis was 62 years (18-94), 56% were male, and majority identified as white (90%). Characteristics associated with FT are reported (p<0.001). FT was more likely in younger patients: 18-25 years (64%, 30/47), 26-44 years (73%, 299/313), and 45-64 years (58%, 799/1375) as compared to those 65-79 years (36%, 459/1272) and ≥80 years (35%, 69/195). FT was highest in patients without a high school diploma (54%, 45/84), followed by patients with a high school diploma (52%, 209/402), and an associate's degree (57%, 358/627). It was lowest in patients with a bachelor's (45%, 224/296) or post-graduate degree (39.6%, 216/545). Higher FT was seen in those receiving disability income (65%, 47/72); whereas less FT was seen in retired patients (36%, 299/828). FT rates inversely correlated with income: 65% for income < $21,000 (184/283), 61% for $21,000- $39,999 (224/370) and 60% for $40,000-$65,999 (293/491). Lower FT noted for income range of $66,000-$106,000 (47%, 323/681) or > $106,000 (37%, 324/872). Patients separated from a partner (82.9%, 19/23) had the highest FT, followed by patients living with a partner (64%, 48/75), divorced (56%, 103/184), and never married (53.4%, 79/148). Patients who were married (47%, 793/1672) or widowed (41%, 60/146) reported the lowest FT. Higher FT was reported in DLBCL (55%, 631/1146), MCL (55%, 172/315), and TCL (53%, 119/226) when compared to FL (44%, 327/746), MZL (44%, 137/316), and other NHL (44%, 200/453). This is likely related to treatment as more FT was seen in patients who received an anthracycline and/or alkylator containing therapy (54%, 1066/1963) versus non-systemic (43%, 120/278) and observation (35%, 168/483). In multivariable analyses, FT strongly correlated with age at diagnosis, household income, and treatment type. The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals for the most significant category within each variable are as follows: age per 1 year (0.96, [0.95-0.97]), income > $106,000 vs < $21,000 (0.28, [0.21-0.38]), and observation vs anthracycline and/or alkylator (0.56, [0.44-0.71]). Conclusion: Nearly 50% of patients with lymphoma experience FT, seen as material hardship and psychological stress, within the first year of diagnosis. Patients with a younger age (18-44), less education, and lower household income reported higher levels of FT; whereas those who were retired or married/widowed reported lower FT. Lymphoma subtypes that require more anthracycline and/or alkylator containing therapy imposed higher FT. Understanding these risk factors can help clinicians identify patients who may benefit from additional resources during lymphoma management.

Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL) are incurable and disproportionately affect adults age >65 in whom frailty and functional impairment can impact disease management. The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) is a 13-item screening tool that incorporates age, self-rated health, physical function limitations, and functional disabilities to identify vulnerable older community-dwelling adults. Adults with a VES-13 score of >3 have a fourfold increased risk of death or functional decline over 2 years as compared to adults with a score <3 (Saliba et al, JAGS 2001). Our team previously showed that VES-13 >3 was associated with a higher risk of 1-year mortality in NHL (OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.15-4.96, Fama et al, ASH 2019), including in adults age <65. In this study, we determined whether VES-13 scores >3 were associated with quality of life (QOL) changes in adults with iNHL across the age spectrum. Methods: We used the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study to identify adults enrolled from 2015-2020 with grade 1-3A follicular and marginal zone lymphoma (FL, MZL) who completed the VES-13 at enrollment and QOL surveys at enrollment and follow-up. The LEO Cohort Study enrolls participants within 6 months of diagnosis and collects information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and patient-reported functional assessment. For this analysis we included QOL measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1 and 2 post-enrollment. The FACT-G total score was the sum of 4 subscales (range): physical (PWB, 0-28), social/family (SFWB, 0-28), emotional (EWB, 0-24), and functional (FWB, 0-28) well-being. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better overall QOL. VES-13 scores ranged from 0 (lowest risk for death or decline) to 10+ (highest risk). Generalized linear mixed models evaluated changes in QOL from baseline based on VES-13 score >3 (vulnerable) vs <3 (non-vulnerable), within groups by age at enrollment >65 and <65. Results: Our study included 1,186 participants: 42% age >65, 54% female, 84% non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic, 3.3% Black, and 1.4% Asian/Pacific Islander. Most (68%) were diagnosed with FL. FLIPI was high risk for 20%, and MALT-IPI was high risk for 23%. In the VES-13 <3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 86.5 (12.0), PWB 21.0 (3.5), SFWB 24.3 (4.3), EWB 18.8 (3.7), and FWB 22.3 (4.9). In the VES-13 >3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 70.4 (16.5), PWB 15.4 (5.6), SFWB 22.3 (5.5), EWB 17.5 (4.5), and FWB 15.3 (6.4); all significantly lower than the VES-13 >3 group (all p<0.01). In adults <65, 63 (9%) had a VES-13 >3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline in PWB at years 1 and 2 when compared to VES-13 <3 (changes in baseline PWB were 2.1, 2.9 for VES-13 >3 vs 0.2, 0.1 for VES-13 <3, all p<0.05). Similarly, we observed improvement in FWB from baseline at years 1 and 2 in the VES-13 >3 vs <3 group (2.4, 2.9 vs 0.4, -0.1, respectively all p<0.05). The VES-13 >3 group had a decline in their EWB at 1 year vs the VES <3 group (-0.5 vs 1.2, respectively, p=0.003). At year 2, total FACT-G improved from baseline in the VES-13 >3 group (5.6 for VES-13 >3 vs -0.5 for VES-13 <3, p=0.002). SFWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. In adults >65, 83 (17%) had a VES-13 >3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline PWB (1.3, 1.5 for VES-13 >3 vs. 0.1, -0.1 for VES-13 <3), FWB (3.3, 2.2 for VES-13 >3 vs. 0.5, 0.1 for VES-13 <3), and total FACT-G score (5.2, 3.4 for VES-13 >3 vs. 1.0, -0.4 for VES-13 <3) when compared to VES-13 <3 at years 1 and 2 (all p<0.05). SFWB and EWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. While there was improvement from baseline PWB and FWB in the VES-13 >3 group, QOL scores across all subscales remained below the VES-13 <3 group in the study period for both age groups. Statistical significance was maintained in models adjusted for baseline characteristics, including initial treatment strategy (observation, systemic, vs local) for both age groups. Conclusion: Although the vulnerable group reported worse QOL throughout the study period compared to the non-vulnerable group, survivors in the vulnerable group saw greater improvement in their physical and functional well-being at 1- and 2-years post-diagnosis. Additional analyses are underway to identify drivers of improvement in physical and functional well-being in vulnerable adults diagnosed with iNHL.

Background: Epcoritamab (epcor) is a first-in-class CD3xCD20 bispecific antibody (bsAb) approved for the treatment of 3L+ LBCL and follicular lymphoma. In the single-arm, phase 1/2, EPCORE NHL-1 trial (NCT03625037), epcor given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, demonstrated deep and durable responses, a median overall survival (OS) of 18.5 months, and a manageable safety profile in R/R LBCL. A second CD3xCD20 bsAb given as fixed-treatment duration, glofitamab (glofit), also demonstrated durable responses, conferring a median OS of 11.5 months in the pivotal study. Understanding how long-term outcomes compare among bsAb agents remains an important knowledge gap. With over 2 years of follow-up, in the absence of a head-to-head study, it is now relevant to compare the efficacy of these agents via indirect comparison. This study evaluated OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of complete response (DoCR) of epcor vs glofit in R/R LBCL using data from the respective pivotal trials. Methods: Two analyses were conducted to compare the efficacy of epcor and glofit. First, a matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison (MAIC) was conducted using published OS and PFS data from the full cohort of the glofit pivotal trial (12.6 months of follow-up, Dickinson et al, 2022) and the epcor pivotal trial (EPCORE NHL-1). Piece-wise hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated when proportional hazards assumptions were not met. Baseline characteristic prognostic variables were selected based on literature, clinical judgement, and empirical statistical testing and were adjusted between epcor and glofit cohorts. Second, in sensitivity analyses, indirect comparisons were conducted using an updated analysis of glofit with longer follow-up that included DoCR, together with OS and PFS data starting at cycle (C) 3 with 32 months of follow-up (Hutchings et al, ASH 2023). Sensitivity analyses with longer follow-up could not be adjusted because glofit pt baseline characteristics were not presented. Aggregate OS and PFS curves for glofit were derived from subgroups of pts with complete response/partial response/no response (CR/PR/NR) at C3 (Hutchings et al, ASH 2023). Aggregate epcor OS and PFS curves were similarly derived for pts with CR/PR/NR at C3 without prior disease progression. Weighted Cox proportional-hazards models were used to estimate the OS and PFS HRs between the 2 comparators. The DoCR comparison included all glofit and epcor pts achieving CR. All comparisons used EPCORE NHL-1 data with a median of 37.1 months of follow-up. Results: Pts enrolled into the pivotal trials of epcor and glofit were comparable by several key baseline characteristics before adjustment: age ≥65 y; male gender; Ann Arbor disease stage III-IV; primary refractory disease; refractory to most recent anti-CD20 therapy; previous chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T); refractory to CAR T; and previous autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). MAIC analysis revealed no significant difference in OS benefit from C1 until month 6 (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71, 1.64; P=0.72), but a demonstrable OS advantage from 6 months onward (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37, 0.98; P=0.04) in favor of epcor. An OS comparison starting at C3 with longer glofit follow-up demonstrated a consistent survival advantage in favor of epcor (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46, 1.01; P=0.05). The proportion of pts who received CAR T or ASCT subsequent therapy were similar for epcor and glofit (CAR T: 7.0% vs 8.9%; ASCT: 6.4% vs 6.3%) (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Glofit Single Technology Appraisal, 2023). The MAIC analysis showed comparable PFS between epcor and glofit (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79, 1.41; P=0.71), although there was substantial censoring in the glofit PFS curve due to immature follow-up. With longer follow-up in the analysis starting at C3, with less censoring, the glofit PFS curve remained similar to the epcor PFS curve from C3 until month 6 (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42, 1.07; P=0.10), where separation of the PFS curves were observed favoring epcor (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33, 0.97; P=0.04). Median DoCR was longer for epcor (36.1 months) vs glofit (26.9 months). Conclusion: These indirect treatment comparisons suggest that epcor may provide an overall survival benefit over glofit through longer PFS with more mature follow-up, potentially driven by longer DoCR. Survival data with longer follow-up in the full glofit cohort are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: FL3B is the least common among FL subtypes, accounting for 5-10% of cases. Almost half of FL3B tumors have concurrent diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the diagnostic tissue biopsy, while FL3B rarely coexists with FL1-2 or FL3A. Several lines of evidence suggest that FL3B displays distinct biological and clinical characteristics resembling aggressive DLBCL rather than the indolent FL1-3A. Accordingly, DLBCL anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, are the mainstay of therapy for FL3B with or without coexisting DLBCL. However, while some studies show that R-CHOP therapy in FL3B was associated with 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 54%, others report outcomes comparable to FL3A with 79-90% survival. Additional controversy involves the clinical implication of pure FL3B (FL3Bp) vs FL3B with concurrent DLBCL (FL3Bc). Thus, it remains unclear if FL3B clinically resembles DLBCL or lower-grade FL and whether FL3Bp has a different prognosis from FL3Bc. To address these questions, we performed a pooled study of two large prospective multicenter study cohorts to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of newly diagnosed FL3B with FL1-2, FL3A and DLBCL patients, all of whom were uniformly treated with frontline R-CHOP. Patients and Methods: Weevaluated 469 newly diagnosed patients with FL1-2 (n=216), FL3A (n=170) and FL3B (n=83) who received R-CHOP within 6 months of diagnosis and 739 de novo DLBCL (GCB n=455 and non-GCB n=284) who were prospectively enrolled into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohorts between 2002 and 2021. FL3B cases were designated as FL3Bc and FL3Bp based on the presence or absence of coexisting DLBCL, respectively. Histologic diagnosis was determined by an expert pathologist at each participating center and centrally reviewed. Event free survival (EFS) and OS were defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, retreatment or death, and early progression defined as failing to achieve EFS at 24 months (EFS24). Associations between clinical features and EFS or OS were evaluated using Kaplan Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models unadjusted and adjusted for age and FLIPI (comparisons with FL1-2 and FL3A) or IPI (comparisons with DLBCL). Results: The median age was 61 years (range, 18-94 years). Among FL3B patients, 21 (25%) had FL3Bc and 62 (75%) FL3Bp. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were broadly similar between the two FL3B subtypes. We then compared all FL3B patients to those with lower-grade FL. Patients with FL3B showed similar clinical features to those with FL1-2 and FL3A, with exception for a lower tumor burden. After R-CHOP, FL1-2 patients had an inferior EFS (HR 2.13 95%CI 1.31-3.46) than those with FL3B, whereas there was no difference compared to FL3A. OS was similar across all FL grades. Although FL1-2 patients failed to achieve EFS24 more frequently than FL3B and FL3A (34% vs 18% and 15%, p<0.001), FL3B patients who did fail EFS24 had almost three folds higher risk of subsequent mortality (HR 2.84 95%CI 1.35-6.01) than other FLs. At 5-year follow-up, FL3B patients had twice the risk of relapse with an aggressive subtype (i.e., DLBCL, high-grade B-cell lymphoma) than those with FL1-2 and FL3A, who instead often recurred with indolent disease (i.e., FL1-2, FL3A; p<0.001). We further compared FL3B patients to those with DLBCL classified based on cell-of-origin into GCB and non-GCB subtypes. At diagnosis, patients with FL3B had more favorable clinical features than those with GCB and non-GCB DLBCL. Compared to FL3B, patients with non-GCB DLBCL had an inferior EFS (HR 1.73 95%CI 1.07-2.79) and OS (HR 2.04 95%CI 1.11-3.75), while those with GCB DLBCL did not show a significant difference in EFS (HR 1.41 95%CI 0.88-2.25) or OS (HR 1.69, 95%CI 0.93-3.06) likely due to insufficient statistical power. Patients with FL3B failed EFS24 less frequently than patients with GCB or non-GCB DLBCL (17% vs 25% and 32%; p=0.01). Among patients who failed EFS24, those with FL3B had a similar subsequent OS as both GCB (HR 1.41 95%CI 0.73-2.72) and non-GCB DLBCL (HR 1.27 95%CI 0.65-2.47). Conclusions: We report that FL3Bp and FL3Bc appear clinically similar. While most FL3B patients have a prognosis comparable to FL1-2 and FL3A, 18% exhibit aggressive behavior with poor outcome reminiscent of DLBCL. Future studies with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings.

Background: The term classical hematology (CH), referring to a subspecialty focusing on non-cancer blood disorders, was officially adopted by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in 2022. There is a perceived shortage of classical hematologists, although data are limited (Winter JN, Hematologist 2022). Prior studies have shown that <6% of hematology-oncology fellows pursue a practice subspecializing in CH after training (Todd RF, Blood 2004; Marshall Al, Blood Adv 2018). Moreover, mentorship is consistently cited as the most important factor guiding fellows' career decisions (Sharma D, Blood Adv 2019; Masselink LE, Blood Adv 2019). To help bridge the CH workforce gap, ASH has supported additional hematology-focused fellowship programs (HFFP) within select hematology-oncology fellowship programs. CH constitutes a large proportion of consults in US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers (West CV, JCO Oncol Pract 2024). The goals of our study were: 1) to determine the proportion of adult hematologist-oncologists within NCI cancer centers who practice CH; and 2) to describe the physician characteristics of cancer centers with HFFP and compare these centers to those without HFFP. Methods: We included all NCI-designated cancer centers with a clinical program as of April 1, 2024. The only exception was St Jude Children's Hospital due to its pediatric focus. We obtained the practice profile of each internal medicine-trained adult hematologist-oncologist (henceforth, physician) as well as the availability of HFFP from the respective cancer center websites. We also searched the corresponding department of medicine and division of hematology at each affiliated academic institution to ensure inclusion of all physicians practicing CH. Each physician was classified into one of the following categories: classical hematologist (attending to only non-cancer conditions), general hematologist-oncologist (cancer and non-cancer conditions), and oncologist (cancer only). The number of hematology-oncology fellowship programs in the US was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results: We included 64 NCI-designated cancer centers, 55 of which were considered as comprehensive cancer centers. There was a total of 4,616 physicians (3,891 oncologists [84.3%], 487 hematologists-oncologists [10.6%], and 238 classical hematologists [5.1%]). The median numbers of physicians, oncologists, general hematologist-oncologists, and classical hematologists per center were 55 (range, 16-275), 45 (range, 12-270), 5 (range, 0-48), and 3 (range, 0-13), respectively. The median proportions of classical hematologists and physicians practicing CH (general hematologist-oncologists plus classical hematologists) were 5.1% (range, 0-20.0) and 14.9% (range, 0-55.6%), respectively. There were 12 HFFP within NCI-designated cancer centers (18.8%). Most (11/12) centers with HFFP had >50 physicians (median 95 [range, 38-185]) and >5% classical hematologists (median 6% [range, 3.8-13.5%]); 11 centers with similar characteristics did not have HFFP. Centers with HFFP have significantly higher numbers of physicians (median 95.0 [range, 38-185] vs 49.5 [range, 16-275]; P=0.001) and classical hematologists (median 6.0 [range, 3-13] vs 2.0 [range, 0-11]; P<0.001) but similar proportions of classical hematologists (median 6.0% [range, 3.8-13.5] vs 4.5% [range, 0-20.0]; P=0.078) and physicians practicing CH (median 12.3% [range, 6.5-47.7] vs 15.7% [range, 0-55.6]; P=0.402) compared to those without HFFP. Conclusions: Among adult hematologist-oncologists at NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 20 are classical hematologists, although 1 in 7 have CH as part of their practice. Within NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 5 have an HFFP. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity for NCI-designated cancer centers to encourage and recruit physicians subspecializing in CH and a rationale to create additional HFFPs. These measures may help further alleviate CH workforce shortages and expand CH mentorship to meet the needs of an increasingly complex subspecialty within hematology.

Background: Cure rates for children, adolescents, and young adults with cHL are high, but patients with a slow early response (SER) to front-line chemotherapy are at an increased risk of relapse compared with patients who have a rapid early response (RER). To avoid long-term toxicity while optimizing outcomes, treatment for pediatric cHL is now shifting to a response-adapted approach. KEYNOTE-667 (NCT03407144) is an open-label phase 2 study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy consolidation with or without radiotherapy (RT) followed by pembrolizumab maintenance in patients with cHL and SER to front-line chemotherapy. The study includes 2 groups of patients: those with low-risk cHL (stage IA, IB, and IIA without bulky disease) and those with high-risk cHL (stage IIEB-IVB cHL). Prior analysis of the low-risk group showed that consolidation with pembrolizumab plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (AVD) and RT followed by maintenance pembrolizumab had manageable safety and promising antitumor activity in patients with low-risk cHL and SER to front-line doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). We present updated results for patients with low-risk cHL and SER to ABVD. Methods: Patients eligible for the low-risk group were aged 3-25 years and had newly diagnosed stage IA, IB, or IIA cHL without bulky disease, measurable disease, and a Lansky Play-Performance Scale score of ≥50 (aged <16 years) or a Karnofsky Performance Status score of ≥50 (aged ≥16 years). All patients in the low-risk group received 2 cycles of ABVD followed by early response assessment (PET and CT/MRI). Patients with a RER (ie, Deauville score [DS] 1-3) received nonstudy therapy. Patients with SER (ie, DS 4 or 5) received consolidation with pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg up to 200 mg (aged 3-17 years) or 200 mg (aged 18-25 years) IV Q3W plus 2 cycles of AVD. Patients then underwent late response assessment (LRA; PET and MRI/CT). All patients with SER received involved-site RT: 21.6 Gy for complete PET response (ie, DS 1-3) or 30.6-36 Gy for partial PET response (ie, DS 4 or 5). All patients received maintenance pembrolizumab for up to 17 cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per Cheson 2007 IWG criteria. Secondary end points included PET negativity after consolidation and safety. Results: 78 patients with low-risk cHL received front-line ABVD. As of the data cutoff date (February 29, 2024), 10 of 78 patients had SER to ABVD and received consolidation with pembrolizumab plus AVD; 4 had completed consolidation and maintenance, 1 was continuing to receive treatment, and 5 had discontinued because of complete response (CR). Median time from allocation to data cutoff was 19.9 months (range, 5.6-44.8). Patients had received a median of 11.5 doses of pembrolizumab (range, 5-17) and the median time on pembro was 7.4 months (range, 3.5-11.3). The median age of patients was 16 years (range, 7-20), 6 (60%) were male, and 8 (80%) had Ann Arbor stage II disease. Of 10 patients who received consolidation, all (100%) had an LRA. The ORR was 100% (95% CI, 69-100; 9 CR and 1 partial response). Six patients (60%) were PET negative by BICR. Seven patients (70%) were PET negative by investigator review, all of whom received a reduced dose of RT. During consolidation, treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 8 patients (80%); grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 4 patients (40%). No patients discontinued or died due to treatment-related AEs. Seven patients (67%) had pembrolizumab-related AEs, 3 of whom (30%) had a grade 3 event (vomiting, lymphocyte count decreased, white blood cell count decreased). Immune-mediated AEs occurred in 3 patients (30%; all grade 1 or 2 hypothyroidism). Conclusion: After additional follow-up, consolidation withpembrolizumab plus AVD and RT followed by pembrolizumab maintenance continued to demonstrate promising activity and manageable safety in patients with low-risk cHL and SER to ABVD. Of patients with a LRA, 60% were PET negative by BICR; 70% of patients were PET negative by investigator review and received a reduced dose of RT. These results support further evaluation of pembrolizumab plus AVD consolidation as a treatment option for patients with low-risk CHL and SER to front-line ABVD.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec), a first-in-class BCMA bispecific T-cell antibody, received regulatory approval for the treatment of RRMM based on the MajesTEC-1 study [Moreau et al, NEJM, 2022] which demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and median progression free survival (PFS) of 11.3 months. However, less than 15% (N=24) of patients (pts) enrolled in MajestTEC-1 were ≥75 years, an age cohort that is often underrepresented in clinical trials and comprises approximately one third of MM pts at diagnosis [SEER 22 2017-2021]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report the real-world safety and efficacy of a large cohort of elderly (≥75 years) RRMM pts treated with Tec. Methods: Pts with RRMM who received standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in the study. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. Pts were divided by age into two groups: age <75 years (<75 group) and age ≥75 years (≥75 group). High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain or amplification of 1q21. Disease response and progression was evaluated using IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) assessment was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading. Results: Among 385 pts, 83 (22%) were in the ≥75 group (median age 78, range 75-92) and 302 (78%) in the <75 group (median age 65, range 31-74). Compared to pts in the <75 group, those in the ≥75 group were more often white (78% vs. 63%, p=0.009). Both the ≥75 and <75 age groups had a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, a similar proportion with ECOG ≥2 at start of Tec (29% vs. 24%, respectively; p=0.37), and a high proportion of pts with triple-class-refractory disease (77% vs. 85%, p=0.06) and pts who would have been ineligible MajesTEC-1 (73% vs. 80%, p=0.20). In contrast, pts in the ≥75 group had a lower incidence of adverse MM risk factors compared to the <75 group, including HRCA (44.6% vs. 57.9%, p=0.03), ultra high-risk (≥2 HRCA) MM (12% vs. 24%, p=0.02), extramedullary disease (22% vs. 40%, p=0.02), hemoglobin <8 g/dL (10% vs. 21%, p=0.02) or albumin <3 g/dL (6% vs. 19%, p=0.04) at the time of starting Tec. Moreover, a lower proportion of pts in the ≥75 group had prior autologous stem cell transplantation (43% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or prior BCMA-directed therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0003). The median time from diagnosis to start of Tec was longer for pts in the ≥75 group (7.21 years vs. 5.81 years, p=0.02). There was no significant difference in rates of any-grade CRS (52% vs. 59%, p=0.27), CRS grade 2-4 (10% vs. 11%, p=0.74) or any-grade ICANS (19% vs. 13%, p=0.12) between the ≥75 and <75 age groups, respectively. Four pts in the entire cohort developed CRS grade 3-4, one of whom was in the ≥75 group. Ten pts developed grade 3 ICANS (none grade 4), three of whom were in the ≥75 group. There was no significant difference between the ≥75 group and <75 group in ORR (62% vs. 53%, p=0.17) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (53% vs. 44%, p=0.14). After a median follow-up period of 9.9 months (95% CI 9.6-10.6 months), the median PFS in the ≥75 group was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) in the <75 group (p=0.005). At the time of data cut-off, the median overall survival (OS) for pts in the ≥75 group had not been reached (95% CI NR - NR) compared to 16.1 months (95% CI 14.0 - NR) in the <75 group (p=0.048). In multivariable analysis for the entire cohort, age ≥75 was not significantly associated with either PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39; p=0.55) or OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30-1.19; p=0.15). Conclusions: This analysis of a large cohort of RRMM pts treated with Tec in the real-world setting demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly (aged ≥75 years) pts to those reported in the overall study population of MajesTEC-1. The adverse baseline disease characteristics and inferior efficacy in pts <75 years age compared to ≥75 years likely reflect patient selection and prescribing patterns in the early era of access to commercial BCMA bispecific therapy with Tec. In multivariable analysis there was no significant impact of age ≥75 on survival outcomes. OP, DD & LF: co-first authors. KKP, HCL & AGC: co-senior authors