Citations

Introduction. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) and idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), two anti-B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) CAR T therapies, have demonstrated remarkable responses and improved survival among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the clinical trials and standard of care (SOC) setting. Here, we compare safety, efficacy, and survival for patients treated with SOC ide-cel and cilta-cel. Methods. Data were from a retrospective chart review of RRMM patients leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with the intent to receive SOC ide- or cilta-cel at 19 institutions in the US Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach was used to compare outcomes by therapy type (cilta- vs. ide-cel), balancing on age, sex, race and ethnicity, performance status, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, prior BCMA therapy, bone marrow plasma cells, penta-refractory status, lymphodepleting chemotherapy, baseline ferritin, low cell dose, and bridging therapy response. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of treatment type with safety, efficacy, and survival accordingly, while adjusting for IPTW weights. We employed propensity score matching utilizing the same covariates to identify the association of treatment type with progression-free survival (PFS) within relevant patient sub-groups. Results. A total of 641 patients were leukapheresed by 12/31/2022 with ide-cel (n=386) and cilta-cel (n=255). 586 patients were infused (n=350 for ide-cel; n=236 for cilta-cel) with a median follow-up of 13.0 and 12.6 months, respectively. After IPTW, patient characteristics were well-balanced. Patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (OR=5.52, 95% CI=1.76-17.30, p=0.004), infections (OR=2.07, 95% CI=1.44-2.97, p<0.001), and delayed neurotoxicity (NT) (OR=20.97, 95% CI=4.75-92.42, p<0.001) compared to patients treated with ide-cel. In the cilta-cel cohort, 24 patients (10%) experienced delayed NT compared to 2 patients (1%) in the ide-cel cohort. Although not statistically significant, patients treated with cilta-cel were more likely to have any second primary malignancies (SPMs) (OR=1.87, 95% CI=0.94-3.71, p=0.08) and any SPMs excluding non-melanoma skin cancers (OR=1.78, 95% CI=0.78-4.10, p=0.2) but no association was observed for odds of hematologic SPMs (OR=0.98, 95% CI=0.26-3.61). No association was observed for therapy type with any or severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, any CRS, severe cytopenias, and non-relapse mortality. Compared to ide-cel, cilta-cel was associated with better treatment responses of ≥ complete response (OR=2.38, 95% CI=1.61-3.51, p<0.001) and ≥ partial response (OR=1.74, 95% CI=0.99-3.05, p=0.06). Patients treated with cilta-cel had a longer PFS and overall survival (OS) than ide-cel (HR=0.47, 95% CI=0.35-0.62, p<0.001 and HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.42-0.93, p=0.02, respectively), and these findings were similar in the intention to treat cohort (PFS: HR=0.44, 95% CI=0.34-0.55, p<0.001; OS: HR=0.55, 95% CI=0.41-0.73, p<0.001, respectively). We observed consistent findings when repeating the analyses restricting the ide-cel cohort to patients infused during the same time-period as FDA approval for cilta-cel (≥ March 2022), restricting to patients with data on all covariates, and restricting to sites that contributed data for both products. In a propensity matched population, (n=380; n=190 for cilta-cel and n=190 for ide-cel), patients treated with cilta-cel had superior PFS compared to those treated with ide-cel in most subgroups with respect to age and disease characteristics including extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics, and elevated baseline ferritin (p<0.05). Conclusion. Our results suggest superior efficacy of cilta-cel with a higher incidence of certain toxicities compared to ide-cel in the SOC setting. This study provides valuable information for patient counseling and guiding the selection of CAR T-cell therapy for specific patient populations. Further validation through similar large-scale real-world experiences or prospective studies is needed to confirm our results and enhance applicability in the clinical setting. *DH, LP, & DD are co-first authors * YL, KP, & SS are co-last authors

Background: Tec is a BCMA-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for RRMM after ≥4 prior lines of therapy (LOT) based on the MajesTEC-1 trial. However, patients who had previously received a BCMA-DT were excluded from MajesTEC-1. Herein, we evaluated outcomes of RRMM patients with prior exposure to BCMA-DT treated with standard-of-care Tec. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. We compared variables between different groups using Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. We used the maximally selected rank statistics method to determine the optimal cut-off point for continuous variables to find the most significant difference in PFS among different groups. Results: A total of 385 patients were included in this study. 193 patients had received a prior BCMA-DT, of whom 77%, 22%, and 1% had received 1, 2, and 3 prior anti-BCMA agents, respectively. In patients who had received a prior BCMA-DT, 35% were aged ≥70 years, 24% had ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, 61% had high-risk FISH, 32% had extramedullary disease (EMD) at Tec initiation, and 42% were penta-refractory. Compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-DT (n=192), patients who were treated with prior BCMA-DT were more likely to have high risk FISH (61% vs 49%, p=0.02), and higher median number of prior LOT (7 vs 5, p <0.001). The specific types of prior BCMA-DTs with the respective overall response rate (ORR) to the most recent prior BCMA-DT were: antibody drug conjugate only (ADC, n=47, ORR 43%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy only (CAR T, n=99, ORR 86%), BsAb only (n=6, ORR 100%), ADC + CAR T (n=36, ORR 56%), and other ADC/CAR T/BsAb combinations (n=5, ORR 60%). Median follow up was 9.9 (95% CI:9.5-10.6) months. Patients with prior receipt of BCMA-DT had a lower ORR (51.4% vs 61.5%; p=0.012) and ≥very good partial response rate (39.4% vs 52.6%, p=0.009), but similar ≥complete response rate (22.3% vs 24%; p=0.78) to Tec compared to those without prior BCMA-DT. Moreover, patients with prior BCMA-DT had worse median PFS compared to patients without prior BCMA-DT (prior BCMA-DT: 4.6 months, 95% CI: 2.7-7.5; without prior BCMA-DT: 8.2 months, 95% CI: 5.7-12.2; p=0.017). On multivariable analysis incorporating prior BCMA-DT, age, cytogenetics, EMD, and ECOG PS, receipt of prior BCMA-DT was not independently associated with PFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95-1.64, p=0.1). The estimated 1-year OS rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 51.64-67.2) for the prior BCMA-DT group vs 65.1% (95% CI: 58.1-73.1) for the group without prior BCMA-DT, p=0.16. For the prior BCMA-DT cohort, response rates to Tec were numerically higher in patients who received CAR T (ORR 51.2%) followed by ADC (ORR 45.5%), and bispecific (ORR 30%) as their most recent prior BCMA-DT (p=0.39). No significant difference in PFS was noted when stratifying patients by number of prior BCMA-DTs, types of all prior BCMA-DTs received, type of most recent prior BCMA-DT, or depth of response to most recent BCMA-DT. Patients who responded to Tec had a numerically longer median time from most recent BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation compared to non-responders: 10.5 vs 7.5 months, p=0.48. We found that the optimal cut-off for time from last BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation was 8.7 months. Patients with > 8.7 months between last exposure to prior BCMA-DT and Tec initiation had a superior median PFS with Tec (8.1 months, 95% CI: 4.6-11.7) compared to patients with < 8.7 months from last exposure to prior BCMA-DT (2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7), p=0.001. The toxicity profile for patients with prior BCMA-DT was similar to those who had not received a prior BCMA-DT. Grade ≥2 CRS occurred in 8.7% vs 13% (p=0.18), and grade ≥2 ICANS in 7.7% vs 6.7%, (p=0.85) of patients with and without prior BCMA-DT, respectively. Patients in the prior BCMA-DT cohort were more likely to have grade 3 thrombocytopenia in the first 30 days after Tec initiation (10.7% vs 6.6%; p=0.08). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of any BCMA-directed BsAb among BCMA-exposed patients. Receipt of prior BCMA-DT was associated with a trend toward worse PFS, although not statistically significant, and lower likelihood of attaining an overall response. Waiting >9 months between sequencing BCMA therapies may be associated with improved PFS. D.D., M.A.V.M., J.A.D: co first authors; F.A., C.F., L.S.: co senior authors

Background: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) are known safety concerns following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Axi-cel, a CAR T-cell therapy approved in the US for adults with R/R LBCL after ≥ 1 line of prior therapy (2L+), has been administered in the outpatient setting, where a common cause for post-infusion hospital admissions were CAR T-cell-related toxicities (Furqan et al., 2024). Due to reimbursement policies in the US, patients at higher risk for safety events requiring inpatient care within 3 days of infusion may not be ideal candidates for outpatient care. We sought to identify what pre-infusion characteristics may put patients more at risk for developing early CRS and ICANS after axi-cel. Methods : Patients receiving axi-cel for R/R LBCL 2L+ between 01/2021−10/2023 registered in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) observational database were potentially eligible for analysis. Patients with prior non-transplant cellular therapy or missing data for analysis were excluded. Primary endpoints were onset of early CRS and early ICANS, defined as an any grade event within 3 calendar days of axi-cel infusion (date of infusion is defined as Day 0 and onset of CRS/ICANS before the end of Day 3 is an early event). Early Grade ≥ 2 and early Grade ≥ 3 CRS and ICANS (onset of CRS/ICANS before the end of Day 3 and maximum Grade ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 per ASTCT Criteria) were also evaluated. Patient demographics, ECOG PS, comorbidities, disease characteristics at diagnosis and prior to infusion, line of therapy (LoT), lab assessments prior to infusion, and infusion-related attributes were evaluated by univariate screening and multivariable regression for development of early CRS or early ICANS. Results: A total of888 patients from 105 centers were included in the analysis. Median age was 63 years (45% ≥ 65 years) and 66% were male. At LBCL diagnosis, 22% of patients had a histological transformation. Prior to infusion, 5% of patients had ECOG PS ≥ 2 and 70% had at least 1 clinically significant comorbidity. Half (50%) of patients received axi-cel with 1 prior LoT (2L) and 10% of patients underwent a prior autologous hematopoietic cell transplant. Median time from leukapheresis to infusion was 30 days (interquartile range [IQR] 27−34). Bridging therapy of any type was administered in 59%, and systemic bridging therapy in 48%, of patients and 14% of patients were intended to be treated in the outpatient setting. Thirty percent of patients had chemo-sensitive disease prior to infusion. Median follow-up post-infusion was 12.3 months (range 3−38). Median time to onset of CRS was 4 days (IQR 2−6) and 84% of patients experienced CRS at any time. Early any grade (Grade ≥ 3) CRS was observed in 47% (3%) of patients. In the multivariate analysis of early any grade CRS, only prior LoT (≥ 2 vs 1) was associated with lower risk (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.55−0.94), but this association was not seen in the analyses of early Grade ≥ 2 nor early Grade ≥ 3 CRS. Notably, 47% and 52% of patients with ≥ 2 vs 1 prior LoT, respectively, only experienced early Grade 1 CRS (defined as fever only). In the analysis of early Grade ≥ 3 CRS, only ECOG PS 0−1 was associated with lower risk vs patients with ECOG PS ≥ 2 (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.06−0.48). Median time to onset of ICANS was 7 days (IQR 5−9) and 47% of patients experienced ICANS at any time. Early any grade (Grade ≥ 3) ICANS occurred in 9% (5%) of patients. After multivariate adjustment, age < 65 vs ≥ 65 (OR 0.38 [95% CI 0.23−0.62]) and 1 vs ≥ 2 prior LoT (OR 0.58 [95% CI 0.36−0.95]) were associated with lower risk of early any grade ICANS. Age < 65 vs ≥ 65 was also associated with lower risk of early Grade ≥ 3 ICANS (OR 0.31 [95% CI 0.15−0.61]), as was ECOG PS 0−1 vs ECOG PS ≥ 2 (OR 0.30 [95% CI 0.11−0.83]). Comorbidities were evaluated and no significant associations with early CRS nor early ICANS were found. Conclusions: This analysis of readily available clinical variables in a real-world contemporary cohort of patients treated with axi-cel demonstrates that younger patients and patients with better ECOG PS have lower risk of early CRS and early ICANS. Axi-cel in 2L setting, vs 3L+, is associated with lower risk of early any grade ICANS and comparable early Grade ≥ 2 CRS, but a higher risk of early fever. These results further enable a more informed decision of patient selection for physicians, which is critical for the success of outpatient administration.

Introduction: Ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), changed the treatment landscape by demonstrating improved overall survival (OS) compared with chemotherapy/chemoimmunotherapy across multiple phase 3 trials in patients (pts) with CLL, including those with high-risk genomic features. Recently, data were reported for pts treated with ibrutinib in the phase 3 RESONATE-2 trial with up to 10 years of follow-up, representing the longest follow-up of any BTKi used in first-line treatment of CLL. With the most robust long-term follow-up data among BTKis, ibrutinib therapy trials are uniquely positioned to assess the long-term OS benefit of first-line BTKi treatment in pts with CLL across pt subgroups. We previously demonstrated that first-line ibrutinib is associated with OS rates that are similar to those in the age-matched general population, with a median follow-up of 5.9 years since initial diagnosis (Ghia P et al. HemaSphere 2024), but it remains unclear whether this holds true for pts with high-risk genomic features. This updated analysis evaluated long-term OS outcomes with a median follow-up of 8 years since randomization and 10 years since initial diagnosis in a pooled population of pts with previously untreated CLL, including those with high-risk features, who received first-line ibrutinib treatment in 2 phase 3 trials with comparison of survival estimates to the US age-matched general population. Methods: Data were pooled for pts who received first-line treatment with single-agent ibrutinib or ibrutinib + rituximab in the RESONATE-2 (NCT01722487) and ECOG-ACRIN E1912 (NCT02048813) trials, respectively. OS probabilities from the time of randomization and from the time of initial diagnosis for ibrutinib-treated pts were compared with an age-matched general population using 2021 life tables for the total US population published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention using the Kaplan-Meier method. Subgroup analyses were performed for high-risk pts, defined as those with del(11q), del(17p), mutated TP53, and/or unmutated IGHV (uIGHV). Results: A total of490 pts were pooled across the 2 studies: 352 pts (71.8%) were treated with ibrutinib + rituximab, and 135 pts (27.6%) were treated with single-agent ibrutinib; 3 pts did not receive study treatment. The median age at time of randomization was 61 years; 36.5% (179/490) were aged ≥65 years, 21.8% had del(11q), 7.8% had del(17p) and/or mutated TP53, and 54.7% had uIGHV. The median time from initial CLL diagnosis to randomization was 20.9 months (range, 0.0-341.8); the median follow-up was 123.5 months (10.3 years) from initial diagnosis and 99.2 months (8.3 years) from the time of randomization. From the time of randomization, estimated 9-year OS rates were 81.2% (95% CI, 76.8-84.9) in all ibrutinib-treated pts versus 82.0% (95% CI, 78.3-85.2) in the age-matched population (hazard ratio [HR] 1.17; 95% CI, 0.86-1.58). In high-risk pts, estimated 9-year OS rates were 79.5% (95% CI, 73.5-84.3) for ibrutinib-treated pts versus 83.2% (95% CI, 78.5-86.9) in the age-matched general population (HR 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.84). In pts aged ≥65 years, estimated 9-year OS rates were 68.7% (95% CI, 60.5-75.6) for ibrutinib-treated pts and 68.7% (95% CI, 61.4-75.0) in the age-matched general population (HR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.77-1.63). In pts aged <65 years, estimated 9-year OS rates were 89.3% (95% CI, 84.6-92.7) for ibrutinib-treated pts and 90.0% (95% CI, 86.1-92.9) in the age-matched general population (HR 1.15; 95% CI, 0.68-1.94). From the time of initial diagnosis, estimated 15-year OS rates were 78.4% (95% CI, 72.8-83.0) in all ibrutinib-treated pts versus 72.0% (95% CI, 67.8-75.7) in the age-matched general population (HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62-1.11). Study treatment had been discontinued in 59.8% (293/490) of pooled ibrutinib-treated pts; the most frequent reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (43.0%; 126/293) and progressive disease (20.5%; 60/293). Study treatment was ongoing in 31.8% of pooled pts (156/490). Conclusions: With the longest follow-up time for any commercially available targeted therapy, this pooled analysis demonstrates that, regardless of evaluation from randomization or initial diagnosis, and irrespective of age or high-risk features, first-line treatment with ibrutinib provides long-term OS benefit with survival estimates that appear similar to those of a US age-matched cohort.

Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that responses to CPI in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) may be adversely affected by the reductions in microbiome diversity associated with concomitant antibiotic (abx) exposure. Given the increasingly key role that CPI-based regimens (CPI+) appear to have on improving post-ASCT outcomes, we evaluated the potential impact of abx exposure on CPI+ efficacy and post-ASCT outcomes in RRHL patients treated with CPI+ prior to ASCT. Methods This retrospective study of RRHL patients at 11 US academic centers included patients ≥18 who received CPI+ between 1/2012-12/2022. Patient/disease characteristics, treatment histories, outcomes, and abx exposure (2 weeks prior to and 30 days after CPI+) were collected by participating sites and analyzed centrally. Primary and key secondary objectives were overall response rate (ORR) to CPI+ by Lugano criteria, and PFS/overall survival (OS) by abx exposure. PFS/OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and compared by log-rank tests. Univariate and multivariate regression models evaluated the impact of abx exposure on ORR/complete response rate (CR)/PFS/OS. Results 237 patients with median follow-up of 3.20 and 2.73 years from CPI+ initiation and ASCT, respectively, were evaluated. At diagnosis: median age 30.6 (range 7.8 - 71.7) years, female (53.6%), nodular sclerosing (75.1%), and stages I-IIB/bulky and III/IV (73.4%). 1L regimens were ABVD/ABVD-like (75.5%), brentuximab vedotin (BV)+AVD (15.2%), and other (9.3%). 65.8% received 6 cycles of chemotherapy, and 10.5% received 1L radiation. End of 1L responses were CR (39.7%), partial response (PR; 13.1%), refractory disease (37.6%), and unknown (8.0%). Median time to first relapse from diagnosis was 0.95 (range 0.15 - 22.2) years. All patients underwent ASCT after 1 (58.2%), 2 (22.8%), or 3+ (19.0%) lines of salvage. CPI+ was given as 1st (65.8%), 2nd (21.5%), or 3rd+ (12.5%) salvage therapy. CPI+ included BV-nivolumab (44.3%) + ipilimumab (7.2%), pembrolizumab, gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and liposomal doxorubicin (P-GVD; 24.5%), and CPI-monotherapy (20.2%). ORR to CPI+ was 88.0% (CR 68.4%) in all lines; as 1st salvage ORR was 91.7% (CR 76.3%). 75.1% of patients underwent ASCT in CR (PR 19.4%) increasing to 91.1% CR after ASCT. At 3-years, PFS was 88.0% (95% CI: 83.5% - 92.8%) and OS was 94.8% (95% CI: 91.3% - 98.3%) for the full cohort. Overall, 46.8% patients were abx exposed during CPI+, 22.8% fluoroquinolone/beta-lactams (BL) prophylaxis (ppx) and 38.8% abx [BL 29.5%, carbapenems (CB) 12.2%, vancomycin (VM) 19.8%, anti-pseudomonas (PA) 24.9%, anti-MRSA (SA) 22.4%, anti-anaerobe (AN) 16.5%] for suspected/documented infection. Use of ppx, BL, CB, VM, PA, SA were significantly higher with CP1+ as 2nd+ vs 1st salvage. At 3-years, PFS (87.0% vs 88.4%, p=0.91) and OS (92.5% vs 95.8%, p=0.47) were similar for abx exposed vs naïve patients, respectively. On univariate analysis, line of salvage and CPI+ regimen (Cytotoxic vs Monotherapy) were associated with ORR/CR, while overall abx exposure was not associated with inferior ORR (OR 0.62; p=0.24), CR (OR 0.85, p=0.56), PFS (HR 0.95, p=0.91), or OS (HR 1.58, p=0.47). When adjusted for line of salvage and CPI+ regimen, exposure to BL, CB, VM, PS, SA, or AN, abx indication (ppx vs treatment), duration of abx exposure (<7 vs ≥7 days) by class were all not associated with ORR/CR or PFS/OS. Conclusion In this large cohort abx exposure does not appear to adversely affect ORR/CR to CPI+ or PFS/OS following ASCT, when adjusted for line of CPI+ salvage and CPI+ regimen. Our findings may be related the high proportion of patients (79.8%) receiving CPI-combinations compared to CPI monotherapy (20.2%), whereas in previous series all patients received CPI without cytotoxic agents. This observation could be related to intrinsic antimicrobial activities of some cytotoxic agents (e.g. gemcitabine and doxorubicin) that may overshadow impact from concomitant abx exposure. Alternatively, the lack of effect could be related to the inherent fitness of patients with RRHL who undergo ASCT, compared to those treated with CPI+ following ASCT or those with solid tumors receiving where abx exposure may indicate an overall sicker/higher-risk population. Overall, our findings demonstrate that combination of CPI with BV or chemotherapy may overcome any adverse impact of abx on the efficacy of CPI+ prior to ASCT.

Background: Approximately20% of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) will experience disease progression or death within two years of years (POD24) of immunochemotherapy (IC) (Casulo et al, JCO 2015). A proportion of patients with POD24 have histologic transformation (HT), which heightens the risk of lymphoma-related death (Freeman et al, Blood 2019). To clarify the impact of HT on prognosis in POD24, we analyzed data from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Consortium of Real-World Evidence (CReWE) to compare differences in outcomes among patients with POD24 with retained FL histology versus POD24 with HT. Methods: This was a multicenter study among 8 academic cancer centers. Eligible patients hadgrade 1-3a FL at diagnosis between 2003 and 2022, with POD24 following first line IC treatment with BR, R-CHOP, or R-CVP. POD24 was defined as disease recurrence within 24 months of IC. Patients with prior lines of treatment for FL were excluded. Patients with HT at first line IC were excluded. Biopsy at POD24 was obtained at the discretion of the treating physician. Three groups of POD24 were defined: POD24 with biopsy-proven retained FL histology (POD24_FL), POD24 with biopsy-proven HT to aggressive lymphoma (POD24_HT), and POD24 either without a biopsy or indeterminate histology on biopsy (POD24_I). We evaluated second-line treatments at time of POD24. Survival probabilities from second-line treatment initiation were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results A total of1,122 patients with FL were screened and308 patients with POD24 were identified.Median age at POD24 was 58 years (IQR 50-65).Among available data, race and ethnicity was reported as 76% non-Hispanic White, 3% non-Hispanic Black/African American, 9% Hispanic/Latino (any race), and 1% other minorities. First line therapy was R-CHOP in45% (140/308), BR in 33% (102/308) and R-CVP in 21% (66/308). Most patients (52%) had biopsy-proven retained FL at POD24 (162/308); 30% had no biopsy or indeterminate histology at POD24 (94/308), and 17% had biopsy-proven HT at POD24 (52/308). In the POD24_HT group, 52% received R-CHOP and 21% received intensive salvage chemotherapy as second line therapy. Patients with POD24_FL and POD24_I had similar rates of salvage chemotherapy (21% and 18%), BR (13% and 18%), R-CHOP (19% and 24%), and targeted therapies (8% and 5%), respectively, at second line. Consolidative autologous stem cell transplant was more common in POD24_HT patients at 21% versus 16% in POD24_FL and 6% in POD24_I. Patients with POD24_HT had significantly worse overall survival (OS) compared to POD24_FL (ref), with a hazard ratio of 3.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.46-5.84), even after adjusting for age, FLIPI score, and first-line IC treatment. At 5 years, patients with POD24_HT had OS of 31% compared with an OS of 71% for patients with POD24_FL. Patients with POD24_I had similar outcomes to those with POD24_FL (5-year OS 75% versus 71%, respectively). Event-free survival (EFS) was also significantly lower in POD24_HT compared to POD24_FL: At 2 years, EFS was 27% for POD24_FL (21-35%) and 10% for POD24 _HT (4-23%). At 5 years, lymphoma remained the leading cause of death among patients with POD24, with 20% probability of lymphoma-related death in those with POD24_FL (95% CI 14.2-27.8) compared to 53% probability of lymphoma-related death in patients with POD24_HT (95% CI 40.6-70.7). Conclusions: In our multicenter cohort, we identified remarkable differences between the two biopsy-demonstrated entities of POD24 (i.e., with and without HT). Patients without a biopsy or indeterminate histology had similar outcomes as those with POD24_FL. Patients withearlyrelapse of FL after first-line IC remain a heterogeneous group with poor outcomes and a heightened risk of lymphoma-related mortality particularly compared with nonPOD24 groups. Even with retained FL histology, patients with POD24 had 20% probability of lymphoma-related death within 5 years of second-line treatment initiation. We demonstrate that poor survival is driven in part, but not entirely, by HT. Despite most patients receiving appropriate aggressive treatment, those with POD24_HT represent a distinctly vulnerable population warranting further study in directed prospective studies of both FL biology and clinical trials.

Introduction: Pembrolizumab Gemcitabine Vinorelbine and Liposomal Doxorubicin (P-GVD) has become a commonly employed regimen for the treatment of relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL), often preceding autologous stem cell transplant in patients with good response. The utilization of P-GVD is based on a 38-evaluable patient prospective trial (Moskowitz et al. JCO 2021). There remains minimal data regarding the efficacy of this regimen in a larger, real-world cohort. Methods:Patients with CHL who received P-GVD at 9 United States centers were retrospectively evaluated to estimate efficacy and safety, with a focus on the second line use of this regimen. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from medical records. Responses reflected Lugano criteria per local investigator assessment. Study objectives were overall response rates (ORR), complete response rates (CRR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. PFS and OS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier. Results: Patients and Treatment: We identified 65 CHL patients who received P-GVD between July 2019 and June 2024, including 43 who were treated in the second line. Enrolled patients included a median age of 31 years (range 17-69 years), 36.9% (24) females, 75.4% (49) nodular sclerosing subtype, and 60% (39) stage III-IV at diagnosis. Patients included 64.6% (42) White and non-Hispanic, 15.4% (10) Hispanic or White and Hispanic, 10.8% (7) Black, 3.1% (2) Asian/Pacific Islander, 3.1% (2) other, and 3.1% (2) unknown. The median number of prior regimens was 1 (range 0-12); these included 3.1% (2) who had prior checkpoint inhibitor (CPI), 50.8% (33) who had prior brentuximab vedotin (BV), and 3.1% (2) who had prior transplant. Patients with primary refractory disease [no initial complete response (CR)] comprised 58.5% (38), and 35.4% (23) had relapse within 1 year of completing initial therapy. The median number of cycles received was 3 (range 1-5). Treatment in a community practice setting was noted for 21.5% (14) patients. Efficacy: At a median follow up of 17.7 months, ORR and CRR after P-GVD were 95% (62/65) and 74% (48/65), respectively. This increased to 95% ORR and 81% CRR when limited to 43 patients who were treated 2nd line. Responses by line included: 1st [n=1; 100% ORR and CRR]; 3rd [n=15; 100% ORR, 73.3% CRR], 4th [n=3; 100% ORR, 33.3% CRR], 5th [n=2; 100% ORR, 0% CRR], and 13th [n=1; SD]. CRR in BV- and CPI-exposed patients were 60.6% and 50%, respectively. Ninety one percent (39) of 2nd line treated patients proceeded to autologous transplant, as well as all 3 patients > age 60. Among 41 response-evaluable second-line patients, CR was achieved in 94% (30/32) who received 2 or 3 cycles of P-GVD, and 56% (5/9) who received 4 cycles of P-GVD. For the entire cohort at 12 and 24 months after starting P-GVD, PFS was 95% (95% CI: 89-100%), 91% (95% CI: 83-100%) and OS was 98% (95% CI: 94-100%), 94% (95% CI: 86-100%), respectively. Ninety five percent (41) of 2nd line transplanted patients remain alive and in remission at a median of 18.5 months (range 3.5-38.7 months). In the primary refractory subset, PFS and OS at 24 months were 91% and 97%, respectively. For the cohort with 2 or more prior lines of therapy, PFS and OS at 24 months were 91% and 94%, respectively. Safety: Immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) were reported in 20% (13) of patients, of which grade 3 IRAEs per NCCN criteria version 1.2024 comprised 38.5%; all others were grades 1-2. Non-IRAE grade 3-4 toxicities per CTCAE version 5.0 were reported in 22% (14) patients. Of 29 patients evaluable for treatment-related interruptions, 7% (2) had therapy discontinued, and 34% (10) had holds, dose reductions, and/or delays. No deaths were attributed to P-GVD treatment. Conclusions:This retrospective study confirms the utility of P-GVD in treating relapsed/refractory CHL in a real-world population. Though fewer CRs and higher rates of grade 3 adverse events were observed, the vast majority of patients were able to proceed to transplant, and outcomes to date are highly encouraging.

Background: The Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored intergroup trial E4412 (NCT01896999) investigated brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with the checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab (N) and ipilimumab (I) in patients with relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R HL). Here we present the safety and efficacy results for the cohort of pediatric patients aged 12-17 years. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with the doublet of BV/N or triplet of BV/N/I, with the following dosing: BV 1.8mg/kg every 21 days for up to 16 cycles; Nivolumab 3mg/mg every 21 days for up to 34 cycles; Ipilimumab 1mg/kg every 9 weeks for up to 9 doses. Response evaluation by PET/CT was performed after 4 cycles. Transplant-eligible patients with CR could discontinue protocol therapy to receive a consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Results: Sixteen pediatric patients with a median age of 16 (range 12-17) were randomized. 75% of patients had received only 1 prior line of treatment with none having previously received BV and only 1 patient with prior ASCT. All patients were treated (8 in each arm) and included in the pediatric safety analysis cohort receiving at least one cycle of therapy. There were four reported grade (gr) 3 or greater toxicities: lymphopenia (gr 3) and neutropenia (gr 3) on the BV/N arm; and neutropenia (gr 4) and rash (gr 3) on the BV/N/I arm. Rash of any grade was more common in patients treated with BV/N/I (n=6) compared to BV/N (n=1). Peripheral sensory neuropathy was reported in 2 patients (BV/N, gr 2, n=2) There were no grade 5 toxicities. Fourteen patients (7 in each arm) were evaluable for response. The CR rate on both the BV/N and BV/N/I arms was 100%. The median survival follow up was 23.7 months (15.7 - 31.7). The 24-month PFS was 57% for BV/N and 100% for BV/N/I. Six patients (2 BV/N; 4 BV/N/I) discontinued protocol therapy to receive a consolidative ASCT. The 24-month PFS for patients consolidated with an ASCT was 100%, with all events occurring in patients randomized to BV/N, but not receiving an ASCT. Conclusion: Pediatric patients receiving both BV/N and BV/N/I had 100% CR rate with limited toxicity. Although this is a small cohort, there have been no progression events observed in patients treated with BV/N/I, including 3 patients treated without a consolidative ASCT.

Background Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma Patients (PCNSL) is a rare and aggressive form of NHL in the central nervous system or vitreoretinal space. Despite high initial response rates of high dose methotrexate-based regimens, most patients will relapse in less than two years with poor prognosis. There are no approved treatments for Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) PCNSL, representing a clear unmet medical need. IRAK4 kinase activity is required for TLR and IL-1R signaling in a variety of myeloid and lymphoid cell types, including PCNSL. Recruitment of IRAK4 to these receptors and subsequent activation is facilitated by the MyD88 adaptor protein, which is mutated in ~70% of PCNSL. This leads to constitutive activation of the NF-κB signaling pathway, increased inflammation, and tumor growth. Emavusertib is a novel and potent oral inhibitor of IRAK4, which has demonstrated the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier in PCNSL xenografts. In preclinical studies, the combination of emavusertib with Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) showed in vitro synergy of inhibition and re-sensitization of BTKi-resistant cell lines. Emavusertib + ibrutinib has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile across a broad population of R/R NHL patients, including PCNSL. Aim We present updated safety and efficacy of emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib in patients with R/R PCNSL most recently treated with BTKi regimen. Methods The safety, clinical activity, and potential biomarkers of emavusertib in R/R PCNSL are being investigated in the ongoing open-label, Phase 1/2 TakeAim Lymphoma trial (NCT03328078). The eligible patients with R/R PCNSL received emavusertib (100-300 mg BID) in combination with ibrutinib (560 mg QD) continuously until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity. Disease staging at screening and anti-cancer therapeutic responses were evaluated according to the IPCG Response Criteria Guideline for PCNSL. Results As of 10 July 2024, 13 R/R PCNSL patients, with prior BTK exposure, received emavusertib at 100 - 300 mg BID in combination with ibrutinib at 560mg QD. The median age was 60 years (range 44 - 79). The median number of prior lines of anti-cancer therapies was 2 (range 2 - 5). Median emavusertib/ibrutinib treatment duration was 51 days (range 17 - 503). The preliminary efficacy data in 12 evaluable patients whose most recent treatment regimen included a BTKi and were treated with the combination of emavusertib and ibrutinib showed 3 complete remission (CR), 1 unconfirmed complete Response (CRu) and 2 partial responses (PR) and an overall response rate of 50%. Treatment is on-going for 5 patients with one patient pending the first assessment. All responders demonstrated more than 80% reduction in target lesion size compared to baseline. Two of the responders with a CR demonstrated durable response, with 1 patient having a duration of response (DOR) of approximately 9 months, and the second patient having a DOR of 12 months with response ongoing. Grade ≥3 Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 7 (53.8%) patients, while Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 4 (30.8%) patients. No fatal TRAE were reported and the majority of Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs and all Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs were reversible and manageable. Conclusion Emavusertib in combination with ibrutinib shows promising efficacy and was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile in R/R PCNSL patients with prior BTKi exposure. The combination of emavusertib + ibrutinib may overcome BTKi resistance and has the potential to show improved anti-cancer activity. Enrollment in this trial is ongoing (NCT03328078).

Background: Due to recent advances, patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) have multiple treatment options with high response rates and durability. However, there is a gap in understanding how patient preferences influence treatment selection. To close this gap, we conducted a qualitative study using focus groups of adults with FL to understand their knowledge of treatment options, priorities, and decision-making process. We designed this study to inform the content of a planned discrete choice experiment in a larger population of patients with FL to better understand patient preferences and trade-offs around treatment delivery, side effects, outcomes, and quality of life. Methods: We conducted focus groups lasting 60-90 minutes, each with 3-5 participants recruited from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study. The LEO Cohort Study is a multi-institutional prospective cohort study of newly diagnosed adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma from July 2015 to present. Each focus group was co-led by two investigators (U.D. and M.T.) and conducted using Zoom video technology. Participants were asked to comment on their understanding about FL and available treatments, their ideal treatment, their decision-making process about prior therapies, and quality of life and side effects associated with treatment. We performed exploratory content analysis of participant understanding of FL and their treatment preferences. We will continue to conduct focus groups until we reach thematic saturation, which we anticipate will occur with one additional focus group. Themes from all focus groups were identified and agreed upon by both investigators (U.D. and M.T.) and were verified by additional investigators (J.D., M.L, M.H., B.K.L, C.C., M.M.). Results: To date, we conducted five focus groups with a total of N=21 participants (median age 60 [range 41-88], 66.7% female, 71.4% non-Hispanic White, 14.3% Hispanic, 9.5% Asian, 4.8% Black/Hispanic). We identified the following themes and representative quotes: 1) Holistic approach:Participants wanted their oncologists to view their care from a holistic perspective, discussing their individual priorities and options that would accommodate their fitness routine and ability to work. “[I wish] if doctors can consider not just the physical choices, but also the mental and emotional choices as well, the holistic person.” - Participant 13 “There's zero chance I can go back to working in the type of career where other people rely on me for things. I can't keep things straight.” - Participant 16 2) Ideal treatment:An ideal treatment would limit impact on fatigue, cognitive function, and have minimal toxicity to preserve quality of life and an active lifestyle. “I would say something that has minimal impact on daily life would be ideal and something that would make you feel better.” - Participant 6 3) Shared decision-making: Participants wanted to be better informed about available treatment options and often utilized second opinions to inform their decisions. “It helped to get the second opinion versus not. It would've been a completely different set of events.” - Participant 17 4) Treatment burden:Financial impact and effort required by patients to receive care (e.g., travel, number of office visits, and duration of therapy) were key factors in patient decision-making. “Part of my quality of life went down because I had to fight with my insurance company consistently, and we pay a lot of money.” - Participant 11 “Really explain the time options and calendarize the treatment and be more specific about the amount of time that you're going to spend at the hospital and the process.” - Participant 20 5) Representation: Minority participants raised concerns about not knowing if the available treatment data pertained to them. “[My end-goal would be] having an understanding of how the treatment is going to be for minority people. Many times the treatments are tested, they are not tested for minorities.” - Participant 21 Conclusions: The patient perspective is critical for treatment decision-making and education. People living with FL expressed a desire for a holistic and individualized approach to treatment decision-making that incorporated their lifestyle, minimized side effects, and limited overall treatment burden. These focus groups identified emerging themes that warrant further investigation for survivors with FL.