Citations

Background: Marginal Zone Lymphoma (MZL) is considered indolent but incurable, with a variety of initial treatment strategies including observation. Quality of life (QOL) can be affected by disease burden, side effects of treatment, and psychosocial effects of living with an incurable cancer. However, little is known about long-term QOL in patients with MZL. We investigated QOL at baseline (BL), and up to nine years after a diagnosis of MZL. Methods: Newly diagnosed MZL patients aged 18 years and older were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource from 9/2002 - 6/2015. Pathology was reviewed by a hematopathologist. All MZL participants with both BL and at least one follow-up (FU) QOL questionnaire were eligible for this analysis. QOL was measured at BL and years 1-, 2-, 3-, 6- and 9-year FU with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale (range 0-108), which measures 4 QOL domains (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being (WB). Clinical data were abstracted according to a standard protocol and patients were systematically followed for events (progression, re-treatment, and death). Patients were grouped into initial management with active surveillance (observation), local/antibiotic therapy (including radiation, surgery, and anti- H. pylori therapy), or systemic therapy (including chemotherapy, targeted agents, or antibody therapy). Change in QOL scores over time was analyzed using mixed models for repeated measurements, and comparisons were made according to initial treatment group. Results: Of 324 participants in the analysis, 59% were female, 98% were White and the median age was 63 years. For initial management, 36% (N=118) were observed, 30% (N=96) received local/antibiotic therapy and 34% (N=110) received systemic therapy. Across the initial treatment groups, there were no statistically significant differences by age, gender, or performance status, while there were differences for Ann Arbor Stage IV (observation 50%, local/antibiotic 27%, systemic 67%, p<0.001) and MALT-IPI score 2+ (observation 23%, local/antibiotic 18%, systemic 28%, p<0.001). At BL, mean FACT-G total score was 85.7 (SD 13.1), and physical, social/family, emotional, and functional WB scores were 20.3 (SD 4.2), 24.4 (SD 3.9), 18.9 (SD 3.5), 22.1 (SD 5.3); these scores were similar across initial treatment groups (all p>0.05). FACT-G total score was largely stable over time by treatment group (Panel 1). However, it declined at years 6 (mean -4.0, p<0.05) and 9 (mean -3.7, p<0.05) in the observation group (Panel 2), driven by a decline in functional WB, although this change was not significantly different from the other treatment groups. Further, in comparison with other treatment groups, local therapy was associated with a short-term 1-year improvement of FACT-G total score (mean +2.8, p=0.04), driven by improvements in both functional and emotional WB. For the subscales, we identified two major trends irrespective of treatment group: an overall improvement from BL of emotional WB at years 1 (mean +0.6, p<0.05), 2 (mean +0.7, p<0.05), 3 (+1.3, p<0.05), 6 (+1, p<0.05), and 9 (+1.3, p<0.05) and an overall decline of social/family WB at years 1 (mean -1.1, p<0.05), 2 (mean -1.7, p<0.05), 3 (-2.1, p<0.05), 6 (-2.7, p<0.05), and 9 (-2.2, p<0.05). There was no notable change from BL for physical or functional WB. Conclusions: This analysis is the first to provide prospective real-world QOL data on a longitudinal cohort of MZL patients with long follow-up. At BL, initial treatment was associated with stage and MALT-IPI score, but not QOL. Except for the transient 1-year QOL improvement in patients under local/antibiotic therapy, initial treatment groups had no impact on QOL over time. Irrespective of treatment group, emotional WB showed improvement over time, suggesting psychosocial adaptation by the patient, as it was found in aggressive lymphomas (Thompson et al., 2018). Further, emotional WB over time did not vary across treatment groups, suggesting that being initially observed did not lead to more emotional stress than being actively treated. Finally, decline in social/family WB (support from friends, family, family acceptance of illness, family communication, close to partner) suggests a need to consider interventions to patients and families to address these needs.

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

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

Introduction Survival rates for people with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) have improved in recent years. Among the potential factors accounting for this improvement is the approval of multiple new therapies over the past two decades, including bortezomib, bendamustine, ibrutinib, lenalidomide, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib. We hypothesized that the availability of multiple agents with non-overlapping mechanisms of action would result in significant improvements in overall survival following first-line therapy. Methods Patients diagnosed with MCL between 2002 and 2017 were identified using the SEER-Medicare linked database. Selected patients were >65 years of age at the time of diagnosis with MCL. Lines of therapy were determined using billing codes, with inpatient/outpatient claims used for traditional agents and Medicare Part D dataset used for oral agents. Next lines of therapy were defined based on claims for new anticancer agents separated from the end of the prior line by some certain number of days. Sensitivity analyses were performed varying the number of days between therapies. Overall survival (OS) was defined as initiation of initial therapy to death, while OS2 was defined as time from initiation of second-line therapy to death. Time to next therapy 1 (TTNT1) was defined as time from start of first-line therapy to death or start of second-line therapy, whichever came first. Cox models and Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves were generated for time-to-event analyses. Analyses were stratified by categories of years of first- and second-line therapies corresponding to eras of key drug approvals (e.g., 2002-2005, 2006-2009, 2010-2013, >2013). Results In total, 4,832 patients were included, among whom 3,840 patients (79.5%) had claims for first-line regimens and 1,648 (34.1% of total and 42.9% of patients with first-line regimens) had second-line regimens. Of the 4,832 patients, the majority were male (67.4%), White (94.6%), and non-Hispanic (94.7%), with good performance status (74.8%) and a Charlson Comorbidity Index <2 (64.8%). The median age at diagnosis was 75 (IQR 70-81). Patients with first- and/or second-line regimens did not differ significantly from the entire population of 4,832 patients with MCL in terms of baseline characteristics. In the first-line setting, use of bendamustine-rituximab (BR) increased from 2.3% of patients treated in 2006-2009 to 49.5% in 2014-2017. Similarly, use of single-agent BTK-inhibitors (BTKi) increased from nonexistent in patients treated in 2010-2013 to 13.8% in 2014-2017. In the second-line setting, use of single-agent BTKi similarly increased from 2.6% of those treated in 2010-2013 to 44.9% in 2014-2017. Median OS for the 3,840 patients with fist-line regimens was 4.4 years (95% CI, 4.1-4.5); median OS for those receiving first-line therapy in 2002-2005 was 3.5 years (3.1-3.9), compared to 3.7 (3.4-4.0), 4.5 (4.2-5.0), and not reached (4.8-NR) among those treated in 2006-2009, 2010-2013, and 2014-2017, respectively. Patients treated in 2014-2017 had significantly improved OS compared with those in 2002-2005 (log rank p<0.0001). Median TTNT1 overall was 2.5 years (2.4-2.6); median TTNT1 was 3.2 years (2.9-3.5) vs 2.3 years (2.1-2.6) for patients who received first-line therapy in 2014-2017 compared to 2002-2005 (log rank p<0.0001) ( Figure A). In addition, there was a significant difference across KM curves for OS2 stratified by categories of years of second-line therapy, with median OS2 of 2.5 (2.0-3.2) in patients treated in 2014-2017 compared to median OS2 of 2.1 (1.7-2.5) in 2010-2013 ( Figure B). Discussion In this analysis, we observed improvements survival of MCL patients over time, along with similar improvements in outcomes following first-line therapy, which may correlate with increased BR and BTKi use as first-line agents. Unexpectedly, improvements in survival following first-line therapy were considerably more modest. Potential explanations include lack of data from recent years during which we expect continued increased utilization of oral therapies vs unique impact of repeated therapies in the elderly. Overall, these data support the need for ongoing development of first- and subsequent-line therapies in MCL.

Introduction: Non-Follicular Low-Grade B-Cell Lymphomas (LGBCL) are a subset of lymphomas that share overlapping clinical and histologic features. While most cases of LGBCL have an indolent course, some experience aggressive disease with no definitive biomarkers to identify aggressive cases at diagnosis. Significant advances have been made in the molecular classification of other lymphomas, yet molecular profiling and identification of mechanisms driving aggressive disease in LGBCL remain an unmet need. We previously used a multi-omic approach to characterize the molecular and immune landscapes of LGBCL tumors and identified a transcriptomic signature associated with cell proliferation and inferior overall survival (OS) in two independent cohorts (HR 7.82; 95% CI 2.4-25.4; p < 0.001 & HR 10.07; 95% CI 2.00-50.61; p = 0.005) and cases that transformed to DLBCL (Hopper et al., 2023). Here, we identify the oncoprotein DEK as a novel transcriptional regulator of this signature and use a functional genomic approach to further interrogate the role of DEK in B-cell lymphoma. Methods: Tumors from 64 newly-diagnosed/untreated LGBCL cases enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Molecular Epidemiology Resource were included in this study (SMZL = 48, NMZL = 6, LPL = 5, B-NOS = 3, EMZL = 2). Tumor RNA-seq and paired tumor-normal WES were used to assess DEK expression and identify copy number alterations (CNAs), respectively. DEK deficient (KO) cell line models were generated using CRIPSR/Cas9. DEK expression was assessed by western blot (WB) and immunofluorescence (IF) using standard techniques. Proliferation was assessed by MTT assay. Results: To identify transcriptional regulators of our previously identified signature, we used the tool MAGIC to mine publicly available ChIP-seq data and identified DEK, an oncoprotein associated with tumorigenesis and poor prognosis in several cancers, as a key regulator of genes in our signature (p = 0.008). RNA-seq indicated that high levels of DEK expression associated with inferior OS in LGBCL (HR 2.99; 95% CI 1.21-7.36; p = 0.02). Additionally, we identified DEK as a target of copy number gains/amps in LGBCL (7% of cases), which corresponded to significantly higher DEK expression (p = 0.04). The association of DEK with aggressive lymphoma was confirmed when we assessed its expression in public cell line RNA-seq data and observed the highest expression in lines derived from aggressive lymphomas, which we further validated at the protein level in a panel of B-cell lymphoma cell lines by WB and IF confocal microscopy. Additionally, we detected nuclear localization of DEK, consistent with its role as a transcriptional regulator. As a model of DEK overexpression for functional characterization, we used the SUDHL6 lymphoma cell line, which has an amplification of DEK at 6p22.3 and expresses high levels of DEK protein. Using CRISPR technology, we generated DEK deficient SUDHL6 and tested the impact of loss of DEK expression. DEK KO cells proliferated significantly slower than WT SUDHL6 cells in vitro (p < 0.0001)(Panel A), indicating DEK plays a role in regulating proliferative capacity in lymphoma. To identify mechanisms responsible for reduced proliferation in DEK KOs, we assessed baseline protein expression levels of apoptosis proteins in WT versus KO cells. We found near complete abrogation of anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2 and reduction of Bcl-xL expression in DEK KO cells (Panel B). These results indicate DEK may contribute to tumor proliferative capacity by regulating susceptibility to apoptosis. Conclusion: DEK has been implicated in regulation of gene expression, but its precise role has remained elusive, with little known about its role in lymphoma. Using an integrative molecular and functional genomics approach, we identified DEK as a novel oncoprotein in LGBCL that is upregulated in cases with inferior clinical outcome and is regulated by copy number gains/amps. DEK plays a role in regulating tumor proliferative capacity by altering susceptibility to apoptosis through regulation of Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL. Collectively, this data suggests high-risk LGBCL tumors may enrich for cells with DEK overexpression or CNAs as a mechanism driving oncogene addiction, highlighting DEK, and its downstream targets, as potential therapeutic targets in a subset of high-risk LGBCL.

Background Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive lymphoid malignancy in adults. Though standard immunochemotherapy regimens can result in clinical remission and cure in a majority of patients, approximately 30% of patients are primary treatment resistant or eventually relapse (rrDLBCL), and their prognosis is very poor. Recent molecular classification by large scale genomic and transcriptomic profiling of newly diagnosed DLBCL tumors has resulted in a deeper understanding of disease drivers, however, the molecular heterogeneity of rrDLBCL is yet to be fully explored. Therefore, in this study, we used an unsupervised approach to better define transcriptional and genetic programs in rrDLBCL samples hypothesizing that molecular stratification within this high-risk group may lead to a better understanding of this disease, which remains an unmet need, and a more personalized therapeutic approach. Methods Data used in this study included RNA (n=143) and whole exome (n=126) sequencing data from available FFPE tumor samples at the time of a relapse (any line of treatment, r1-r10 relapse timepoints included in analysis, one per patient), consented to the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (n=61), banked in the Mayo Lymphoma Biobank (n=50), or consented to the CC-122-ST-001 clinical trial (n=32, NCT01421524). Unsupervised clustering was performed on protein coding gene expression values using the non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) approach. NMF was carried out by performing 200 runs on cluster sizes from 2 to 6. Cell of origin (COO) was determined using the method described by Reddy et al. The tumor microenvironment was analyzed using CIBERSORTx and Lymphoma Microenvironment Classification (LME). Genetic classification was done using LymphGen. Results In order to identify unique transcriptional programs in rrDLBCL, we implemented NMF and consensus clustering to define an ideal quantity of stable patient clusters. We identified 4 rrDLBCL patient clusters (rrC1-rrC4) as the most stable solution, based on consensus clustering selection criteria of iterative NMF runs. While relapse timepoint was not associated with individual clusters, we did observe significant differences in tumor characteristics between the clusters. COO classification found that rrC1 and rrC4 were enriched for GCB-DLBCL while rrC3 was enriched for ABC-DLBCL classification (P < .001). To explore the biologic programs in each cluster, we used pathFindR, which leverages protein-protein interaction networks to identify disease related pathways, rrC1 and rrC4 were defined by pathways involved in cell cycle and mismatch repair; oxidative phosphorylation in rrC2; and MAPK and NF-kB in rrC3. Next, LME classification was done to define patterns in the tumor microenvironment and we found a significant difference between groups (P < .001), with rrC2 and rrC4 tumors enriched for a depleted TME, while rrC1 and rrC3 had a more immune rich or inflammatory TME. This was supported by CIBERSORTx analysis identifying significant differences (P > .001) in abundance of CD8 T cells, memory CD4 T cells, and M1 macrophages between clusters, with rrC4 having the lowest abundance. We then explored genetic patterns in each cluster. Gene level mutation enrichment analysis showed BCL7A mutation exclusively in C4 (6/6, P = .03). The clusters were not associated with LymphGen classification. Lastly, our recently published high risk signature classification that is associated with early clinical failure and is characterized by metabolic dysregulation, a depleted TME, T53 alterations, and poor outcome, was significantly different between the groups (P = .03) with enrichment for high-risk cases in rrC4. In summary, we show for the first time that rrDLBCL patients can be classified into four gene expression clusters that are associated with distinct pathway, TME, and genetic programs. These clusters should now be tested to learn if they can help select patients for newer therapies for rrDLBCL such as CAR-T and bispecific antibodies.

Background: The goal of clinical trial eligibility criteria is to identify a population of patients that have high risk disease or have unmet needs with standard of care therapy. Frontline trials of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) include patients with International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores of 3-5 as a way to identify a high risk population. Trials typically include patients with IPI score=2, and sometimes IPI score=1, to expand the eligible patient population. However, broader patient populations must be balanced by the potential inclusion of low-risk patients with excellent outcomes to standard of care therapy, leading to potentially underpowered trials. IPI is a sum of dichotomous variables which makes implementation easy but can result in heterogeneity in outcomes within IPI scores. This heterogeneity may be caused by unequal prognostic information across IPI variables, loss of information within IPI variables due to the use of cutoffs, as well as information captured by variables that are not included in the IPI. In prior modeling of outcomes in DLBCL (Maurer et al, AJH 2016), we identified that: i) LDH has a strong prognostic ability beyond the upper limit of normal (ULN) and ii) bulky disease is an independent variable for prognosis. Here we evaluate if the presence of either of these two variables, easily captured at diagnosis within the current standard clinical work-up, can identify a high-risk subset of patients within the population of those with IPI scores of 1-2. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis in the LEO Cohort at 8 academic medical centers from 2015-2020 and prospectively followed. Inclusion criteria for this analysis was aggressive B-cell lymphoma typically included in frontline trials (e.g. DLBCL, high grade B-cell lymphoma, FL3B), IPI 1-5, frontline therapy with rituximab and anthracycline-based chemotherapy, stage II-IV disease and ages 18-80 years. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from diagnosis until progression, initiation of 2 nd line therapy, or death due to any cause; EFS was evaluated at 24 months (EFS24). Very high LDH was defined as LDH>1.3xULN based on prior modeling (Maurer et al, AJH 2016) and bulky disease was defined as maximum tumor diameter (MTD) of 7cm or greater. IPI 1 and 2 were first evaluated separately and then combined due to similar outcomes in patients with very high LDH and/or bulky disease. High risk IPI1-2 was defined as the presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH within an IPI score of 1-2. Confirmation was performed in a similar cohort of patients enrolled in the Iowa/Mayo SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) from 2002-2015; bulky disease was defined using a 10cm cutoff per availability in MER data collection forms. Results: 1560 patients from LEO were analyzed; median age was 64 years (IQR: 54-71), 42% were female and 83% had stage III/IV disease; subtype was DLBCL, NOS in 1335 (86%). IPI was 1-2 in 766 patients, 3 in 496 patients and 4-5 in 298 patients ( table). 391 (51%) with IPI1-2 had either bulky disease and/or very high LDH (high risk IPI1-2) and 375 had low-risk IPI1-2. EFS24 in high risk IPI1-2 (71.6%, 95% CI: 67.2-76.3) was significantly inferior to IPI1-2 without bulky disease or very high LDH (85.2, 95% CI: 81.7-88.9 logrank p=0.0035, figure) and similar to patients with IPI3 (70.7%, 95% CI: 66.8-74.9). Consistent results were observed in 1014 patients analyzed in the MER using a higher cutoff for bulky disease (10cm) due to data availability ( table). Patients with high risk IPI1-2 had significantly shorter diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) in both the LEO (per-week OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.77-0.88) and MER (per-week OR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.68-0.87) cohorts compared to low risk IPI1-2, both p<0.0001). In sensitivity analysis, LEO results were similar when performed in the subset of patients with DLBCL, NOS. Conclusion: The presence of either bulky disease and/or very high LDH at presentation identifies a high-risk subset of patients with IPI 1-2 that have similar outcomes to patients with IPI 3 disease. These simple criteria can be easily implemented within existing clinical trial diagnostic work-ups. Future trial designs in frontline aggressive B-cell lymphoma should include patients with IPI 3-5 and patients with IPI 1-2 with either bulky disease and/or very high LDH to better define a high-risk population of patients for clinical trial eligibility.

Purpose: Improved predictive tools are desired in classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) to improve prognostication and to better risk stratify patients (pts) for clinical trials. In younger pts who tolerate intensive therapies, focus has been on limiting late treatment toxicity through risk-adapted, PET-guided treatment strategy. In older pts, acute treatment toxicities are limiting factors for optimal disease control. Due to these fundamental differences, predictive tools may perform differently in younger and older pts. In particular, tools developed in younger pts may be suboptimal in older populations and vice versa. The primary objective of this study was to assess the performance of the A-HIPI (development was limited to 18-65 years of age) against the international prognostic score (IPS) for modelling overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in younger and older pts with cHL. Methods: This study utilized data from the population-based, nationwide Danish National Lymphoma registry. Pts with advanced-stage cHL (Ann Arbor stage III-IV or IIB with extra nodal disease) were included and categorized by age in two groups: ages ≤65 years vs. >65 years. In the primary analysis, all pts regardless of therapy were included. A sensitivity analysis restricting to pts starting on BEACOPP or ABVD was performed (Only ABVD in the >65 cohort). Concordance index (C-index) and calibration were used to assess model performance and generalizability. Calibration was visualized using calibration plots and quantified by calibration in the large (CITL) and calibration slope (CS) at 5-years post diagnosis. Results: A total of 893 advanced-stage HL pts fulfilled the inclusion criteria (634 in the ≤65 cohort and 259 in the >65 cohort). The 5-year OS and PFS in the >65-year cohort were 44% (Confidence intervals (CI); 37-51%) and 35% (CI; 30-42%), respectively. Fifty-six pts in the >65 cohort were classified as low-intermediate-risk (IPS; 1-2), 128 intermediate-risk (IPS; 3-4), and 75 high-risk (IPS; 5-7). For the ≤65 cohort, the 5-year OS and PFS was 88% (CI; 85-90%) and 76% (CI; 73-80%), respectively. Twenty-three pts were classified as low-risk (IPS; 0), 244 low-intermediate-risk, 286 intermediate-risk, and 81 high-risk. The A-HIPI had a C-index of 0.74 and 0.63 for OS and PFS, respectively in the ≤65 years cohort vs. 0.65 and 0.64 for OS and PFS, respectively, in the >65 cohort. The IPS had a C-index in the ≤65 cohort of 0.66 and 0.60 for OS and PFS, respectively, vs. 0.58 and 0.59 for OS and PFS, respectively, in the >65 cohort (i.e., the IPS performed better in the ≤65 cohort in terms of OS and PFS but was inferior to the A-HIPI). When restricting to pts treated with ABVD or BEACOPP, the A-HIPI C-index in the >65 cohort (116 pts) were reduced to 0.55 for OS and 0.54 for PFS. For the ≤65 cohort (595 pts), the A-HIPI C-index was stable at 0.75 and 0.62 for OS and PFS, respectively. In terms of A-HIPI calibration in the >65 cohort, CITL and CS were -0.78 and 0.39 for OS vs. -0.98 and 0.80 for PFS. In the ≤65 cohort, CITL and CS were -0.06 and 0.99 for OS vs. 0.21 and 1.18 for PFS. Visual inspection of the calibration plot (Figure 1) for the >65 cohort showed that the A-HIPI underestimated the observed proportion for both OS and PFS (i.e., the observed events were higher than the predicted). Calibration plot for the ≤65 cohort (Figure 2) indicated that the A-HIPI accurately modelled the observed proportion for both OS and PFS (i.e., the predicted probability was consistent with the observed proportion). Conclusion: The newly developed A-HIPI was validated in a large population-based cohort of Danish pts with advanced-stage cHL. Performance of the A-HIPI was high in the ≤65 cohort and superior to the IPS for OS prediction. Calibration of A-HIPI was excellent in pts ages ≤65 years. However, A-HIPI performed significantly worse among pts >65 years and attained poor performance in pts receiving ABVD or BEACOPP, which is not surprising since patients older than 65 were not included in the development. This study emphasizes the importance of further efforts to develop or update models that apply specifically in older individuals. The inclusion of additional variables reflecting comorbidities and pts fitness into a prognostic model may be necessary to effectively deliver accurate prognoses and risk assessments for the older pt.

Background: Understanding the symptoms and quality of life (QOL) over time of adults with follicular lymphoma (FL) is important for treatment decision-making and clinical management. However, there are limited population-level data on the long-term QOL of adults with FL. We aim to describe the real-world, long-term QOL of adults with newly diagnosed FL up to 5/6 years after diagnosis. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic/Iowa Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the multi-institutional Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) to identify adults with grade 1-3A FL who completed QOL surveys at baseline and follow-up. Participants with lymphoma were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the MER cohort from 2002-2015 and within 6 months of diagnosis in the multi-institutional LEO cohort study across 8 cancer centers from 2015-2020. The LEO/MER cohort studies systematically collected information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and functional assessment. Treatments, disease relapses, and deaths were verified by medical record review. Treating physicians determined clinical management. QOL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1, 2, 3, and 5/6 post-diagnosis. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better QOL across 4 subscales (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being. We categorized participants based on their frontline management at time of diagnosis: “observation” (surveillance), “treatment” (systemic treatment with immunotherapy +/- chemotherapy), and “local” (radiation) groups. We employed a generalized linear mixed model to evaluate and compare the changes in QOL scores (as a continuous variable) from baseline for the observation, treatment, and local groups, adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age, FLIPI risk, and cohort (i.e., LEO or MER). We also evaluated QOL changes by FLIPI risk. Results: Our study included 1,544 participants with FL and QOL data. At the time of enrollment, median age was 61 years (range 19-91), 88% were non-Hispanic White, and 49% were female. Based on initial management, 529 (34%) were in the observation group, 880 (57%) were in the treatment group, and 135 (9%) were in the local group. FLIPI risk was high for 17% in the observation group, 29.3% in the treatment group, and 3% in the local group. The mean (standard deviation) baseline FACT-G total score was lowest in the treatment group with the following baseline scores: 86 (13) for the observation group, 83 (14) for the treatment group, and 88 (12) for the local group (Table 1). The observation and local groups reported a greater worsening of their baseline FACT-G total score vs the treatment group at both the 2-year (-1.2, -0.8 vs +1.8, respectively) and 5/6 year (-5.4, -6 vs. -1.6, respectively) timepoints (Figure 1). This appeared to be driven by worsened physical and functional well-being in the observation (-1.3, -2.2, respectively) and local (-0.9, -2.4, respectively) groups vs the treatment group (0, -0.3, respectively). These differences were statistically significant between the observation vs treatment groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the other subscales, i.e., social/family and emotional well-being, by frontline management. Social/family well-being decreased across all groups by 5/6 years (-2.3 in observation, -2.2 in treatment, and -3 in local, p<0.05). Regardless of FLIPI risk, the total FACT-G scores decreased within each FLIPI risk group at 5/6 years (-4.4 for low, -3.8 for intermediate, and -4.9 for high, p<0.05). This was primarily due to worsened social/family well-being (-2.4 for low, -2.2 for intermediate, and -3 for high, p<0.05) at 5/6 years. There was no statistically significant difference in QOL between FLIPI risk groups. Conclusion: This is one of the first and largest studies with real-world longitudinal QOL data for FL. Our study suggests that frontline systemic treatment initially improved QOL and resulted in a lower degree of QOL decline over time. Social/family well-being decreased over time regardless of frontline management or FLIPI risk. Further research is warranted to explore the impact of timing and specific systemic treatments on QOL, incorporate the patient/caregiver experience to address social/family well-being, and identify the clinical significance of our findings.

Background: To be useful across the broadest range of patients and clinical settings, clinical prediction models should be externally validated in different data sets and clinical settings and refined over time. In 2022, the HoLISTIC Consortium (www.hodgkinconsortium.org) developed and validated the A-HIPI model via TRIPOD guidelines for adults 18-65 with advanced stage classic Hodgkin Lymphoma (AS-HL) (Rodday et al., JCO 2023). The A-HIPI model, based on individual patient (pt) data from more than 5000 patients (pts) from North America, Europe, and Australia, predicts progression-free survival and overall survival within the first 5 years (PFS5 and OS5) based on pre-treatment pt and disease characteristics (www.qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_869/a-hipi). In collaboration with Brazilian clinical experts and researchers, we describe the performance of the A-HIPI in the Brazilian Prospective HL registry. Methods: The Brazilian Prospective HL registry (NCT02589548) was originally established in 2009 with the goal of evaluating risk factors, treatment, and disease outcomes. By 2022, 1357 pts with classic HL were registered with a median follow-up of 5 years for surviving patients (Biasoli I. HemaSphere 2022). 5-year PFS and OS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Using the methodology for validation and calibration outlined in by Rodday et al., calculated risk scores were calculated for PFS5 and OS5. Harrell c-statistic and the Uno c-statistic were calculated to evaluate discrimination (i.e., differentiation of those at higher risk of having an event from those at lower risk) and plots of deciles of predicted vs. observed outcomes were created to assess calibration (i.e., how similar the predicted absolute risk of the model is to the true (observed) risk in an external cohort). In the primary A-HIPI analysis, laboratory values outside of permitted range were excluded and not imputed. This was checked in sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation for missing values; no substantial differences were noted. Thus, in the current validation, out-of-range lab values were excluded. There were no exclusions in the current analysis for early death, defined as deaths that occurred from the onset of first treatment until 30 days after its end. Pts with HIV were excluded from the assembled cohort. Results: 694 patients with AS-HL with the inclusion criteria of the original study were included in the present study. The median age was 30.9 years (range, 18-65) at diagnosis with 46% of the pts being female. 230 (33%) patients were classified as Stage IIB, 190 with Stage III (27.4%), and 274 (39.5%) with Stage IV. Bulky disease (>10 cm) was present in 226 patients (33%). Median hemoglobin was 11.6 g/dL (8-16.3), median albumin 3.63 g/dL (1.41-5.46), and median lymphocyte count was 1.5 x 10 3 µL (0.10-4.76). The 5-y PFS (PFS5) in the A-HIPI Brazilian validation dataset was 68.4% (95% CI: 64.7-71.9%) and the 5-y OS (OS5) was 86.0% (95% CI: 82.8-88.6).Harrell c-statistics for the A-HIPI model were 0.60 (95% CI, .56-.64) for 5-year PFS and 0.69 (95%CI, .64-.74) for 5-year OS and Uno c-statistics for the A-HIPI model were 0.63 (95% CI, .58-.68) for 5-year PFS and 0.72 (95%CI, .65-.78) for 5-year OS. Calibration plots (see figures) show the predicted A-HIPI model estimates were well calibrated with the observed outcomes in the Brazilian HL registry. Conclusions: Despite important differences between the original development cohort for A-HIPI and the Brazilian registry in patient and clinical characteristics (e.g., younger age at diagnosis, greater proportion of Stage IV disease) and the well characterized impact of income maldistribution and socio-economic status on clinical outcomes (Biasoli et al., Int J Cancer 2018), the A-HIPI clinical prediction tool performed well in the Brazilian Prospective Registry. This included evidence of adequate discrimination and calibration. Future studies are planned, including the impact of treatment selection and response, use of interim imaging, and supportive care may underscore important differences in outcomes among adults with AS-HL.