Citations

Abstract IgM MGUS and Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM) represent a disease spectrum with highly dissimilar therapeutic management ranging from observation to chemoimmunotherapy. The current classification relies solely on clinical features and does not explain the heterogeneity that exists within each of these conditions. To shed light on the biology that may account for the clinical differences, we used bone marrow (BM) CD19+/CD138+ sorted cells and matched BM plasma from 32 patients (pts) (7 IgM MGUS, 25 WM) and 5 healthy controls to perform the first comprehensive multiomics approach including whole exome sequencing, RNA seq, proteomics and metabolomics. Applying principal component analysis to gene expression profiling, most of WM pts clustered together, while a small subset of them grouped separately with MGUS pts, suggesting a biologic dichotomy within WM. The healthy controls formed a distinct group from most WM and MGUS. We then applied a non-negative matrix factorization consensus clustering to the gene expression data and identified three robust clusters. Cluster 1 (C1) included only WM pts, cluster 2 (C2) included both WM and MGUS pts, and cluster 3 (C3) included all controls as well as a small number of WM and MGUS pts. When mutations commonly identified in WM were analyzed, there was no difference among the three groups (excluding controls) in mutation burden of MYD88 L265P and CXCR4. Interestingly, aberrant expression of TNFAIP3 seemed a distinct feature of C1 as deletion of 6q (which encodes for TNFAIP3) and TNFAIP3 mutations were each significantly enriched in C1 (47%) compared to C2 (0%) and C3 (20%; p=0.04). Individual clusters associated with specific transcriptional signature and clinical features. While C1 displayed enrichment of cell growth, downregulation of inflammatory pathways (eg IL6 and IL8 signaling) and aggressive behavior, C2 showed increased inflammatory signaling and cell survival with indolent behavior. C3 had an intermediate feature with combined proliferative and inflammatory signatures. In accordance with the transcriptomic data, the hallmark of C1 was upregulation of proliferation-associated proteins (eg AKT, MAPK) and downregulation of inflammatory proteins (eg IL4, IL10) while the opposite was observed in C2. Once more, C3 confirmed intermediate features with combined upregulation of proliferation and inflammatory proteins. The metabolism was rewired towards fatty acid catabolism in C1, glycolysis in C2 and anabolism in C3. Accordingly, C1 showed undetectable concentration of 3-hydroxybutyric acid as opposed to C2 which had increased levels of malic and lactic acids, as end products of fatty acid oxidation and glycolysis respectively. Those metabolites had intermediate levels in C3. In conclusion, we identified three molecular clusters with distinct clinical, proteomic and metabolomic features, suggesting a potential biologic classification that may have therapeutic implications. Citation Format: Patrizia Mondello, Jonas Paludo, Joseph Novak, Kerstin Wenzl, Shahrzad Jalali, Jordan Krull, Esteban Braggio, Surendra Dasari, Michelle Manske, Jithma Abeykoon, Asher Chanan-Khan, Robert Kyle, Morie Gertz, Zhi Zhang Yang, Anne Novak, Stephen Ansell. Molecular clusters and functional drivers of IgM monoclonal gammopathies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 3487.

e19562 Background: Considerable healthcare resource utilization and financial burden have been associated with the treatment of Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM); however, the impact of health insurance status on patient outcomes has not been explored. We aimed to assess the insurance-based outcome relationship in WM using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods: We analyzed patient-level data obtained from the NCDB, a database representing more than 70% of newly diagnosed cancer cases nationwide. All newly diagnosed WM cases (n = 8540) between 2004 to 2017 were identified. Only patients who underwent treatment were included. Insurance status was recorded by assessing the primary payer at the time of diagnosis. Due to Medicare eligibility criteria, age-based (< 65 and ≥65 years) stratified analysis was conducted. Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to analyze survival. Time-to-event analysis was conducted based on date-of-diagnosis using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. Results: Analysis was conducted on 3878 patients after meeting inclusion criteria, with a median follow-up time of 54.6 months. Among patients < 65 years (n = 1249; median age: 58 years; male: 62.4%), those with non-private insurance had inferior survival on multivariate analysis (Table) after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, income, education, treatment center characteristics, and treatment start time. Significant overall survival (OS) differences were seen in those < 65 years (log-rank p < 0.001), with 5-year OS highest among patients with private insurance 91.2%, compared to Medicaid 79.8%, uninsured 77.4%, and Medicare 70.2%. In patients < 65 years, compared to private insurance, uninsured patients were more likely to be of Black race, reside in lower income areas, and be treated at non-academic centers (all p < 0.05). Both Medicaid and Medicare patients < 65 years were more likely to have a higher Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index (> 1) and live in areas of lower educational attainment and household income compared to private insurance (all p < 0.05). In patients ≥65 years (n = 2629; median age: 75 years; 60.6% males), no insurance-based OS (log-rank p = 0.096) differences were seen. Conclusions: Based on our study, significant insurance-based disparities exist in WM, where patients < 65 years old who are uninsured, or non-privately insured are at a higher risk of mortality. While the root cause of these differences is not fully elucidated, efforts should focus on ensuring that all patients have equal access to care regardless of primary payer status.[Table: see text]

e19502 Background: Inconsistent results observed in recent trials (ZUMA-7, TRANSFORM, BELINDA) assessing chimeric antigenic receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) prompted a meta-analysis to assess the available evidence and to compare the effectiveness of different CAR-T products. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify full-text or abstract publications of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing CAR-T in patients with R/R DLBCL compared to standard of care (SOC). Efficacy outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR). CR rates were also compared between CAR-T and patients in SOC arm who received autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). Safety outcomes included grade > 3 any adverse events (AE), cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological toxicity (NT). A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool effect estimates. Freeman-Tukey transformation method was used to estimate pooled proportion (PP) of safety events specific to CAR-T. Mixed treatment comparisons were computed using a frequentist network meta-analysis approach. Results: Of 1803 studies identified, three RCTs with 865 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed significant improvement in EFS (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.27-0.97; I2: 92%), PFS (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.37-0.60; I2: 0%) with CAR-T compared to SOC. OS was not significantly different between the two groups (HR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.03; I2: 29%). Higher objective response (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.13-1.97; I2: 81%), and CR rates (RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.07-2.24; I2: 79%) were observed with CAR-T compared to SOC. However, CAR-T was associated with lower CR when compared to patients who underwent ASCT (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.90; I2: 89%). The safety profile was not different between CAR-T and SOC. The incidences of grade ≥3 CRS (PP: 4.19; 95% CI: 1.60-7.80; I2: 57%) and grade ≥3 NT (PP: 7.57; 95% CI: 0.20-22.6; I2: 95%) were low. Mixed treatment comparisons showed significant EFS benefit with liso-cel (rank 1: HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.22-0.61) and axi-cel (rank 2: HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.29-0.61) compared to tisa-cel (rank 3). No significant differences were observed among different CAR-T products for PFS or OS improvement. The safety profile of CAR-T products was comparable with tisa-cel (rank 1) being the safest. Conclusions: CAR-T therapy, as a second line treatment, appears to be effective in achieving higher response rates and delaying the disease progression compared to SOC in R/R DLBCL. However, given lack of OS benefit coupled with lower response rates when compared to patients who received ASCT, we should exercise caution in adopting CAR-T as second line therapy for all patients with R/R DLBCL.

7566 Background: Parenteral limited-duration BR chemoimmunotherapy and continuous orally administered Ibr, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, dominate the treatment landscape of WM, a rare B cell lymphoma. No trials have assessed the comparative effectiveness of these 2 vastly different approaches. We conducted a multiinstitutional, international, collaborative study to compare BR and single-agent Ibr in patients (pts) with treatment naïve (TN) WM. Methods: Data from 347 pts with active TN WM, seen between 2011 and 2021 in the US and Europe, were analyzed. The pts on rituximab maintenance were excluded. The modified IWWM-6 criteria (based on IgM alone) were used for response assessment. All time-to-event analyses were performed from the frontline therapy initiation, using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The median age of the pts treated with BR (n=208) and Ibr (n=139) was 66 (range 40-86) years (y) and 69 (39-97) y, respectively, (p=0.005). With a median follow up of 4.2 y (95% CI 3.8-4.5), the 4-y progression free survival (PFS) was 73% in each group, p=0.6, and 4-y overall survival (OS) was 94% (95% CI 91-98) in the BR group versus ( v) 82% (95% CI 75-90) in the Ibr group, p=0.01. In a bivariate analysis adjusting for age and the treatment type, only age emerged as a predictor for OS (HR 7.2, p=0.0001). Therefore, a 1:1 age-matched analysis of 246 pts who received Ibr (n=123) or BR (n=123) was performed. Pts with a known MYD88WT status who had received Ibr and their age matched controls on BR were excluded. The international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) WM was comparable between the 2 groups (Table). A higher proportion of pts on BR attained very good partial or deeper response (≥VGPR) as the best response in comparison to the pts on Ibr (Table). The 4-y PFS for the BR and Ibr groups was similar [72% (95% CI 63-82) v 78% (95% CI 70-87), p=0.14] and 4-y OS was 95% (95% CI 91-99) with BR v 86% (95% CI 80-93) with Ibr (p=0.3). Premature discontinuation, during active treatment, due to adverse effects (AEs) or lack of response was noted in 13% and 33% of pts on BR and Ibr, respectively. A detailed assessment of the AEs will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Both BR and Ibr lead to comparable outcomes in pts with TN WM, although deeper responses are attained with BR. These findings require confirmation in prospective studies. For pts who harbor MYD 88L265P mutation, selection between the 2 approaches should be dictated by their potential toxicities, pt comorbidities, pt/clinician preference (parenteral fixed-duration v continuous oral) and access to therapies. [Table: see text]

7556 Background: The majority of R/R NHL progressions after CART involve pre-existing sites, suggesting a promising role for bridging radiotherapy (bRT). We assessed the local control rate of disease sites bridged with radiotherapy prior to CART and identified predictors of in-field recurrence. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients with aggressive B-cell NHL who received bRT between leukapheresis and CART infusion between 2018 and 2021 at a multi-site single institution. bRT local control rate (LC), calculated based on the total number of irradiated sites, was defined from bRT end date. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall-survival (OS) were defined from the date of CART infusion. In-field recurrence was defined as disease relapse occurring within the radiation planning target volume. Kaplan-Meier plots and cox regression modeling were used to estimate the desired output. Results: Median age of the cohort at time of CART infusion was 59 (range 19-73). The median equivalent 2 Gy dose (EQD2) administered was 23.3 Gy (range 4-41 Gy). The median time from end of bRT to CART infusion was 14 days (range 6-42). Five (14%) patients also received bridging chemotherapy with bRT. Among the 34 evaluable patients, 30 (88%) achieved an objective response (59% complete response and 29% partial response). At a median follow-up of 12 months, 1-year PFS was 48% and 1-year OS was 72%. No progression occurred beyond 240 days. On review of treatment plans and pre-treatment PET/CT scans, 59 sites were identified that received bRT prior to CART infusion. The median size and SUVmax of the irradiated sites were 8.7cm (range 1.5-22) and 13 (range 4-46), respectively. Of the 59 irradiated sites, 8 sites (13.6%) in 7 patients had in-field local recurrence, translating to 1-year LC of 84%. No in-field recurrence occurred beyond 180 days. Moreover, no local recurrence occurred in patients who received radiation to all known sites of active disease to EQD2> 30 Gy (n = 4 patients); these patients remained in remission except for 1 who experienced progression outside the bRT field. On univariate analysis, triple hit lymphoma (THL) (OR 22.8, 95% CI: 3.8-138.3; p < 0.001), tumor size (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.1-1.4; p < 0.001), specifically ≥ 9cm (OR 9.4, CI: 1.2-77.3; p = 0.036) and SUVmax (OR 1.1, CI: 1.02-1.15; p = 0.008), specifically ≥ 20 (OR 5.6, CI: 1.3-23.7; p = 0.018), were significantly associated with increased risk of in-field recurrence. On multivariate analysis, THL (OR 32.9, CI: 3.2-336.0; p = 0.03) and tumor size (OR 1.3, CI: 1.1-1.6; p = 0.01) retained significant association with in-field recurrence. Conclusions: Bridging radiotherapy prior to CART provides excellent and durable in-field local control for R/R B-cell NHL. Patients with triple hit histology and bulky disease are likely at higher risk of in-field recurrence and may benefit from higher doses of bRT.

1512 Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices adopted telehealth, including telephone and video appointments. Following a period of initial expansion that began in March 2020, sustained telehealth integration has emerged across the Mayo Clinic Cancer Practice (MCCP) in 2021. The primary objective of this study was to identify factors associated with utilization of telehealth appointments. Methods: A cross-sectional, multi-site, retrospective analysis was conducted across MCCP – a multisite, multiregional cancer practice with tertiary referral campuses in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona, as well as rural, community-based hospitals and clinics throughout the Upper Midwest. Multivariable models were used to examine the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization. Results: Outpatient appointments conducted in July – August 2019 (n = 32,932) were compared with those from 2020 (n = 33,662) and 2021 (n = 35,486). The rate of telehealth appointment utilization increased from <0.01% in 2019 to 11.0% in 2020 and 14.0% in 2021. The strongest provider-level predictor of telehealth utilization was female physician provider type (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11; P = 0.0297), a trend consistently observed across career stages, practice locations and settings in 2020 and 2021. Additionally, while the rate of telehealth utilization was not significantly different at referral and community-based campuses in 2020, providers at referral campuses were significantly more likely to utilize telehealth than community-based campuses in 2021 (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12; P = 0.0289). Regarding patient-level factors, rural residence (defined by Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes), which accounted for 44.2% of the patient population, was significantly associated with lower telehealth utilization as compared to patients with urban residences, particularly for video appointments (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.07; P < 0.0001). Notably, the disparity in telehealth utilization between rural and urban populations was found to be less pronounced in 2021 as compared to 2020. Conclusions: Multivariable analysis across a multi-site, multi-regional cancer practice identified several factors associated with increased telehealth utilization. These included female physician provider type, referral-based campuses, and patients residing in urban settings. A detailed understanding of the factors that influence telehealth utilization – a method of care delivery which represents a “new normal” across many cancer practices – will be essential to enable continued equitable access to high-quality, high-impact, patient-centered cancer care.

PURPOSE: Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year). CONCLUSION: Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.