Citations

Background: Disseminated marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is an indolent disease often observable at diagnosis with treatment indications similar to other indolent lymphomas. First-line therapy is typically rituximab alone or in combination with chemotherapy (e.g. bendamustine). Due to the long-life expectancy, avoiding alkylating agents to reduce bone marrow damage could be beneficial. In addition, a “chemotherapy free” option could have fewer and less severe complications. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) are active and approved or NCCN-recommended beyond first line therapy in MZL. Moreover, BTKi are approved for first line therapy in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia, a disease with both diagnostic and pathophysiologic overlap with MZL. We conducted a multicenter randomized trial of rituximab induction plus ibrutinib/placebo (RI vs RP) for patients with MZL in need of first line systemic therapy. Complete response (CR) rate at 30 months was the primary endpoint and progression free survival (PFS) was secondary. The target sample size was 63 in each arm. The study was closed after 22 eligible patients enrolled due to low accrual. Methods: Patients (pts) with either nodal, splenic or extranodal MZL were eligible. Prior surgery, radiation, antibiotic or antiviral therapy for MZL were allowed if followed by disease progression requiring treatment. Documented evidence of need for treatment included, but was not limited to, threatened end-organ function, bulky disease (>5 cm), symptoms, requirement for transfusion or growth factor support, or significant need for intervention. Transformation to DLBCL was excluded prior to entry including bone marrow assessment. Randomization occurred prior to rituximab weekly x 4 to either daily placebo (RP) or ibrutinib (RI) 560 mg starting on day 1 and continued until disease progression (PD), intolerance or CR at 30 months. Those with partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) at 30 months could continue placebo or ibrutinib. CR assessment required both a negative FDG-PET and bone marrow biopsy. RESULTS: 22 pts enrolled (Feb 2020-March 2023) with baseline characteristics including: median age 67 years (35-78) and White race 17. Stage II (3), III/IV (17). Subtype: splenic 16, nodal 4, extranodal 2. Prior therapy: splenectomy 1, radiation 0, other surgery 0, antiviral/antibiotic 0. Median maximal tumor dimension was 3.7 cm (range 1.6-23.6); with >5 cm in 9 pts. Median time from diagnosis to treatment was 32 days (5-4712 with only 3 > 1 year). 11 pts were randomized to each arm. Responses: RP: 3 CR, 4 PR, 3 SD, 1 inevaluable; RI: 7 CR, 4 PR. No patient achieved CR30, but 3 had CR at 29 months: 2 RP, 1 RI. With a median follow up of 35 months (13-50), the median PFS by Log Rank was 14 mo (RP) vs 29 (RI), though this difference was not statistically significant in the setting of small numbers. Treatment was well tolerated. Only 1 pt experienced grade 3 events at least possibly related: hypoxia and dyspnea. This was attributed to COVID-19 and occurred on the RP arm. 1 CR patient with baseline clonal hematopoiesis developed myelodysplasia. Treatment improved baseline activities in 4/5 pts (1 RP, 3 RI). Baseline pain improved in 8 pt: 4 RP, 4 RI. All pts were alive at the data cuff off. Conclusions: This study is a chemotherapy free frontline trial in MZL and the first to utilize ibrutinib in frontline MZL. All pts received rituximab induction and were randomized at entry to RP vs RI. The COVID-19 pandemic affected site activation and accrual, ultimately contributing to low accrual and early study termination. Nonetheless, the results suggest a marked difference in median PFS favoring the RI arm, although small numbers preclude a statistically significant result. Notably, our results are qualitatively similar to those of Dimopoulos (NEJM, 2018) in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia, a disease with similar characteristics to MZL. In that study, the median PFS by Log Rank was 20 months (RP) vs not reached (RI); and 30-month PFS 28% (RP) vs 82% (RI). (Hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.20; P<0.001). Further, our trial supports pursing a chemotherapy free first line approach in MZL.

Abstract Rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) is considered the standard-of-care for patients with advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), despite findings that patients with nongerminal center B-cell like (non-GCB) have significantly worse outcome with this regimen. We evaluated the prognostic significance of baseline risk factors, including cell of origin (COO) classified by the Hans algorithm, within an alternative chemoimmunotherapy program. At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), 151 patients with DLBCL received sequential R-CHOP induction and (R)-ICE (rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide) consolidation. Outcome analysis based on COO was validated with a propensity score–matched cohort treated with R-CHOP from the Mayo Clinic component of the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER). Among the patients with GCB (n = 69) and non-GCB (n = 69) at MSK, event-free survival (EFS) of non-GCB was superior to that of GCB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.98). Overall survival (OS) demonstrated an association in the same direction but was not statistically significant (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42). Propensity score–matched patients from MSK (n = 108) demonstrated a small attenuation in the HRs for EFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.27-1.18) and OS (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.33-1.79) and were no longer statistically significant. In contrast, the matched MER cohort (n = 108) demonstrated an EFS association (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.70-1.95) and OS association (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.64-2.00) in the opposite direction, but were also not statistically significant. R-CHOP induction and (R)-ICE consolidation may overcome the negative prognostic impact of the non-GCB phenotype, per the Hans algorithm, and can be preferentially selected for this population. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT00039195 and #NCT00712582.

Multiple CD19-directed therapies are available for the treatment of relapsed and refractory (R/R) DLBCL, including CAR T cells, tafasitamab/lenalidomide (TL), and loncastuximab tesirine (lonca-T) (Sermer D., Blood Rev 2023). However, there are few data available on the efficacy of sequential CD19-directed therapies. We performed a retrospective study evaluating all patients with R/R LBCL treated consecutively with TL at 11 institutions from 8/2020 to 8/2022, identifying 178 patients. In this study, we specifically evaluate outcomes in patients who received anti-CD19 therapy prior to or after TL. The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival (PFS) in TL recipients who previously received CD19-directed CAR T therapy, with overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR), and overall survival (OS) also evaluated. Outcomes of lonca-T and CAR T after TL therapy were evaluated. Data on CD19 expression was assessed on biopsies after TL; this was determined locally using flow cytometry or immunohistochemistry per institutional protocols. In subgroup analyses, ORR and CRR were compared using Fisher's exact test. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, with differences tested using the log-rank test. Of 178 patients who received TL, 52 had received prior anti-CD19 CAR T therapy, at a median of 7.4 months before TL (Table 1). Median PFS was lower in prior CAR T recipients (1.6 mo, 95% CI 1.1-2.5) vs no prior CAR T (2.1 mo, 95% CI 1.8-3.2), with hazard ratio 1.46 (p = 0.04; Figure 1). Best ORR was lower in patients with prior CAR T exposure (15% vs 33%, p = 0.02) though CRR was not significantly different (15% vs 18%, p = 1.0). We specifically evaluated TL outcomes based on prior response to CAR T, given the previously identified association of refractory disease with poor TL outcomes (Qualls D et al., presented at ASH 2022). Of 19 patients who had progressive disease more than 6 months after CAR T, ORR and CRR to TL therapy were 31.6% (all responses were CRs); in 33 patients with refractory disease (less than CR or relapse within 6 months) after CAR T, ORR and CRR to TL were significantly lower, at 6.1% (p = 0.04). Median PFS after TL was shorter in CAR-refractory than CAR-relapsed disease, at 1.4 vs 3.5 months (HR 2.2, p = 0.02). Of 88 patients who received therapy after TL, 20 (23%) received lonca-T and 14 (16%) received CAR T. Data on survival and initiation of new treatment after CAR T or lonca-T was available, but response and progression data after CAR T or lonca-T therapy is pending. These data allowed an estimate of OS and event-free survival (EFS), defined as survival without initiation of a new treatment after CAR T or lonca-T. With a median 3.9 months' follow-up, median EFS after CAR T administration was 3.7 months (95% CI, 0.9 - 6.5), and median OS was 8.1 months (95% CI, 0.6 - 15.7). In patients who received lonca-T, with median 2.7 months' follow-up from initiation, median EFS was 2.8 months (95% CI, 0.9 - 4.7), and median OS was 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.2 - 5.7). When comparing CAR T and lonca-T to polatuzumab vedotin- or chemotherapy-based therapies after TL, there were no significant differences in OS or EFS. In patients who discontinued TL, 24 had a biopsy a median of 18 days after the last dose of tafasitamab. Of these, 13 (54%) were CD19-positive and 11 (46%) were CD19-negative. All samples obtained more than 21 days after tafasitamab (6/6) were CD19-positive, while 46% obtained within 21 days were CD19-positive. These time-dependent findings may reflect “epitope masking” by tafasitamab rather than CD19 loss, reflecting other recent reports (Fitzgerald K., Leuk Lym 2022; Duell J., Leuk Lym 2022). In patients receiving TL after CAR T, responses and PFS were lower than in patients without prior CAR T therapy; however, with disease that was not refractory to prior CAR T, results were similar to patients who had not had prior CAR T. This may reflect that refractory disease, regardless of prior therapy, is associated with shorter PFS, though the possibility of CD19-mediated mechanisms of resistance remains. Modest EFS and OS were seen in patients receiving CAR T therapy or lonca-T after already receiving TL, though this may also reflect the high-risk disease characteristics of this cohort. Overall, in a high-risk, real-world cohort of TL-treated patients, these data suggest that some patients may benefit from subsequent CD19-directed therapies, but better therapeutic options are needed.

Abstract In this real-world evaluation of tafasitamab-lenalidomide (TL) in relapsed or refractory LBCL, patients receiving TL had higher rates of comorbidities and high-risk disease characteristics, and substantially lower progression-free survival and overall survival, compared with the L-MIND registration clinical trial for TL.

12100 Background: The safety profiles of novel agents are mainly based on clinician-reported adverse events (AEs) from clinical trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may better represent the treatment burden experienced by patients (pts) compared with clinician-reported AEs. Using data from POLARIX, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 3 international study (NCT03274492), we previously presented PRO and clinician-reported data showing similar rates of neuropathy (Trněný et al. 2022). Here, we evaluate the reporting of other common symptoms using PRO and clinician-reported data in POLARIX. Methods: POLARIX methods were previously described (Tilly et al. 2022); this analysis included all pts with PRO data. PRO and clinician-reported data described the incidence and severity of fatigue, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Clinician-reported severity grading was based on the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) v4.0. PROs were collected using the European Organisation Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-Core 30 questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), which was administered to pts at clinic visits on Day 1 of Cycles 1 (baseline), 2, 3, and 5, and end of treatment (EOT). PRO severity scores included ‘A little’, ‘Quite a bit’, and ‘Very much’. Results: Overall, 825 pts were evaluable. From baseline to EOT, PROs showed a higher incidence of symptoms compared with clinicians for fatigue (98% vs 27%), constipation (68% vs 29%), diarrhea (56% vs 26%), nausea (58% vs 40%), and vomiting (24% vs 15%). PRO severity scores of ‘Quite a bit’ or ‘Very much’ were reported in 33% of pts for fatigue, 29% for constipation, 17% for diarrhea, 19% for nausea, and 7% for vomiting. Clinicians reported Grade ≥2 symptoms in 11% of pts for fatigue, 11% for constipation, 11% for diarrhea, 14% for nausea, and 6% for vomiting. Conclusions: In POLARIX, pts reported a higher incidence and severity of symptoms compared with clinicians. Although distinct scales were used, the differences in symptom rates reported by pts and clinicians were clinically meaningful. These data may have implications for symptom management, including physician evaluation and communication of symptom expectations for pts. Reporting of symptoms by PROs should be incorporated into clinical trials as an adjunct to standard AE reporting to better characterize the patient experience. Clinical trial information: NCT03274492 . [Table: see text]