Citations

Abstract During the manufacturing period of autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, patients may experience a decline in their condition due to cancer progression. In this study, we investigated the impact of bridging therapy (BT) on the outcome of patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received antilymphoma treatment between leukapheresis and axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) infusion. We conducted our analysis using data from the multicenter US Lymphoma CAR-T Consortium, with a median follow-up of 33 months (range, 4.3-42.1). Out of the 298 patients who underwent leukapheresis, 275 patients received axi-cel. A total 52% of patients (n = 143) who received BT had a higher baseline risk profile than patients who did not receive BT, and these patients, as a group, had inferior outcomes compared with those who did not receive BT. However, after propensity score matching between the 2 groups, there were no statistically significant differences in overall response rate (77% vs 87%; P = .13), complete response rate (58% vs 70%; P = .1), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; P = .23), and overall survival (HR, 1.39; P=.09) between the BT group and the no-BT group, respectively. Analyzing the effects of BT in the whole cohort that underwent leukapheresis regardless of receiving axi-cel (intention-to-treat analysis) showed similar results. Radiation BT resulted in outcomes similar to those observed with nonradiation BT. Our findings suggest that BT may be safe without a significant impact on long-term survival for patients who require disease stabilization during the manufacturing period. Moreover, our results suggest that there is no clear advantage to using radiation-based BT over nonradiation-based BT.

Background: First-line therapies for chronic-phase (CP) CML include the tyrosine kinase inhibitors(TKIs) dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib or imatinib, while ponatinib and asciminib are indicated only in later lines. There are typically high response rates to first-line therapy in CP-CML, with responses to second- and third-line therapy lower and highly dependent on the specific TKI. Our goal in this study is to evaluate the role of ponatinib in the treatment of patients with CML using data from routine clinical practice. Study design and methods: Data will come from the H. Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium (HJKC3) CML registry, a North American multi-site research database. Participating sites include the HJKC3 members (curecml.org). Patient inclusion criteria include a diagnosis CML in chronic phase, receiving second line therapy after initial therapy with a second generation TKI (dasatinib, nilotinib, or bosutinib) or receiving third or later line TKI therapy for CML. Participating patients provide consent to collect their data both retrospectively and prospectively for 1 year. Clinical data, including toxicities and complications of TKI therapy, are abstracted from the electronic health record. Participating patients are invited to complete a questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life. Data are managed using REDCap, a secure web application. Study Objectives: The primary objective is to compare the outcome of patients treated with ponatinib vs. other TKIs as second or later line therapy. Secondary objectives are to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for CML treated with second or later line therapy and to determine if there are any patient or disease characteristics that can predict outcomes. Statistical plan for clinical outcomes: Descriptive statistics will be used to compare baseline demographic characteristics. Categorical variables will be compared using the Chi-square test. Continuous variables will be compared using ANOVA. Overall survival will be calculated from the time of diagnosis to death from any cause and patients will be censored if they were alive at the last follow-up. Survival probabilities will be computed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-ranktest. Cox regression analyses will be used to determine significant factors that influence survival, and hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals will be presented. Event free survival (EFS) and transformation free survival (TFS) will be calculated for patients. For EFS, loss of complete hematologic remission, loss of major cytogenetic response, progression to accelerated or blast phase, or death from any cause at any time will be considered an event. For TFS, transformation to accelerated or blast phase while on therapy or death on study will be considered an event. Statistical plan for PRO: Different PRO domains will be analyzed separately (for example, depression separate from fatigue, etc.). Descriptive statistics for each PRO measure will be reported and compared to previously published studies. Differences by treatment type will be evaluated.

Introduction: In Cohorts 1+2 of the ZUMA-1 Phase 1/2 study of axi-cel in R/R LBCL, 11% and 31% of patients (pts) experienced Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or neurologic evenets), respectively. To minimize the toxicities seen with axi-cel, a safety management cohort, Cohort 6 (N=40), was added to evaluate whether prophylactic (ppx) corticosteroids (CS) could decrease grade ≥ 3 CRS or ICANS. The 2-year update of ZUMA-1 Cohort 6 showed no grade ≥3 CRS and 15% grade ≥3 ICANS without any difference in objective response rate (ORR) or complete response rate (CR) when compared to cohorts 1+2 (Oluwole Blood 2022). The FDA had previously approved an update to the prescribing information for axi-cel to include use of ppx CS across all approved indications in January 2022. However, ppx CS is not a mandatory standard treatment and we sought to establish the clinical outcomes in the real-world practice. Methods: To assess the clinical outcomes of pts receiving ppx CS, we conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of pts with R/R LBCL who were treated with axi-cel since the FDA approval of ppx CS in January 2022. Baseline characteristics, toxicities, and efficacy were compared between the no ppx and ppx CS groups. CRS and ICANS were graded based on ASTCT 2019 guidelines. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from axi-cel infusion to progression, re-treatment, or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from axi-cel infusion to death due to any cause. Results: A total of 66 pts at 5 centers received axi-cel between Jan 31, 2022, and June 20, 2023. Thirty-five (52%) pts received ppx CS, with a median age of 63 years (26-85 years). By histology, 75% (n=50) of the pts had DLBCL, 13.6% (n=9) had high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL), 9.1% (n=6) had transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL) and 1.5% (n=1) primary mediastinal LBCL (PMBCL). 59% of the pts (n=37) had IPI >2 and 66% (n=43) had stage III/IV disease. The baseline characteristics at the time of apheresis are shown in Table 1 and were comparable between the 2 groups, except for more HGBL, fewer prior lines of therapy and longer median time from apheresis to axi-cel infusion in the ppx CS group. Among the entire cohort, only 37% (n=25) met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria at the time of lymphodepletion, and 67% (n=44) needed bridging therapy. Any grade CRS occurred in 88% (n=58) of the pts, with grade ≥2 CRS in 38% (n=25). Any grade ICANS occurred in 55% (n=37) of the pts, with grade ≥2 ICANS in 41% (n=27). Any grade ICANS was significantly lower in the ppx CS group than the no ppx group (45.7% vs 65.5%). The rates of any grade CRS, grade ≥2 CRS, grade ≥2 ICANS, the median time to CRS onset, ICANS onset, CRS duration, and ICANS duration were comparable between the 2 groups. Tocilizumab and steroids use was similar between two groups with a trend towards less ICU admission in patients in the ppx CS group. Overall, 14 (21%) pts developed infectious complications within 30 days of axi-cel infusion. The day 30 ORR was 84% and was comparable between the 2 groups (77% in the ppx group vs 93% in the no ppx group). The CR was 45.7% in ppx CS group compared to 65.5% in no ppx group. At a median follow up of 219 days (27-1178), 37 (56.1%) pts had progressed and 25 (37.9%) pts had died. The number of days to progress was significantly lower in the ppx CS arm. The median EFS and OS were not significant between the 2 groups. Conclusions: This multicenter retrospective study showed that the efficacy of treatment with axi-cel in R/R LBCL did not decrease with the use of ppx CS. No significant differences in efficacy or CAR-T-associated toxicities were noted in the 2 groups, potentially due to selective use with patients at presumed higher risk of severe CRS and ICANS. A larger dataset and longer follow-up is needed for risk-stratified analysis and the study is ongoing.

Background and significance: There are typically high response rates to first line TKI therapies in chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML). However, responses in later lines (second line and beyond) are diminished and highly dependent on the specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used. Asciminib received FDA approval in October 2021 for the treatment of adult patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) CML-CP who were previously treated with two or more TKIs, and in patients with Ph+ CML-CP with the T315I mutation. Our goal in this study is to evaluate the role of asciminib therapy for patients with CML beyond clinical studies, in routine clinical practice. Study Design and methods: Data for this study will be abstracted from the HJKC3 (H. Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium) CML registry project (HJKC3-0005); the HJKC3 CML Registry is a collaborative academic multi-site registry. Patients will be consented to allow collection of both retrospective and prospective data for the HJKC3 CML Registry. The data forms and surveys will be built and managed through the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web application managed by the Clinical & Translational Science Institute. Participating sites include members of the HJKC3 (curecml.org). This study will be an opportunity to evaluate asciminib usage in ‘real-world’ academic practices across the United States. This observational study will include cohorts of patients diagnosed with CP-CML previously treated with two or more tyrosine kinase inhibitors and/or receiving asciminib and/or those with a T315I mutation, not currently enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. The HJKC3 CML Registry intends to collect clinical and patient reported outcome (PRO) data. After obtaining patient consent, patients will be invited to complete PRO assessments. The study will attempt to collect PRO data regardless of disease or treatment status. PRO assessments will be primarily administered online, though study staff will offer alternatives (e.g., phone) for participants without internet access. Study subjects will be emailed a link to access a secure platform hosted by one of the study sites, Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW), using the REDCap platform. Study Objectives: The primary objective of the study is to describe characteristics of patients who were previously treated with two or more TKIs and treated with asciminib or with any other TKIs. The secondary objectives are to describe the clinical outcomes and PRO of those patients. Exploratory objectives include description of characteristics, treatment outcome and PRO for patients with T315I mutation. Statistical plan: The sample size of approximately 225 participants during the 5-year recruitment period is based on the available clinical expertise and ongoing recruitment data in the HJKC3 CML registry in lieu of statistical power analysis. We estimate that 150 patients in the HJKC3 CML registry will be treated with other TKI and 75 treated with asciminib. Among a total of 225 patients, we estimate that 75 patients with the T315I mutation will be enrolled in the registry. No formal statistical inference will be drawn to compare the outcomes between these two groups. Bayesian predictive probability (PP) will be utilized for the exploratory analysis of Major Molecular Response (MMR). Survival probabilities will be computed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the p-values from the log-rank test will be provided. Different PRO domains of the patient's symptoms and functioning will be analyzed separately (e.g., depression separate from fatigue, separate from GI symptoms, etc.) since combining them into a summary score may dilute the effects of the individual (and not necessarily related) components and mask actual change. The main objective for the analyses of PRO data from the registry is to describe any differences by treatment type in patients treated with asciminib and other TKIs.

Background: For patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)-the most common form of leukemia in older adults-equitable access to care is particularly challenging, as the disease is often diagnosed in community cancer centers encumbered by regional disparities. Therefore, identifying and understanding regional barriers to care is essential. In 2020, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a heat map detailing the incidence rate of CLL diagnoses across the country (Fig.1), overlayed with the locations of CLL “expert” providers, revealing the areas in the US most in need of additional CLL clinical expertise (Fig. 2). In 2022, these incidence rates were stratified by race, ethnicity, and metropolitan statistical area to identify disparities Building on these maps, ACCC set out to identify specific regional challenges to appropriate, equitable care for patients with CLL. Methods: As part of an independent education program, ACCC initiated conversations with providers about the regional barriers that patients with CLL face. Through 4 webinars in February 2023, participants from 4 regions-Northeast (New York and Maine), Northwest (Montana and Idaho), Midwest (Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa), and Southwest (Texas)-shared insights on challenges and exchanged ideas on strategies to improve care for patients with CLL. In addition, ACCC interviewed 3 regionally diverse cancer programs (from the US Northwest, South, and Southwest regions) that are effectively overcoming regional challenges to reach their patient populations and provide equitable care. These interviews highlighted barriers and challenges, showcased effective outreach campaigns, and explored how the outreach improved the patient journey. Findings: The following themes emerged as key challenges and potential solutions throughout all regions studied: (1) Comprehensive Diagnostic Work-up Before Treatment Initiation: A key component in caring for patients with CLL is identifying certain disease related criteria prior to formulating a treatment plan. This includes determining the disease burden, disease-related symptoms, and if the patient meets certain active disease criteria (eg, Binet Stage C or Rai Stage III or IV). Further, by utilizing genetic testing, such as the TP53 gene mutation and IGHV mutation tests, physicians can estimate time to treatment and choice of specific novel targeted therapies. (2) Understanding Patient Population Needs: Cancer programs must understand the needs of their unique patient populations to effectively address them. For example, in the Northwest, as mountainous passes can make travel dangerous at times, one local program utilizes near-campus housing/hotel space for patients for the duration of their intensive treatment. In the Southwest, addressing health insurance coverage, low health literacy, language barriers, patient-provider mistrust, and culturally competent care for undocumented individuals presents challenges to equitable care delivery. Therefore, cancer programs in this region have implemented protocols to utilize community and social services to help support these patients. (3) Developing Community Partnerships: As the median age of diagnosis with CLL is approximately 70 years old, barriers such as transportation availability, caregiver support and financial constraints could be magnified. Building trust, particularly among vulnerable communities, also presents a significant challenge. By partnering with community outreach organizations, programs can help address these issues through community resources such as ride share programs, transportation vouchers, and financial assistance programs. (4) Provider Education and Learning: Because many patients are diagnosed in community cancer programs and smaller practices where physicians do not often have experience with CLL, nationally available provider education on new developments in testing and treatments is key. Conclusions: ACCC identified regional challenges and solutions to appropriate and equitable care for patients with CLL, including the importance of comprehensive diagnostic work-up before treating, understanding the regional needs of patient populations (particularly underserved populations), building community partnerships, and engaging in targeted provider education.

Background: Hematological toxicity is a frequent side effect of CAR-T therapy and predisposes for severe infectious complications. Recently, the EHA/EBMT consensus grading for Immune Effector Cell Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) was developed ( Rejeski et al. Blood 2023). In contrast to existing grading systems such as the CTCAE, the novel ICAHT grading integrates both the depth and duration of neutropenia. We hypothesized that ICAHT severity is associated with key clinical sequelae such as transfusion requirements, hospitalization, severe infections, and adverse treatment outcomes. Methods: We applied the novel grading of early ICAHT (day 0-30) to a multicenter retrospective real-world cohort of 549 patients treated with BCMA- or CD19-directed CAR T-cells for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies (334 large B-cell lymphoma [LBCL], 112 multiple myeloma [MM], 103 mantle cell lymphoma [MCL]) across twelve international sites (Germany, France, Spain, USA). Hematotoxicity endpoints included the total cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (ANC <500/µL, day 0-60) and phenotypes of neutrophil recovery ( Rejeski et al. Blood 2021). Infections were studied until day +90 after CAR-T and were graded on a 5-grade scale as mild, moderate, severe, life-threatening, or fatal. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was defined as death following CAR-T without evidence of relapse or progression. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared using log-rank test. Results: Our study cohort included 424 patients without severe ICAHT (absent or grade 1-2) and 125 patients with severe ICAHT (grade 3-4). The distribution of mild (1°), moderate (2°), severe (3°) and life-threatening (4°) ICAHT was 36%, 29%, 17%, and 5%. Seventy patients (13%) did not develop ICAHT of any grade. When comparing ICAHT grades across disease entities, we noted a numeric trend towards increased severe ICAHT in MCL compared to LBCL or MM patients (Grade ≥3: 28% vs. 23% vs. 15%). Patients that subsequently developed severe ICAHT displayed elevated serum inflammatory markers and pronounced cytopenia at baseline - reflected by increased CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (median 3 vs. 1, p<0.0001). On multivariate binary logistic regression, co-stimulatory domain (CD28z), low platelet count, low ANC, low hemoglobin, increased serum ferritin, and the presence of bone marrow infiltration were independent risk factors for severe ICAHT. We noted a strong positive correlation between ICAHT severity and the cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (r=0.92, p<0.0001). The aplastic phenotype of neutrophil recovery was enriched in patients with grade 3 (73%) and especially grade 4 ICAHT (100%). Severe ICAHT was also associated with coincident multilineage cytopenias, resulting in increased transfusion requirements for both platelets (85% vs. 21%, p<0.0001) and red blood cells (86% vs. 41%, p<0.0001). In terms of management of hematotoxicity, the severe ICAHT group more commonly received G-CSF (72% vs. 44%, p=0.01), TPO mimetics (12% vs. 2%, p<0.0001) and hematopoietic stem cell boosts (6% vs. 0.2%, p<0.0001). Importantly, patients with severe ICAHT displayed a significantly increased rate of severe infections (49% vs. 13%, p<0.0001, Fig. 1a) and severe bacterial infections (36% vs. 8%, p<0.0001). This translated into a markedly increased 1-year NRM rate (14% vs. 4.5%, logrank p<0.0001, Fig. 1b), which was primarily attributed to fatal infections of fungal or bacterial origin. Of note, the ICAHT grading showed superior discrimination for severe infections (C-index 0.73, 95%CI: 0.67-0.78) compared to CTCAE grading (C-index 0.55, n.s.). Prolonged hospitalization was noted in case of severe ICAHT (median 21 vs. 16 days, p<0.0001) and intensive care admission was more common (23% vs. 4%, p<0.001). Finally, we observed inferior PFS (1-year PFS 35% vs. 51%, median 4 vs. 14 months, p<0.0001) and inferior OS (1-year OS 52% vs. 73%, median 12 months vs. not-reached, p<0.0001) in the patients that developed severe ICAHT. Conclusions: These data highlight the clinical relevance of the novel EHA/EBMT ICAHT grading system. Importantly, ICAHT severity was closely associated with transfusion dependence, increased infection incidence, and adverse treatment outcomes with high NRM. Taken together, these findings argue for reporting ICAHT grades in clinical trials evaluating established and novel CAR constructs.

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) has revolutionized the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Despite having an increased risk of NHL, patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (AID) were excluded from pivotal CAR-T trials due to concerns that CAR-T may exacerbate AID. As a result, there are limited data on the safety and efficacy of CAR-T for NHL in patients with AID. Interestingly, there is also growing evidence that CAR-T can be therapeutically effective for AID, such as in the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). As CAR-T utilization for NHL increases, it is essential to characterize the safety and efficacy of this potentially curative therapy in patients with AID. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of AID on outcomes in patients treated with commercial CD19-targeted CAR-T for NHL. Methods: Following Institutional Review Board approval, we conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients who were treated with commercial CD19-targeted CAR-T for NHL and had a pre-existing AID across the Mayo Clinic Enterprise (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota) between January 2018 and May 2023. Variables collected included age, gender, NHL type, AID type, and CAR-T product. Efficacy outcomes, including response rates at 6 and 12 months after CAR-T, were collected. Toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), were collected and analyzed. Our chart review for AID included SLE, sarcoidosis, ulcerative colitis, celiac disease, pernicious anemia, Crohn's disease, psoriasis, Sjogren's syndrome, hypothyroidism (Hashimoto's disease), hyperthyroidism (Graves' disease), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), vasculitis, scleroderma, and mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD). Results: A total of 235 patients who received commercial CD19-targeted CAR-T for NHL across the Mayo Clinic Enterprise were identified (Table 1). Of these 235 patients, 27 had a pre-existing AID and 208 did not. The median age was 66 years (range 39-81) for patients with AID and 59 years (range 18-88) for patients without AID. Over half of the patients were male (59% of patients with AID and 51% of patients without AID). The most common NHL type was diffuse large B cell lymphoma (41% of patients with AID and 56% of patients without AID). Most patients received axicabtagene ciloleucel (85% of patients with AID and 84% of patients without AID). The most common AID was hypothyroidism (81%, n=22), although other conditions were also identified, including RA (11%, n=3), SLE (4%, n=1), pulmonary sarcoidosis (4%, n=1), psoriasis (4%, n=1), and MCTD (4%, n=1). Two patients had more than one AID. Median follow-up was 18 months (range 1-36) for patients with AID and 14 months (range 2-49) for patients without AID. Six months after CAR-T, the complete response (CR) rate was 77.2% and 45.1% in patients with AID and without AID, respectively (p=0.0042). Twelve months after CAR-T, the CR rate was 50% and 31.4% in patients with AID and without AID, respectively (p=0.0801). CRS of any grade occurred in 78% and 88% of patients with and without AID, respectively. ICANS of any grade occurred in 41% and 54% of patients with and without AID, respectively. Conclusion: AID did not appear to adversely impact the safety or efficacy of CAR-T for NHL. Limitations of our study include the small number of patients with AID and the fact that the most common AID was hypothyroidism. Larger studies are warranted to confirm these findings. Additional data are needed to characterize the impact of CAR-T for NHL on AID outcomes and to describe the effect of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on NHL outcomes after CAR-T.

Introduction Indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM) is a rare clonal mast cell disease driven by the KIT D816V mutation in nearly all patients. Patients with ISM can present with debilitating acute and chronic cutaneous, gastrointestinal, neurocognitive, and systemic symptoms caused by the release of inflammatory mediators from abnormal mast cells. In some patients, symptoms are not adequately controlled with best supportive care (BSC) medications. Elenestinib (BLU-263) is a novel, investigational, oral, next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor that potently and selectively inhibits KIT D816V with limited central nervous system penetration and pharmacokinetics (PK) that support once daily dosing. HARBOR (NCT04910685) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 study assessing efficacy and safety of elenestinib in patients with ISM. Methods Eligible adult patients with ISM, confirmed following central review of bone marrow (BM) pathology, clinical, and laboratory findings per World Health Organization criteria and a moderate-to-severe symptom score based on minimum mean total symptom score (TSS) of the ISM-Symptom Assessment Form (ISM-SAF©2018), were stratified by baseline serum tryptase (<20 ng/mL vs ≥20 ng/mL) and randomly assigned 3:1 to elenestinib 25 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg once daily + BSC (“elenestinib”) or placebo + BSC (“placebo”). The primary objective of Part 1 was to determine the recommended dose based on safety, PK, and pharmacodynamics. Secondary endpoints included changes in biomarkers of disease burden (serum tryptase, KIT D816V variant allele fraction [VAF], and BM mast cells) and ISM-SAF TSS. Three additional open-label PK groups enrolled patients at 50 mg, 75 mg, and 100 mg to further characterize PK and safety. Results As of data cutoff on July 3, 2023, a total of 122 patients with ISM have received their assigned treatment in Part 1 of the study; 39 were blinded and randomized to elenestinib or placebo, and 83 were treated with open-label elenestinib in the PK groups (21 patients at 50 mg, 34 patients at 75 mg, and 28 patients at 100 mg). Baseline demographics were similar to those reported for the general ISM population. After 12 weeks of therapy, symptom improvement was observed for all dose cohorts, and symptom reduction by TSS was greater for patients on elenestinib versus placebo in the blinded portion of Part 1. Patients receiving elenestinib at 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg doses showed reduction (mean percent) from baseline for tryptase (-15.4%, -50.9%, and -68.4% vs 3.3%, respectively) and KIT D816VVAF (-37.5%, -70.3%, and -77.0% vs -2.5%, respectively) as compared to placebo. Similar reductions in TSS and disease-related biomarkers were observed in the open-label PK cohorts. After a median treatment duration of 35.3 weeks, elenestinib was well-tolerated at all dose levels. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events and no treatment-related adverse events that led to drug discontinuation. Conclusion Elenestinib at all tested doses demonstrated beneficial effects on disease-related symptoms and biomarkers of mast cell burden in this large and maturing cohort of patients with ISM with a moderate-to-severe symptom burden. Elenestinib was well tolerated across all dose levels with a promising early benefit-risk profile in ISM. These preliminary findings will inform dosing for the planned Part 2 of HARBOR, which will examine elenestinib versus placebo in a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled setting.

Background The therapeutic landscape of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has evolved significantly since the early 2000s. We previously reported that a shift in frontline immunochemotherapy choices from 2002−2009 to 2010−2015 was associated with improved event-free survival and overall survival (OS) in both younger (age ≤65) and older (age >65) patients in a prospective Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa cohort (Castellino, Blood Advances, 2022). In addition, we recently reported that changes in treatment for relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease over the last two decades were associated with steady improvements in OS for R/R MCL (Tawfiq, ASH, 2022). In this study, we utilized data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to investigate the impact of therapy in the modern era on survival outcomes of patients with MCL in the US since 2004. Methods The NCDB is an outcomes database of more than 1,500 hospital-based cancer registries covering approximately 70% of newly diagnosed cancers in the US. The latest version of NCDB was used to identify patients with newly diagnosed MCL from 2004 to 2020. Three treatment eras were defined as Era 1 (2004−2009), Era 2 (2010−2014), and Era 3 (2015−2020), based on immunochemotherapy changes (from Era 1 to Era 2) and increased access to novel agents such as Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors (from Era 2 to Era 3). Overall survival between different eras was stratified and analyzed based on 3 age groups: <65, 65−79, and ≥80 years. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and all Cox proportional hazards models were adjusted for age and sex. Results A total of 32,746 patients with newly diagnosed MCL was identified, 12,847 (39.2%) patients were age <65, 14,297 (43.7%) age 65−79, and 5,602 (17.1%) age ≥80. For every age group, the distributions in sex, stage, Charlson-Deyo score, and treatment facility type (academic vs non-academic) were largely similar between eras. As expected, the median OS was significantly worse for patients age ≥80 years (19.8 months) compared to patients age 65-79 years (60.9 months) and patients age <65 years (143.9 months; p <0.001). In patients age <65 years, OS in Era 2 was improved when compared to Era 1, with a 5-year OS rate of 72.1% vs 67.6% (logrank p<0.001) (Figure 1) and an age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.78−0.89, p<0.001). OS in Era 3 was similar to that in Era 2, with a 5-year OS rate of 72.2% vs 72.1% (logrank p=0.61) and an age- and sex-adjusted HR of 0.97 (95% CI 0.89−1.06, p=0.51). In patients age 65-79 years, similar trends in OS changes between eras were observed. The 5-year OS rate in Era 1, Era 2, and Era 3 was 43.3%, 52.8%, and 54.9%, respectively (p<0.001 comparing Era 2 vs Era 1, and p=0.05 comparing Era 3 vs Era 2). Age- and sex-adjusted HR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.78−0.87, p<0.001) comparing Era 2 vs Era 1 and 0.95 (95% CI 0.89−1.01, p=0.07) comparing Era 3 vs Era 2. In patients age ≥80 years, the improvement in OS from Era 1 to Era 2 was less prominent than other age groups. The 5-year OS rate was 22.9% vs 19.5% (p=0.03), and age- and sex-adjusted HR was 0.88 (95% CI 0.81−0.94, p<0.001). OS in Era 3 vs Era 2 was similar, with a 5-year OS rate of 23.1% vs 22.9% (logrank p=0.79) and an age- and sex-adjusted HR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.91−1.06, p=0.67). Conclusions This large NCDB study demonstrated that survival of patients with newly diagnosed MCL has improved over the last two decades. The results are consistent with our Mayo Clinic/University of Iowa prospective cohort study and confirm an improved OS after 2010, which was most likely driven by both frontline immunochemotherapy changes and better access to novel agents for R/R disease. The 5-year OS in patients diagnosed in 2015−2020 did not appear to be superior to those in 2010−2014, despite presumably having better access to novel agents such as BTK inhibitors in the R/R setting. This lack of a difference in OS may be partially due to short follow-up, but may also suggest that further improvement in frontline therapies by incorporating novel agents may be required to improve OS. The OS of patients age ≥80 years is limited and has only minimally improved after 2010, highlighting a significant unmet need for therapies with improved tolerability and efficacy in this age group.

Background Limited stage (stage I−II) disease is an uncommon presentation of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and its optimal management remains controversial. A British Columbia study (Leitch, Ann Oncol, 2003) and a Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) study (Murthy, Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk, 2014) suggested the importance of radiotherapy (RT). A National Cancer Database (NCDB) study in the pre-BTK inhibitor (BTKi) era showed that chemotherapy (Chemo) plus RT (Chemo+RT) improved overall survival (OS) compared to Chemo or RT alone (Gill, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2015). However, a retrospective International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group study (Dabaja, Ann Oncol, 2017) reported comparable OS with Chemo+RT vs Chemo or RT alone. The potential differences in OS with different frontline therapy modalities may be modified by subsequent therapies for relapsed or refractory (R/R) disease. In this study, we used the NCDB data to analyze frontline treatment patterns and outcomes of limited stage MCL in the pre-BTKi vs BTKi eras. Methods The NCDB was queried to identify patients with stage I−II MCL diagnosed in 2004−2020. Because the first BTKi ibrutinib was approved by the FDA for R/R MCL in November 2013, we defined 2004−2013 as pre-BTKi era and 2014−2020 as BTKi era. Frontline treatment modalities were categorized to RT alone, Chemo alone, or Chemo+RT. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results Among 32,746 patients with newly diagnosed MCL in 2004−2020, 3,836 (11.7%) presented with stage I−II disease, with 2,428 having treatment information available. For patients diagnosed in the pre-BTKi era (n = 2005), 195 (9.7%) received RT alone, 1472 (73.4%) received Chemo alone, and 338 (16.9%) received Chemo+RT. For patients diagnosed in the BTKi era (n = 423), 45 (10.6%) received RT alone, 320 (75.7%) received Chemo alone, and 58 (13.7%) received Chemo+RT. Patients in the RT alone group were older (P <0.001) and had more females (P <0.001), but there were no statistically significant differences in Charlson-Deyo score, international prognostic index, or treating facility type (academic vs non-academic). For patients with stage I disease, in the pre-BTKi era, patients treated with Chemo+RT (n = 182) had improved OS compared to those treated with RT alone (n = 141) or Chemo alone (n = 647), with a 5-year OS of 75.4% vs 71.8% vs 61.4% (P <0.001). Similar results were observed in the BTKi-era, with a 5-year OS of 83.6% vs 69.5% vs 62.9% (P <0.001) for patients treated with Chemo+RT (n = 31), RT alone (n = 30), or Chemo alone (n = 130), respectively. After adjusting for age and sex, Chemo+RT was associated with improved OS compared to Chemo alone (pre-BTKi era, HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.46−0.75, P <0.001; BTKi era, HR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.14−0.79, P = 0.013), but not compared to RT alone (pre-BTKi era, HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.23−1.68, P = 0.343; BTKi era, HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.56−1.05, P = 0.10) (Figure 1A). For patients with stage II disease, in the pre-BTKi era, patients treated with Chemo+RT (n = 156) had improved OS compared to those treated with RT alone (n = 54) or Chemo alone (n = 825), with a 5-year OS of 70.0% vs 47.3% vs 58.4% (P <0.001). In the BTKi-era, patients treated with Chemo+RT (n = 27) or RT alone (n = 15) both had improved OS compared to those treated with Chemo alone (n = 190), with a 5-year OS of 77.2% vs 78.8% vs 61.9% (P = 0.004) . After adjusting for age and sex, Chemo+RT was associated with improved OS compared to Chemo alone in BTKi era only (pre-BTKi era, HR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.67−1.07, P = 0.165; BTKi era, HR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.25−0.95, P = 0.034), but not compared to RT alone (pre-BTKi era, HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.53−1.13, P = 0.185; BTKi era, HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.35−2.67, P = 0.952) (Figure 1B). Conclusions Treatment pattern for limited stage MCL has not changed significantly from the pre-BTKi era to the BTKi era, with approximately 15% of patients receiving Chemo+RT, 10% RT alone and 75% Chemo alone. In the BTKi era, Chemo+RT appeared to be associated with better OS compared to Chemo alone but not compared to RT alone. Interpretation of the results requires caution because (1) patient numbers are small in Chemo+RT and RT alone groups, (2) longer follow-up may be needed, and (3) selection of therapy was not random, eg, patients receiving Chemo alone may have had higher disease burden such as bulky disease and/or non-contiguous stage II involvement but these details are not available in NCDB.