Citations

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.

Introduction: Historically, older patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL) were often deemed ineligible for curative-intent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) due to age and concern for increased toxicity related to comorbidities. We previously demonstrated in the pivotal ZUMA-7 study that older pts with R/R LBCL can safely receive axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) as second-line (2L) therapy with improved event-free survival (EFS), response rate, and quality of life compared with standard of care (SOC) based on results from the primary EFS analysis (Westin, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2023). At a median follow-up of 47.2 months (mo), results from the ZUMA-7 primary overall survival (OS) analysis demonstrated superior OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; stratified two-sided log-rank P=0.03; Westin, et al. N Engl J Med. 2023; NCT03391466). We now report updated efficacy and safety results from the primary OS analysis among ZUMA-7 pts aged ≥65 years (y) and ≥70 y. Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 to axi-cel or SOC (2-3 cycles of platinum-based chemoimmunotherapy; responding pts proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT). The primary OS analysis occurred 5 y after the first pt was randomized (01/25/2018) per protocol. Other endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment and safety. A planned subgroup analysis of pts aged ≥65 y was conducted in addition to an analysis for those ≥70 y. Multivariate analyses were performed to examine treatment efficacy with axi-cel compared with SOC after adjusting for multiple covariates, including sex, disease type, molecular subgroup, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), tumor burden, and age; strata for these analyses included second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI), and relapsed vs refractory disease. Exploratory analyses were conducted to determine the association between OS and axi-cel product characteristics for pts aged ≥65 y. Results: A total of 109 pts were included in the analysis (axi-cel: 51 were ≥65 y, 26 of whom were ≥70 y, maximum age was 80 y; SOC: 58 were ≥65 y, 27 of whom were ≥70 y, maximum age was 81 y). Compared with SOC pts at baseline, more axi-cel pts had high-risk features, including aaIPI 2-3, elevated LDH, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma. At a median follow-up of 46.6 mo, OS was prolonged in the axicel vs SOC arm in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.691; 95% CI, 0.401-1.190) and for those ≥70 y (HR, 0.330; 95% CI, 0.135-0.809). Similar results were observed using the piecewise Cox regression model. The median OS for axi-cel and SOC pts was 43.5 mo (95% CI, 20.9-not estimable [NE]) and 19.6 mo (95% CI, 12.3-NE), respectively, among those aged ≥65 y, and 24.7 mo (95% CI, 12.8-NE) and 11.2 mo (95% CI, 6.1-NE), respectively, among those aged ≥70 y. In the SOC arm, 57% and 52% of pts received subsequent cellular immunotherapy off protocol in pts aged ≥65 y and ≥70 y, respectively. Multivariate analyses demonstrated an even greater OS benefit with axi-cel over SOC when adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.526; 95% CI, 0.266-1.041) and in pts aged ≥70 y (HR, 0.184; 95% CI, 0.045-0.755). PFS assessed by investigator confirmed benefit of axi-cel over SOC in pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.406; 95% CI, 0.230-0.715) and in pts aged ≥70 y (HR, 0.206; 95% CI, 0.078-0.547). The median PFS for axi-cel and SOC pts was 28.7 mo (95% CI, 5.1-NE) and 5.0 mo (95% CI, 2.8-7.2), respectively, for those aged ≥65 y, and 11.4 mo (95% CI, 4.1-NE) and 2.7 mo (95% CI, 1.7-5.0), respectively, for those aged ≥70 y. No new treatment-related deaths occurred since the primary EFS analysis. There were no manufacturing failures for any pt who underwent leukapheresis. Similar associations between product characteristics and outcomes were observed among the elderly and overall populations, including improved OS associated with a greater (>median) proportion of juvenile or stem memory T-cell phenotype cells (CCR7+CD45RA+ T cells) in the axi-cel product among pts aged ≥65 y (HR, 0.369; 95% CI, 0.138-0.984). Conclusion: Axi-cel as 2L therapy prolonged survival over SOC in pts aged ≥65 y, including in pts aged ≥70 y. These findings confirm that age alone should not be a barrier for consideration of CAR T-cell therapy, supporting the use of axi-cel as a curative-intent 2L therapeutic option for older pts with R/R LBCL.

Background: Event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) after frontline immunochemotherapy (IC) is an important endpoint in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma, and patients who achieve EFS24 have similar survival compared to age- and sex-matched general population. The role of EFS24 in predicting subsequent survival has not been established in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), possibly due to perceived poor survival historically. In the last decade, the outcomes of MCL are improving in the evolving treatment landscape. In this international multicenter study, we investigated conditional survival and cause of death in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC in the older and more recent eras. Methods: Outcomes after frontline IC were evaluated in 5 independent cohorts that included over 3000 patients in total: Mayo/Iowa MER prospective cohort, BC Cancer retrospective population-based cohort, US 12-center retrospective cohort, Swedish Lymphoma Registry, and Danish National Lymphoma Registry. For each cohort, 2 treatment eras were defined based on cohort-specific shifts in treatment patterns (Table 1). Overall survival (OS) after diagnosis and after achieving EFS24 were compared to the background age- and sex-matched general population using a standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Cumulative incidences of cause-specific deaths were analyzed using a competing risk model. Results: In the MER cohort, patients treated in Era M1 (2002-2009; n=147) and Era M2 (2010-2015; n=153) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population. A lower SMR in Era M2 vs M1 (2.25 vs 3.46) suggests a narrower gap in OS compared to the general US population. Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. In Era M1, patients who achieved EFS24 still had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR=2.40, 95% CI 1.76-3.19), and lymphoma remained the leading cause of death. For patients in Era M2 who achieved EFS24, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was not statistically significant with current follow-up (SMR=1.43, 95% CI 0.93-2.09), and lymphoma was no longer the leading cause of death (Table 2). In the BC cohort, patients treated in Era B2 (6/2013-2019; n=188) vs Era B1 (2003-5/2013; n=250) had a narrower gap in OS compared to the general British Columbia population (SMR 4.53 vs 6.69). Lymphoma was the leading cause of death in both eras. For patients achieving EFS24, the gap in OS was narrower in Era B2 vs B1 (SMR 3.56 vs 4.99). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the single leading cause of death for patients in Era B1 but not in Era B2 (Table 2). In the US 12-center cohort, patients treated in Era U1 (2002-2011; n=312) and Era U2 (2012-2016; n=417) both had inferior OS compared to the general US population (SMR 2.68 and 2.92, respectively). In patients who achieved EFS24, with current follow up, the difference in OS compared to the general US population was statistically significant in Era U1 (SMR=2.01, 95% CI 1.50-2.64) but not in Era U2 (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 0.82-2.34). Lymphoma was not the leading cause of death after achieving EFS24 (Table 2). In the Swedish cohort, the gap in OS compared to the general Swedish population was narrower in Era S2 (2013-2018; n=439) vs S1 (2006-2012; n=442), both after frontline IC (SMR 4.8 vs 5.4) and after achieving EFS24 (SMR 2.6 vs 3.4). After achieving EFS24, lymphoma was the leading cause of death for patients in Era S1 but not in Era S2 (Table 2). In the Danish cohort, patients treated in Era D2 (2014-2020; n=370) vs Era D1 (2004-2013; n=461) had a slightly narrower gap in OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR 1.90 vs 2.10). For patients who achieved EFS24, those in Era D1 still had inferior OS compared to the general Danish population (SMR=1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.68), but the OS difference compared to the general Danish population in Era D2 was not statistically significant (SMR=1.27, 95% CI 0.92-1.72) with current follow-up (Table 2). Cause of death data were not available in this cohort. Conclusion: Survival in patients with MCL who achieved EFS24 after frontline IC improved in the more recent treatment era and moved closer to the background expected survival. After achieving EFS24, lymphoma-related mortality was no longer the leading cause of death in the more recent era. EFS24 following frontline treatment may become a critical endpoint for predicting subsequent outcomes in patients with MCL in the modern era.

Abstract In this multi-institutional retrospective study, we examined the characteristics and outcomes of 160 patients with high-grade B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (HGBL-NOS)—a rare category defined by high-grade morphologic features and lack of MYC rearrangements with BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements ("double hit"). Our results show that HGBL-NOS tumors are heterogeneous: 83% of patients had a germinal center B-cell immunophenotype, 37% a dual-expressor immunophenotype (MYC and BCL2 expression), 28% MYC rearrangement, 13% BCL2 rearrangement, and 11% BCL6 rearrangement. Most patients presented with stage IV disease, a high serum lactate dehydrogenase, and other high-risk clinical factors. Most frequent first-line regimens included dose-adjusted cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and etoposide, with rituximab and prednisone (DA-EPOCH-R; 43%); rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; 33%); or other intensive chemotherapy programs. We found no significant differences in the rates of complete response (CR), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall survival (OS) between these chemotherapy regimens. CR was attained by 69% of patients. PFS at 2 years was 55.2% and OS was 68.1%. In a multivariable model, the main prognostic factors for PFS and OS were poor performance status, lactate dehydrogenase >3 × upper limit of normal, and a dual-expressor immunophenotype. Age >60 years or presence of MYC rearrangement were not prognostic, but patients with TP53 alterations had a dismal PFS. Presence of MYC rearrangement was not predictive of better PFS in patients treated with DA-EPOCH-R vs R-CHOP. Improvements in the diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approaches beyond dose-intense chemotherapy are needed to overcome the unfavorable prognosis of patients with HGBL-NOS.

Abstract Purpose: Older patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) may be considered ineligible for curative-intent therapy including high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT). Here, we report outcomes of a preplanned subgroup analysis of patients ≥65 years in ZUMA-7. Patients and Methods: Patients with LBCL refractory to or relapsed ≤12 months after first-line chemoimmunotherapy were randomized 1:1 to axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel; autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy] or standard of care (SOC; 2–3 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy followed by HDT-ASCT). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Secondary endpoints included safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Results: Fifty-one and 58 patients aged ≥65 years were randomized to axi-cel and SOC, respectively. Median EFS was greater with axi-cel versus SOC (21.5 vs. 2.5 months; median follow-up: 24.3 months; HR, 0.276; descriptive P < 0.0001). Objective response rate was higher with axi-cel versus SOC (88% vs. 52%; OR, 8.81; descriptive P < 0.0001; complete response rate: 75% vs. 33%). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 94% of axi-cel and 82% of SOC patients. No grade 5 cytokine release syndrome or neurologic events occurred. In the quality-of-life analysis, the mean change in PRO scores from baseline at days 100 and 150 favored axi-cel for EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health, Physical Functioning, and EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale (descriptive P < 0.05). CAR T-cell expansion and baseline serum inflammatory profile were comparable in patients ≥65 and <65 years. Conclusions: Axi-cel is an effective second-line curative-intent therapy with a manageable safety profile and improved PROs for patients ≥65 years with R/R LBCL.

In phase 2 of ZUMA-1, a single-arm, multicenter, registrational trial, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy demonstrated durable responses at 2 years in patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Here, we aimed to assess survival and safety in ZUMA-1 after 5 years of follow-up. Eligible adults with refractory LBCL (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and transformed follicular lymphoma) received lymphodepleting chemotherapy followed by axi-cel infusion targeted at 2×106 cells/kg. Investigator-assessed response, updated survival, safety, and pharmacokinetic outcomes were assessed in treated patients. The objective response rate in the 101 treated patients was 83% (58% complete response rate), and with a median follow-up of 63.1 months, responses were ongoing at data cutoff in 31%. Median overall survival (OS) was 25.8 months and the estimated 5-year OS rate was 42.6%. Disease-specific survival (excluding deaths unrelated to disease progression) estimated at 5 years was 51.0%. No new serious adverse events or deaths related to axi-cel were observed after additional follow-up. Peripheral blood B cells were detectable in all evaluable patients at 3 years with polyclonal B-cell recovery in 91%. Ongoing responses at 60 months were associated with early CAR T-cell expansion. In conclusion, this 5-year follow-up analysis of ZUMA-1 demonstrates sustained overall and disease-specific survival, with no new safety signals in patients with refractory LBCL. Protracted B-cell aplasia was not required for durable responses. These findings support the curative potential of axi-cel in a subset of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphomas. ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02348216