Citations

Abstract Background:Erdheim-Chester Disease (ECD) is a rare, incurable histiocytic neoplasm. Since its recognition in 1930, our understanding of ECD's pathophysiology has evolved. The identification of its clonal nature after 2015 established ECD as a cancer, prompting increased disease awareness and treatment advances. Targeted therapies show promising responses, but changes in ECD mortality over time have not been extensively documented. Methods:A multi-institutional retrospective cohort study analyzed adults with ECD consecutively seen at Mayo Clinic MN, AZ, and FL and the University of Alabama at Birmingham between 2007 and 2024. Clinical and prognostic data were abstracted. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared to expected survival using U.S. Census data, based on age at diagnosis (by calendar year), date of diagnosis, and sex. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated by dividing the number of observed deaths in the study population by the expected number of deaths using U.S. population data. Risk of death was compared by date of diagnosis (pre- and post-2015) using Cox proportional hazards analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with R software. Results:A total of 159 ECD patients were included (median age 58 years [range 19-82], 65% male). Forty-nine patients were diagnosed between 1990-2014 and 110 between 2015-2024. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 4.0 years (95% CI: 3.2-4.4). Median follow-up for those diagnosed between 1990-2014 was 10.4 years (CI: 3.2-16.8), compared to 3.5 years (CI: 3.0-4.2) for those diagnosed between 2015-2024. The 5-year overall survival rate was 80% (95% CI: 72-88). Patients with ECD had an increase in mortality over expected, with 28 deaths compared to an expected 11.2, an SMR of 2.5 (95% CI: 1.7-3.6, p<0.001). Of 17 patients with an identified cause of death, death was attributable to ECD in 11 (65%), secondary malignancy in 1 (7%), and unrelated causes in 5 (29%). Cause of death was unknown in 11 patients. Among deaths, 11 (39%) were treated with targeted therapy, 8 (29%) with chemotherapy, and 1 (4%) received both. One patient (4%) received steroids, 1 received immunomodulator and targeted therapy (4%), and 6 (21%) received no disease-directed therapy. Of the patients whose death was related to ECD, 10 (91%) had multisystem disease. For 49 patients diagnosed pre-2015, 14 deaths occurred during the follow-up, significantly higher than the expected 5.2 deaths based on U.S. population data (SMR of 2.7 [95% CI: 1.5-4.4, p=0.001]). Among those diagnosed between 2015 and 2024, 14 deaths occurred, compared to expected 6.1 (SMR of 2.3 [95% CI: 1.3-3.8, p=0.006]). In an age- and sex-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, diagnosis after 2015 vs. diagnosis prior to 2015 yielded a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.27-1.31, p=0.19). Conclusion:The mortality rate of ECD patients remains higher than the general population, despite advancements in disease recognition and development of targeted therapies. While our data suggest a possible trend toward improved survival among patients diagnosed after 2015, we did not find statistically significant evidence of decreased mortality compared to those diagnosed prior to 2015. Larger cohorts with longer follow-up periods are needed to draw definitive conclusions regarding mortality.

Abstract Background: Glofit, a CD20/CD3 bispecific antibody, has shown efficacy in prospective trials, including the Phase III STARGLO study evaluating glofit plus gemcitabine/oxaliplatin (GemOx) in transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with R/R large B-cell lymphoma (BCL). However, concerns raised by the FDA's Oncology Drug Advisory Committee regarding the generalizability of the STARGLO data to U.S. pts underscore the need for real-world evidence. We report real-world outcomes of Glofit-GemOx in U.S. pts with R/R aggressive BCL. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective review across 8 U.S. academic centers, identifying 31 pts with R/R aggressive BCL treated with Glofit-GemOx outside clinical trials. Baseline characteristics, treatment history, and outcomes were abstracted from medical records. Results: At Glofit-GemOx initiation: median age was 72 years (range, 34–88); 90% had stage III/IV disease. Histologic subtypes included DLBCL in 58% (n=18), high-grade BCL in 29% (n=9), PTLD/DLBCL in 6.5% (n=2), follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3B in 3.2% (n=1), and Burkitt lymphoma (BL) in 3.2% (n=1). Germinal center B-cell phenotype was seen in 80% of evaluable cases. Double- (n=8) or triple-hit (n=1) cytogenetics were observed in 31% (n=9). Elevated LDH was present in 74%, and 16% had B symptoms. Median ECOG performance status was 1 (range, 0–3), and 23% (n=7) had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Pre-treatment biopsy was performed in 77% (n=24) with CD20 expression tested in 74% (n=23). CD20 expression was negative in 3 pts by flow cytometry and/or immunohistochemistry. Pts received a median 1 prior line of therapy (range, 0-6); Glofit-GemOx was administered as 1L in 7% (n=2), and 2L in 58% (n=18). Median 4 cycles (range, 1-11); both 1L pts had prior FL (1 and 3 prior lines for FL). Twelve pts remain on therapy, 2 on Glofit monotherapy. Four pts were unevaluable (2 death pre-assessment; 2 pending evaluation). Among 27 evaluable pts, ORR was 78% (21/27) and CR rate was 41% (11/27). Among CD20- negative cases on pre- Glofit-GemOx biopsy (n=3), ORR was 33% (1/3), with 1 CR lasting 3.5 months. Of 11 pts who progressed on Glofit-GemOx, 6 were rebiopsied; 1 showed CD20 loss, 1 was previously CD20-negative. Among the 24 pts who received Glofit-GemOx as destination therapy, ORR of 75% (15/20 evaluable). Among pts with prior CAR T (n=7), the ORR and CR rate were both 43% (3/7). None received Glofit-GemOx within 30 days of CAR T-cell infusion; 4 received within 6 mo; 2 of whom achieved CR. Seven pts (24%) received Glofit-GemOx as bridging to CAR T. ORR pre-CAR T was 86% (6/7); 4 pt successfully proceeded to CAR T, 2 are pending infusion, and 1 progressed after 2 cycles and transitioned to alternate therapy. Three pts were evaluable post-CAR T with an ORR of 100% (3/3) and CR rate of 67% (2/3). At data cutoff, 23/31 pts were alive. Full PFS and OS data will be presented at ASH. Notable individual responses included a patient with relapsed BL post–DA-EPOCH-R who received Glofit-GemOx as 2L therapy and achieved a 6 mo CR without consolidation before progression. Another patient treated with Glofit-GemOx in the 7L setting after prior allogeneic transplant achieved a 3 mo CR prior to progression. CRS occurred in 58% (18/31), with grade ≥3 in 13% (4/31), including 2 possible treatment-related deaths. One occurred in a frail patient after the 1st dose, though neutropenic fever was present prior to Glofit administration. The second followed influenza A infection, respiratory failure, and possible grade 4 ICANS after the 2nd dose; attribution to CRS vs. infection was unclear. ICANS occurred in 10% (3/31), with one possible grade ≥3 case. Conclusions: This is the first U.S.-based real-world analysis of Glofit-GemOx, including more U.S. pts than the STARGLO trial, appear to demonstrate comparable response rates, potentially supporting its use as both bridging and destination therapy. Notable toxicities, including CRS, were observed, with 2 possible treatment-related deaths, with plausible alternate non-treatment related causes. Favorable responses were seen in bridging therapy and high-risk subgroups (transformed, HGBCL) which were excluded in the STARGLO trial. These findings support the real-world utility of Glofit-GemOx in the management of R/R aggressive BCL but underscore the need for caution due to associated toxicities. Further real-world and prospective evaluation are warranted, particularly in rare subgroups and as bridging therapy.

Abstract Background: In R/R DLBCL/FL, T-cell engager therapy (TCET) using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) or bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are promising options. Patients (pts) with R/R disease post TCET experience dismal outcomes with overall survival (OS)< 5 months (mos). Lonca, an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) targeting CD19 (FDA approved for R/R DLBCL and beneficial in R/R FL) has been increasingly used post-TCET. RWDA of Lonca is limited, especially regarding: 1) impact of CD19 expression on activity, 2) adverse events (AEs) in non-clinical trial setting, and 3) impact of sequencing Lonca and TCET. Thus, we conducted a RWDA of Lonca efficacy and toxicity in R/R DLBCL and FL pre- and post-TCET. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of R/R DLBCL or FL pts ≥18 years who received Lonca from 2017 to 2025 at 10 US academic sites. Demographic, pathological, treatment, and AEs were collected. Efficacy outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. CD19 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or flow cytometry (FC) prior to Lonca administration was correlated to outcomes. Results: Among 120 pts (DLBCL n= 101, FL n=19), all but 2 pts received Lonca monotherapy. At a median follow-up of 6.1 mos, median PFS and OS were 2.6 mos and 6.7 mos, respectively for the entire cohort. For DLBCL, median age was 66 years (18-89). Median prior lines of therapy (LOT) were 4 (1-11). ORR was 37.7% (CR: 17%, PR: 20.7%), SD: 6%, and PD: 56%. Median PFS was 2.1 mos, and median OS was 5.8 mos. For FL, median age was 62 years (28-88). Median prior LOT was 6 (2-8). ORR was 49.4% (CR: 28%, PR: 21.4%), SD: 14%, and PD: 35.7%. Median PFS was 6.7 mos, and median OS was 6.8 mos. OS by best response (entire cohort) was 11.3 mos and 11.8 mos in those who had CR and PR, respectively, 10.6 mos in SD and 3.5 mos in those with PD. Lonca LOT (2nd-12th line) was not associated with improved OS (p=0.58). Bulky disease (>7.5 cm) was not associated with worse OS (p=0.07). PD to Lonca was associated with PD at 2nd line treatment (OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 1.7–10.9) and 3rd-line treatment (OR: 4.2; 95% CI: 1.5–11.5), elevated lactate dehydrogenase (OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2–2.9), and each subsequent increase of extranodal sites >1 prior to Lonca (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.04–2.1). Among pts with available CD19 status prior to Lonca administration, 28 were FC-positive and 22 were IHC-positive. Of the CD19 FC-positive pts (n=23), 22% (5/23) achieved CR, 26% (6/23) had PR, 8% (2/23) had SD, and 43% (10/23) developed PD. Of the CD19 IHC-positive pts (n=20): 15% (3/20) achieved CR, 20% (4/20) had PR, 5% (1/20) had SD, and 60% (12/20) developed PD. Among all CD19-negative pts (n=7), two achieved CR, one had SD, and four with PD. Any grade AE was seen in 84% of pts. Any grade ≥3 (G3) AE was seen in 62% of pts. Notable G3 AEs included: anemia (35%), lymphopenia (34%), neutropenia (21.6%), thrombocytopenia (20%), infection (17%), fatigue (9%), peripheral edema (5%), pleural effusion (4%), photosensitivity (2.5%), and pruritus (2.5%). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 17% (n=21) of pts. Fifty-five pts (50 DLBCL, 5 FL) received both Lonca and CD19 directed CART (Pre-Lonca n=54; Post-Lonca n=1). There was no significant difference in PFS or OS between pts who received CART and those who did not (PFS: 2.7 mos vs 3 mos; OS: 7.4 mos vs 5 mos). BsAb was used in 41 pts (34 DLBCL, 7 FL) (Pre-Lonca n=30; Post-Lonca n=11). No significant difference in PFS or OS was observed between pts who received BsAb pre- or post-Lonca. There was also no significant difference in PFS between pts who received a BsAb (2.2 mos) and those who did not (2.9 mos), nor in OS.Conclusion: In this large RWDA of Lonca, pts who achieved any form of clinical response experienced a significantly longer OS than previously reported for heavily pre-treated pts. Lonca was predominantly administered after TCET; however, there was no significant difference in efficacy between pts who received CART and BsAbs and those who did not. CD19 positivity and earlier utilization of Lonca did not appear to have an impact on response rates. Our findings support a role for Lonca in the treatment of R/R DLBCL pts not candidates for TCET. This RWDA highlights the need to further investigate the sequencing of Lonca in R/R DLBCL and FL.

Abstract Background In patients with myelofibrosis (MF) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has traditionally included a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX). We conducted a retrospective study comparing the safety and efficacy of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based GVHD prophylaxis to CNI-based regimens. Methods This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. Patients with myelofibrosis who underwent allo-HCT after 2016 at Mayo Clinic in Arizona and Florida were included. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Overall survival (OS) was defined from transplant to death, and progression-free survival (PFS) from transplant to relapse or death. OS and PFS were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; univariate differences were assessed with log-rank tests. The cumulative incidence of acute and chronic GVHD and time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were analyzed using competing risk models, with death as a competing event; differences were tested using Gray's test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). Results A total of 110 patients were included. 53 patients received PTCy-based prophylaxis (43 PTCy/Tac/MMF, 1 PTCy/CSA/MMF, 9 PTCy/Siro/MMF), while 57 received non-PTCy regimens (54 Tac/MTX +/- 39 T-cell depletion, 2 CSA/MMF, 1 Tac/MMF). Median age at transplant was 63 (range: PTCy 40-76; others 38-74) years in both groups; 59 were male (58.5% PTCy vs 49.1% others). Median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and HCT–Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) in patients receiving PTCy vs non-PTCy were 90 vs 80 and 1 vs 3, respectively. Conditioning intensity was similar: 22.6% myeloablative vs 21.7%, and 77.4% reduced-intensity vs 76.7% in PTCy and non-PTCy, respectively (p=1.000). Stem cell source was peripheral blood in all patients except one in the non-PTCy group who received bone marrow. 58 patients had primary MF (54.7% PTCy vs 50.9% others), and 52 had secondary MF (45.3% PTCy vs 49.1% others), including essential thrombocythemia (28.3% PTCy vs 31.6% others), polycythemia vera (17.0% vs 15.8%), and MPN-NOS (0% vs 1.8%). Median follow-up was 26.2 months (95% CI: 20.7-52.7) in the PTCy and 60.6 months (95% CI: 53.1-70.6) in the non-PTCy cohort. CD3 and CD33 donor chimerism ≥95% at day +100 was 66.7% and 86.7% in PTCy vs 63.6% and 92.7% in others, respectively (p=0.50); day +100 driver molecular mutations were present in 32.1% of PTCy and 32.0% of others (p>0.99). Rates of acute GVHD grades ≥2 and ≥3 were not statistically significant, in the PTCy group (37.7% vs 49.1% p=0.229 and 17.0% vs 22.8% p=0.445, respectively). Chronic GVHD (any grade) occurred in 42.3% of PTCy vs 38.2% of others (p=0.664), while moderate-to-severe cGVHD was lower with PTCy (21.2% vs 27.3% p=0.461). Platelet engraftment was significantly delayed in the PTCy group (median 33 vs 21 days, p=0.030). Median time to neutrophil engraftment was also delayed in the PTCy group (20 vs 17 days, adjusted p=0.025). Age-adjusted HR for time to platelet engraftment was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.41–0.90; p=0.014), and for neutrophil engraftment 0.65 (95% CI: 0.44–0.95; p=0.025), indicating significantly delayed hematopoietic recovery with PTCy. Graft failure occurred in 9.4% vs 5.3% (p = 0.48); primary 7.5% vs 3.5%, secondary 1.9% vs 1.8% in PTCy vs non-PTCy groups, respectively. Relapse or progression occurred in 11.3% of PTCy vs 17.5% of others (p=0.355); four patients in the non-PTCy group progressed to AML post-transplant, versus none in the PTCy group (p=0.119). 1-year TRM was 22.6% in the PTCy group and 14.0% in the non-PTCy group, p = 0.324. Median OS was 72.8 months in the PTCy group (95% CI: 49.9 months, upper limit not estimable [NE]) and 93.4 months in the non-PTCy group (95% CI: 48.5 months, upper limit NE), although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.739). After adjusting for age and HCT-CI, there were no significant differences in PFS (adjusted HR 1.37; 95% CI: 0.73–2.56; p=0.331) or OS (adjusted HR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.64–2.51; p=0.498). Conclusions In myelofibrosis patients undergoing allo-HCT, PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis showed similar rates of grade ≥2 acute and moderate-severe chronic GVHD compared to non-PTCy regimens. Engraftment was significantly delayed, while OS and PFS were comparable. PTCy appears to be a safe and viable alternative to CNI-based prophylaxis.

Abstract Introduction: CD19-directed CAR T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has substantially improved clinical outcomes for adults with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). However, notable toxicities are associated with CAR-T, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Variable practice patterns have emerged regarding the use of CRS/ICANS prophylaxis (ppx) via corticosteroids and/or other pharmacologic agents, but the utility of these approaches on reducing CRS or ICANS following CAR-T in B-ALL remains unknown. Thus, we utilized the Real-World Outcomes Collaborative for CAR T in ALL (ROCCA) database to evaluate associations between ppx and the development and severity of CRS or ICANS following brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) for B-ALL. Methods: Adult patients (pts) who received standard-of-care brexu-cel for relapsed/refractory B-ALL across 40+ US centers were included. Primary endpoints were the incidence of CRS and ICANS within 28 days of CAR-T infusion. Secondary endpoints included timing of CRS and ICANS onset, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression evaluated associations between ppx and incidence of CRS/ICANS; KM and log-rank methods were used for survival analyses. Results: A total of 378 pts were included: 53 pts (14.0%) received CRS/ICANS ppx and 325 (86.0%) received no ppx. Ppx agents included steroids only (26.4%), steroid and anakinra (52.8%), anakinra only (15.1%), and steroid and tocilizumab (5.7%). Pts in the ppx group had a higher proportion of Hispanic pts (64% vs 34%), Ph-like (36% vs 19%) and a lower proportion had 0-5% bone marrow blasts at apheresis (38% vs 53%). The ppx and no ppx groups were similar in age, prior therapies, CAR-T indication, and marrow blasts >50%. Cumulative incidence of any grade (gr) CRS was 94% with ppx and 86% with no ppx (p=0.025), of any gr ICANS was 53% with ppx and 51% with no ppx (0= 0.85). Cumulative incidence of gr 3-4 CRS was 9% in the ppx group and 10% in the no ppx group (p=1.00), of gr 3-4 ICANS was 26% in the ppx group and 29% in the no ppx group (p=0.71). Median time to onset for any gr CRS or any gr ICANS was identical in the ppx and no ppx cohorts (CRS: 5 days, range ppx 1-9 days, no ppx 0-14 days; ICANS: 7 days, ppx 1-20 days, no ppx 0-16 days). Univariate logistic regression analyses showed no significant association between ppx and the incidence of gr 2-4 CRS (OR 1.34, 95% CI: 0.75-2.40, p=0.326) or gr 3-4 ICANS (OR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.46-1.70, p=0.708). Multivariate analysis adjusting for ethnicity, leukemia genetic sub-type, and pre-apheresis disease burden similarly found no significant associations between ppx and gr 2-4 CRS (adjusted OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.55-2.01, p=0.870) or gr 3-4 ICANS (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 0.59-2.55, p=0.584). When comparing steroid-only ppx (N=14) to steroid combinations or other drug ppx (N=39), there was no significant differences in gr 2-4 CRS (57% vs 44%, p=0.345) or gr 3-4 ICANS (43% vs 21%, p=0.115). Comparing cumulative incidence of dexamethasone (dex) exposure, pts in the ppx group had numerically greater dex exposure than pts in the no ppx group, with median (range) dosing of 182 mg (10-1386mg) and 100mg (1-4000mg), respectively. Finally, we found no significant differences in PFS or OS based on ppx. Median PFS was 9.6 months in the ppx group vs 13.3 months in the no ppx group (p=0.646) and median OS was 17.2 months in the ppx group vs 34.4 months in the no ppx group (p=0.170). Conclusions: In this large cohort of adult patients with R/R ALL receiving brexu-cel CAR-T therapy, prophylaxis intended to prevent CRS/ICANS was ineffective at reducing CRS/ICANS incidence, time to onset, or overall steroid exposure. Furthermore, PFS and OS were comparable between patients who received prophylaxis and those who did not. In the absence of prospective trials in B-ALL, these data suggest that current strategies of CRS/ICANS prophylaxis has limited benefit.

Abstract Background Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare but aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma with limited prospective data to guide optimal therapy. This study evaluates real-world treatment patterns and survival outcomes using a large national cohort. Methods We analyzed data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients diagnosed with PCNSL between 2004 and 2020. Baseline demographics and treatment characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to identify independent predictors of overall survival (OS). Results A total of 14,450 patients with PCNSL were included; 14,439 had first-line treatment data available, and 13,390 had survival data. Median age at diagnosis was 67 years (range 18-90), 49.2% were female, and 6.6% were African American. Chemotherapy alone was the modality of treatment for 81.6% (n=11,787), 12.2% (n=1,769) received chemoradiation, 3.8% (n=545) received chemotherapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) but no radiation, and 2.4% (n=348) received radiation only. The median follow-up time was 73.5 months (95% CI 71.4-75.6), and the median OS for the group was 17.4 months (95% CI 16.2-18.6). Survival differed significantly by age group (median OS: <65 yrs, 46.1 months [95% CI 41.7 -50.6]; 65-79 yrs, 12.5 months [95% CI 11.2-13.7]; ≥80 yrs, 3.2 months [95% CI 2.9-3.5]; p<0.001), by year of diagnosis (median OS: 2004-2009, 11.0 months [95% CI 9.9-12.1]; 2010-2015, 20.0 months [95% CI 17.4-22.6], 2016-2020, 29.7 months [95% CI 26.0-33.4]; p<0.001), and by frontline treatment strategy (p<0.001). Patients treated with chemotherapy followed by ASCT had the longest median OS (not reached), while those receiving radiation alone had the poorest outcomes with a median OS of 3.9 months (95% CI 3.2-4.7); chemoradiation patients had a median OS of 31.8 months (95% CI 27.5-36.1), and chemotherapy only patients had a median OS of 13.9 months (95% CI 12.7-15.1)(p<0.001). African American patients had an inferior outcome with a median OS of 10.2 months [95% CI 7.2-13.1], compared to “other” races with a median OS of 36.9 months [95% CI 27.6-46.1] (p<0.001), although this is more similar to the median outcome for white patients (17.0 months [95% CI 15.8-18.3]). Treatment at an academic center (25.7 vs 11.0 months) and a high case-volume center (defined as >median number of cases per facility) (18.6 vs 10.5 months), and lower Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (CDS) (defined as CDS 0-1) (21.7 vs 6.8 months) were also associated with superior OS (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, increasing age ( 65-79 y.o HR 1.60 [1.52-1.1.68], ≥80 y.o HR 2.95 [2.75-3.17]), CDS≥2 (HR 1.36 [1.28-1.44]), and African American race (HR 1.12 [1.02-1.24]) were adverse predictors of OS (all p<0.001), while treatment strategy (ASCT [HR 0.17], chemoradiation [HR 0.53], chemotherapy only [HR 0.68] compared to radiation alone), more recent year of diagnosis (2010-2015 [HR 0.81], 2016-2020 [0.70]), and treatment at an academic center [HR 0.81] remained predictors of superior OS (all p<0.001). Conclusion In this large national cohort of patients with PCNSL, treatment with chemotherapy followed by ASCT was associated with the most favorable survival outcomes. Patients treated with chemoradiation or multi-agent chemotherapy also demonstrated improved survival compared to those receiving radiation monotherapy or single-agent chemotherapy alone, respectively. Age, comorbidities, race, and treatment at academic centers were also significant independent predictors of OS. These findings highlight substantial disparities in outcomes and underscore the importance of optimizing treatment strategies, improving access to high-intensity therapies, and supporting timely referral to academic or high case-volume centers, particularly for younger and medically fit patients.

Abstract Introduction: Brexu-cel is a highly effective treatment for R/R B-ALL, with complete responses achieved in 71% of patients (pts) treated in the pivotal ZUMA-3 trial. Patients with B-ALL with high-risk (HR) genetics are known to have inferior outcomes with chemotherapy, but little is known about the influence of HR ALL genetics on responses to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T in adults. In this study, we assessed the impact of HR ALL genetics on outcomes in a large cohort of adult patients treated with brexu-cel for R/R Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-ALL. Methods: Patient characteristics and outcomes were obtained from the Real-World Outcomes Collaborative of CAR-T in Adult ALL (ROCCA) database which includes data from 40 U.S. centers. NCCN guidelines (NCCN Guidelines in Oncology, ALL v2.2025) were used to define HR B-ALL genetics; lack of HR genetics was defined as standard-risk (SR). The primary outcome was event-free survival (EFS), defined as lack of response, disease progression, or death from any cause. Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), relapse free survival (RFS) and response rates including complete response (CR), CR incomplete count recovery (CRi), measurable residual disease negative CR (MRD-) by flow or NGS and progressive disease (PD). Multivariable models were adjusted for age, pre-infusion blast percentage, prior allo-HCT, and post CAR-T allo-HCT (modeled as a time-varying covariate). Results: The cohort included 286 pts: 169 with HR and 117 with SR B-ALL. The HR cohort included TP53m (n=24, 14%), KMT2Ar (n=16, 9%), CRLF2r (n=65, 39%) and other HR genetics such as JAK2 and other Ph-like, IKZF1, complex cytogenetics (n=64, 38%). Relative to SR pts, HR pts were more commonly Hispanic (50% vs 28%). HR and SR pts had similar disease burden pre-apheresis (>5% blasts: 58% vs 53%), prior blinatumomab (60% vs 58%), prior inotuzumab (42% vs 46%), and prior allo HCT (27% vs 37%). The presence of CNS disease (11% HR vs 12% SR) and extramedullary disease (EMD, 22% HR vs 29% SR) at apheresis was also similar. CR/CRi was achieved in 90.5% of evaluable HR pts (n=147) and 90.2% of evaluable SR pts (n=102); MRD- rates were also similar between HR and SR pts at 78.9% and 78.2% respectively. In unadjusted analyses, EFS did not significantly differ between HR pts (median 9.6 mos; 1-yr: 46%, 95% CI 38%-54%) and SR pts (median 11.6 mos; 1-yr: 48%, 95% CI 38%- 58%). Median RFS (HR: 12.2 mos, SR: 13.3 mos) and median OS (HR: 22.4 mos, SR: 21.0 mos) were also similar. Multivariable models demonstrated no significant associations between HR B-ALL and EFS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73-1.63), RFS (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.71-1.80), or OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62- 1.48) relative to SR ALL. 28% of HR patients and 21% of SR patients underwent consolidative allo-HCT. Among the HR subgroup, CR/CRi rate was lowest in KMT2Ar (71%) relative to TP53m (95%), CRLF2r (95%), and other HR genetics (89%). The median EFS was lowest in KMT2Ar (4.1 mos), followed by TP53m (6.9 mos), CRLF2r (11.6 mos), and other HR (11.1 mos). Median OS was also lowest in KMT2Ar (6.8 mos) vs 22.4 mos in TP53m and not reached in CRLF2r or other HR. PD was highest in KMT2Ar pts (29%), as compared to 11% HR other, 10% SR, and 5% TP53 and CRLF2r. The rate of relapse among those that achieved CR across the groups was similar and ranged between 28% -40%. Rates of CD19 negative relapse were similar between all subgroups (13%-15%), however 21% of KMT2A pts underwent myeloid transformation as compared 0% for TP53 and CRLF2 pts, and 2% among other HR and SR pts. 25% of KMT2Ar patients underwent consolidative allo-HCT as compared to 32% CRLF2 pts, 29% TP53 pts, 25% other HR pts and 21% SR pts. Multivariable models evaluating the different genomic subgroups demonstrated that relative to SR B-ALL, only KMT2Ar was associated with inferior OS (HR 3.17, 95% CI 1.53-6.58, p=0020). No associations were seen between HR subgroups and EFS. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this analysis represents the largest examination of adult B-ALL recipients of CAR-T assessed by genomic risk group. We found that response rates and survival outcomes following brexu-cel were similar among HR and SR B-ALL pts, including pts with TP53m and CRLF2r. However, pts with KMT2Ar had lower response rates and dismal EFS and OS, with higher rates of PD and myeloid transformation at relapse, suggesting that alternative strategies are necessary to improve outcomes for patients with R/R KMT2Ar B-ALL.

Introduction Registrational trials are clinical trials which are used to justify regulatory approval of a new medication by the FDA. However, clinical trials may not be designed around patient-centred outcomes, like overall survival (OS) or quality of life. This disconnect raises concerns about whether current trial designs are truly aligned with the long-term needs and priorities of patients. A comprehensive analysis of trial designs and endpoints is necessary to ensure that future oncological therapies deliver meaningful clinical improvements. Our objective was to describe types of clinical trial design and primary endpoints used for registrational trials, and their trends over time. Research design and methods In this cohort study, the HemOnc database was used to identify registrational trials supporting cancer drug approval from 2004 through 2023. Clinical trial design (escalation, de-escalation, in-class switch, out-of-class switch) and primary endpoint (OS; time-to-event including progression-free survival; response-based endpoint) were characterized. Results Escalation trial designs were more common than in-class switches or out-of-class switches. De-escalation and mixed designs were exceedingly rare. The most common primary endpoint was a composite time-to-event endpoint. Conclusion Most clinical trials leading to FDA approval for cancer-directed therapies employ escalation designs with composite time-to-event endpoints. Designs reflecting paradigm shifts in therapy (in-class switches and out-of-class switches) are sparsely used. This approach raises the concern that trials may increase therapeutic toxicity without delivering meaningful improvements in OS or quality of life.

Abstract Purpose: Polatuzumab vedotin (polatuzumab) was approved for up-front treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in combination with chemoimmunotherapy (Pola-R-CHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, when stratified by cell of origin (COO), polatuzumab seems to have greater efficacy in activated B-cell than germinal center B-cell (GCB) subtype disease. Most studies of polatuzumab used RNA expression to assess COO, whereas in routine clinical practice, the immunohistochemistry-based Hans algorithm is used. Experimental Design: To assess the impact of COO by immunohistochemistry on polatuzumab efficacy, we conducted a multicenter real-world study of adults with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) receiving polatuzumab from 2015 to 2024, split by receipt of polatuzumab in first-line versus relapsed/refractory settings. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to polatuzumab-based treatment in GCB versus non-GCB relapsed/refractory LBCL. Results: Of 740 patients, 305 received polatuzumab in the first-line setting and 435 in the relapsed/refractory setting. In the relapsed/refractory cohort, the ORR in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL was 59.7% versus 36.3% [OR, 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.77–3.84; P < 0.0001], with a complete response rate of 35.7% versus 17.7% (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.66–4.02; P < 0.0001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients with non-GCB versus GCB COO (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.5–0.83; P = 0.0006). In the first-line cohort, ORR, complete response rate, and progression-free survival were similar in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL, as hypothesized based on outcomes in the Pola-R-CHP arm of POLARIX, suggesting that the addition of polatuzumab overcomes the adverse risk of non-GCB COO in patients receiving R-CHOP. Conclusions: Based on these data, COO classification by the Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of polatuzumab efficacy in LBCL, informing real-world treatment decisions.