Citations

Introduction: Histologic transformation (HT) from follicular lymphoma (FL) to an aggressive lymphoma is infrequent but has unfavorable outcomes. Sarkozy et al. (J Clin Oncol, 2019) reported that approximately half of FL-related deaths within the first decade of diagnosis occurred following HT. Our recent analysis showed heterogeneous outcomes with median overall survival (OS) of 61 months (Day et al., ASH, 2022). Prognostic tools post HT would be clinically useful but development has been limited by small cohort sizes. Factors previously associated with outcomes following HT have included age, time to progression, prior therapy, anthracycline exposure, and early HT. Utilizing the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Consortium of Real World Evidence (CReWE), we describe patterns of care and evaluate other prognostic factors following HT. Methods: This multicenter observational cohort consists of prospectively enrolled patients in the LEO Cohort, and patients with HT retrospectively identified at LEO centers. Patients diagnosed with biopsy proven grade 1-3A FL at diagnosis, and a subsequent biopsy showing HT to an aggressive lymphoma (FL grade 3B, diffuse large B cell lymphoma [DLBCL], or high-grade B cell lymphoma [HGBCL]) between 2002-2022, were eligible for the study. Patients with a component of FL grade 3B, DLBCL, or HGBCL at diagnosis were excluded. HGBCL was defined as double or triple hit or another aggressive subtype. OS was defined as the time from HT until death from any cause and calculated via Kaplan-Meier. Associations between clinical factors at time of HT and/or diagnosis and OS were evaluated using Cox models. Cause of death was evaluated using a competing risk approach. Results: Overall, 328 patients were confirmed with HT during the study period, 41% were female, and the median age at HT was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR] 56-70). The median time from diagnosis to transformation (TDT) was 35 months (IQR 12-66). At HT, 88% had advanced stage disease (III-IV) and LDH was elevated in 49%, while few patients exhibited B symptoms (5%) and ECOG performance status was >2 in 9%. 23% did not receive systemic therapy prior to HT. For those with prior therapy, the median time from prior therapy to HT was 15 months (IQR 7-39). The most frequent treatment regimens following HT were CD20-CHOP (42%), followed by platinum-based salvage therapy (20%), R-EPOCH (10%), CD20-Benda (8%), R-Mono (4%), and R-Gem-Ox (3%). 50 (15%) patients underwent consolidation with autologous stem cell transplant, 3 underwent allogeneic transplant (30 platinum-based, 15 CD20-CHOP, 5 R-EPOCH, 3 Other), and 2 received CAR T-cell therapy (Figure 1). After median follow-up of 85 months from HT, 170 patients had died; 5-year OS was 52% and median OS was 65 months (95% CI: 55-107). Among 160 patient deaths, cause was most often lymphoma-related (progression, n=107 [63%]; therapy-related, n=14 [7%]) compared to non-lymphoma (n=20, 13%) or missing/unknown causes (n=29, 17%). Clinical factors at the time of HT that were associated with worse OS include: ECOG PS >2, age ≥70, IPI 3-5, and shorter TDT (<24 months), hemoglobin <10 g/dl and elevated LDH. A transformation to HGBCL was also associated with inferior OS (Table 1). OS did not significantly differ by gender, BMI, stage, presence of B-symptoms, absolute lymphocyte count, number of extranodal groups, presence of bulky disease at HT, or response to prior FL treatment. Factors at the time of FL diagnosis that were associated with decreased OS after HT included FLIPI score 3-5 (high risk), FLIPI 2 (moderate risk), and FL grade 3A at diagnosis. Exposure to any systemic therapy for FL prior to HT was associated with shorter OS, with the worst outcomes in patients receiving an anthracycline prior to HT. POD24 to frontline immunochemotherapy was associated with inferior OS after HT (Table 1). Conclusions: Patterns of care in Transformed FL are heterogeneous and vary greatly in intensity. These data confirm previous reports that age, early HT, and any systemic therapies prior to HT are negative prognostic indicators for OS. At HT elevated LDH, low hemoglobin, POD24 status, poor performance status, and HT to HGBCL were associated with poor outcomes following HT. These data provide a basis for future prognostic indices to identify patients with highest risk of lymphoma related mortality for whom study of novel treatments is greatly needed.

Aim: Patients with R/R LBCL after first-line treatment have poor prognosis. Multiple novel therapies have been approved for R/R LBCL in recent years, but CIT regimens are still commonly used. This study evaluated the effectiveness of CIT and novel therapies in 2L+ in patients with R/R LBCL and the association between patient clinical characteristics and real-world outcomes. Methods: This was a multi-site retrospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with R/R LBCL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Consortium of Real-World Evidence (CReWE) cohort (patients followed from 1/1/2015 to 2/15/2023) who were treated with CIT or novel therapy in 2L+. CIT regimens included salvage/palliative chemotherapy, lenalidomide, rituximab, or obinutuzumab, used alone or in combination. Novel therapies included polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab or variations thereof (i.e., pola-based regimen), tafasitamab plus lenalidomide or variations thereof (tafa-based regimen), and loncastuximab tesirine (lonca). Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were assessed from the first confirmed R/R disease diagnosis and initiation of 2L+ therapy. When multiple lines of therapy (LOTs) were eligible for inclusion in the analysis, one was randomly selected as the index LOT. Real-world outcomes, determined by investigators at each clinical site, including overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), duration of complete response (DOCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were described for all patients in each treatment group and for the subgroup of patients with prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to assess associations between select patient clinical characteristics and real-world outcomes. Results: The study population included patients treated with CIT (N=653), pola-based regimen (N=116), tafa-based regimen (N=55), and lonca (N=42) ( Figure 1A). The median (m) age at date of index treatment initiation across groups ranged from 63 to 74 years. Across groups, most patients had primary refractory disease-i.e., were refractory to the first LOT (69.5% CIT vs. 73.3% pola vs. 58.2% tafa vs. 71.4% lonca), whereas variable proportions had one prior LOT (65.5% vs. 17.2% vs. 43.6% vs. 7.1%) and prior CAR T-cell therapy (5.1% vs. 43.1% vs. 32.7% vs. 47.6%). In the CIT group, ORR was 33.8%, 15.5% of patients achieved CR, mPFS (95% CI) was 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) months, and mOS was 9.1 (8.1, 10.5) months. In the pola group, ORR was 42.2%, 24.1% of patients achieved CR, mPFS was 2.5 (2, 3.2) months and mOS was 7.8 (6.4, 11.8) months. In the tafa group, ORR was 25.5%, 14.5% of patients achieved CR, mPFS was 2.7 (2.1, 4.2) months, and mOS was 8 (5.3, 12.7) months. In the lonca group, ORR was 40.5%, 21.4% of patients achieved CR, mPFS was 3 (2.1, 5.1) months, and mOS was 4.7 (3.7, 10.8) months. Demographics and outcomes for all patients and those who received prior CAR T-cell therapy are summarized in Figure 1A. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk score ≥3, CIT as the index treatment type, and primary refractory status were significantly associated with time from response to progression/death (P<0.05; Figure 1B). IPI risk score ≥3, CIT as the index treatment type, and primary refractory status were significantly associated with worse PFS. IPI risk ≥3, ≥3 prior LOTs, and primary refractory status were significantly associated with OS. Conclusion: In this large clinical cohort of patients with R/R LBCL with high proportions having primary refractory disease, all common treatments were associated with modest ORR/CR and poor OS. Receiving CIT treatments, higher IPI score, primary refractory status, and higher number of prior LOTs were significantly associated with poor clinical outcomes. A study with larger sample size and longer follow-up may be warranted to further understand the clinical effectiveness of novel treatments. Thus, despite the availability of novel treatments during the study period, these findings highlight the need for more effective treatment alternatives beyond currently available options to improve outcomes.

Abstract Follicular lymphoma is the most common indolent lymphoma accounting for approximately 20%–25% of all new non‐Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses in western countries. Whilst outcomes are mostly favorable, the spectrum of clinical phenotypes includes high‐risk groups with significantly inferior outcomes. This review discusses recent updates in risk stratification and treatment approaches from upfront treatment for limited and advanced stage follicular lymphoma to the growing options for relapsed, refractory disease with perspectives on how to approach this from a personalized lens. Notable gaps remain on how one can precisely and prospectively select optimal treatment for patients based on varying risks, with an anticipation that an increased understanding of the biology of these different phenotypes and increasing refinement of imaging‐ and biomarker‐based tools will, in time, allow these gaps to be closed.

AbstractBackgroundStudies suggest that immune checkpoint inhibitors may represent a promising strategy for boosting immune responses and improving the antitumor activity of standard therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies.AimsPhase 1/2 FUSION NHL 001 was designed to determine the safety and efficacy of durvalumab, an anti‐programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) antibody, combined with standard‐of‐care therapies for lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).Methods and ResultsThe primary endpoints were to determine the recommended phase 2 dose of the drugs used in combination with durvalumab (durvalumab was administered at the previously recommended dose of 1500 mg every 4 weeks) and to assess safety and tolerability. Patients were enrolled into one of four arms: durvalumab monotherapy (Arm D) or durvalumab in combination with lenalidomide ± rituximab (Arm A), ibrutinib (Arm B), or rituximab ± bendamustine (Arm C). A total of 106 patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoma were enrolled. All but two patients experienced at least one treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE); those not experiencing a TEAE were in Arm C (diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma [DLBCL]) and Arm D (DLBCL during the durvalumab monotherapy treatment period). No new safety signals were identified, and TEAEs were consistent with the respective safety profiles for each study treatment. Across the study, patients with follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23) had an overall response rate (ORR) of 59%; ORR among DLBCL patients (n = 37) was 18%. Exploratory biomarker analysis showed that response to durvalumab monotherapy or combination therapy was associated with higher interferon‐γ signature scores in patients with FL (p = .02).ConclusionDurvalumab as monotherapy or in combination is tolerable but requires close monitoring. The high rate of TEAEs during this study may reflect on the difficulty in combining durvalumab with full doses of other agents. Durvalumab alone or in combination appeared to add limited benefit to therapy.