Citations

Introduction: The use of standardized, evidence-based classification systems is crucial for the accurate diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Moreover, standardized classification facilitates research and epidemiologic studies and promotes consistency in communication among healthcare professionals. Since 2016, the revised 4 th edition of the World Health Organization classification (WHO-HAEM4R) has been the global standard for diagnosis of lymphoid malignancies. With the emergence of new data, 2 new classification systems were developed and published in 2022: the 5 th edition of the WHO Classification (WHO-HAEM5) and the International Consensus Classification (ICC). Both WHO-HAEM5 and ICC maintain a shared fundamental concept of disease classification that integrates clinical, pathologic, and molecular data. However, they differ on nomenclature, establishment of new entities, and/or diagnostic criteria for some disease categories. To evaluate the impact of these differences on real-world diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), we examined the diagnostic classification of NHL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study (NCT02736357). Methods: Initiated in 2015, LEO is an ongoing prospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed NHL. Patients are enrolled at 8 major U.S. medical centers. Clinical, epidemiologic, pathologic, and treatment data are abstracted at baseline and active follow-up is conducted for all patients. Lymphoma subtype is coded for each case based on expert hematopathology re-review of the diagnostic pathology slides, the pathology report, biomarker data, and clinical data. Of note, NHL subtype distribution is similar to SEER data. We studied all patients enrolled in LEO between 7/1/2016 (the date LEO pathology review started using WHO-HAEM4R diagnostic codes) and 5/31/2020. WHO-HAEM4R diagnoses and additional clinicopathologic data, when relevant, were used to map cases into the corresponding WHO-HAEM5 and ICC diagnoses. Differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC were annotated for each case as: None - same disease entity; Minor - difference in nomenclature with similar diagnostic criteria; Major - difference in disease category and/or diagnostic criteria; or Unevaluable - insufficient data to assign WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis. Results: LEO enrolled 6143 patients during the study period. Of these, comparison between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC was evaluable in 5730 (93.3%). Unevaluable cases included those without a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis at enrollment (N=384; e.g., patients with a low-grade B-cell lymphoma that could not be definitively sub-classified) and those with a specific WHO-HAEM4R diagnosis, but with insufficient clinicopathologic data to assign a specific WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis (N=29). Of the 5730 evaluable cases, 5376 (93.8%) showed no difference between WHO-HAEM5 and/or ICC diagnosis, 311 (5.4%) showed minor differences (nomenclature only), and 43 (0.8%) showed major differences (Table 1). The 43 major differences all involved B-cell NHLs; 20 (46.5%) were attributable to different approaches to classifying double-hit lymphomas, 21 (48.9%) to classification of splenic/leukemic B-cell lymphomas, and 2 (4.6%) to classification of B-cell lymphomas occurring at specific anatomic sites (Table 2). Conclusion: In a large, prospective lymphoma cohort reflecting real-world clinical practice at 8 major U.S. medical centers, major diagnostic differences in the classification of NHL using WHO-HAEM5 or ICC classification criteria were seen in 0.8%, whereas the remaining 99.2% of diagnoses were either the same or showed differences in nomenclature only. The existence of 2 concurrent classification systems presents potential for discrepancies in pathologic diagnosis, clinical practice, clinical trials, and other lymphoma research. Furthermore, some of the differences between WHO-HAEM5 and ICC are clinically and potentially therapeutically significant, and their resolution requires further study. Nevertheless, our findings argue that the proportion of patients affected would be small in real-world practice settings. This appears largely related to incidence rates of specific lymphoma subtypes, with major differences between the 2 classifications predominantly affecting rare entities, while there is general concordance on the most common forms of NHL.

Introduction: PET/CT is the standard-of-care for staging and therapy response assessment in lymphoma. Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-avidity in extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL) remains controversial with some variability by extranodal location. The current Lugano classification recommends the use of CT scans only in staging and follow-up for EMZL. However, emerging data from small studies have challenged this suggestion. In this study we aimed to determine the ability of PET/CT to detect FDG-avid EMZL during staging work-up. Methods: First, we retrospectively analyzed the University of Miami (UM) MZL database (period 2/2016-1/2023) searching for patients who underwent staging PET/CT. Images were reviewed by expert radiologists to ascertain avidity of tumor and not surrounding tissue, with specific attention to ocular and GI locations; if scans were not available (n=15), we retrieved data from reports (results presented in part at ICML2023). Next, we aimed to validate the initial UM results additionally analyzing data from imaging reports for patients prospectively enrolled in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) MZL cohort (period 7/2015-5/2020), excluding LEO patients from Miami to avoid overlap. Patients with high-grade transformation at diagnosis were excluded. For patients with >1 extranodal site, each location was counted independently. We considered FDG-avid disease if SUVmax was ≥2 as this value is commonly observed between mediastinal blood pool (BP) and liver background. To normalize data, we calculated ratios of lymphoma SUVmax versus both BP and liver background, as available. Patients without measurable disease were excluded from analysis. Results: Among 210 patients with EMZL in the UM cohort, 152 had staging PET/CT and were analyzed. Twenty-two patients demonstrated >1 extranodal site providing a total of 187 locations. The LEO cohort included 411 patients from 7 centers, with 235 having available imaging reports. Fifty-two patients in this cohort demonstrated >1 extranodal site providing a total of 306 locations. Disease distribution is depicted in Table 1. Among 187 EMZL locations in the UM cohort, the most common were gastric (n=33, 17.6%), ocular (n=31, 16.6%), lung (n=30, 16%), skin and soft tissue (n=16, 8.6%, each). Similarly, lung (n=63; 20.6%), soft tissue (n=46; 15%), gastric and ocular (n=34 each; 11%) were common locations in the LEO cohort. EMZL demonstrated FDG-avidity (SUVmax ≥2) across all locations with identical values in both cohorts (UM= 78.1% & LEO= 76.5%). FDG-avidity by location is shown in Table 1A & B with salivary gland (100% & 100%), lung (93.3% & 95.2%), soft tissue (93.8% & 100%), and airways (90.9% & 100%) demonstrating high avidity in both cohorts. Contrarily, skin was commonly non-FDG avid (93.8% & 81%). The median size of FDG-avid lesions was 2.4cm (range, 0.7-17.4) in UM and 2.9cm (range, 0.1-12) in LEO cohorts. In patients with >1 extranodal site FDG-avidity was nearly universal across sites (UM=93% & LEO=100%). We observed a significant correlation between lymphoma size and FDG-avidity for UM (r=0.33; P=0.001), and for LEO (r=0.55; P<0.0001). In patients with background FDG-avidity data in the UM cohort (n=150), a BP index and liver index ≥1 detected lymphoma in 79.3% & 71.5% cases, respectively. We were unable to calculate indexes in LEO cohort since only limited data on BP (n=26) and liver (n=19) background was available in imaging reports. Conclusions: This study represents the largest analysis evaluating accuracy of PET/CT to determine initial tumor burden in 387 patients with EMZL. We demonstrate that EMZL is largely an FDG-avid disease across two cohorts, and PET/CT should be included in the staging of these patients while acknowledging possible limited sensitivity in GI locations due to physiologic uptake. Furthermore, we observed that patients with multiple extranodal locations demonstrate uniform FDG-avidity across all sites except for skin involvement. Based on our results we recommend the incorporation of PET/CT into standard staging of EMZL in planned revised Lugano classification guidelines. In those demonstrating initial FDG-avidity, a lower SUVmax threshold of SUVmax ≥2, comparison to mediastinal BP rather than to liver background activity and evaluating for resolution of focal FDG-avidity should be considered to assess treatment response in routine care and clinical trials.

Background: QOL can be affected by disease burden, side effects of treatment, and psychosocial effects of living with cancer. Although MZL is considered incurable, we previously found that patients diagnosed from 2002-2015 had a good QOL both at baseline (BL) and the first decade after diagnosis, regardless of treatment choice (Bommier et al., submitted). Here, we evaluate whether these findings can be extended to the 2015-2020 treatment era and a more diverse US cohort. Methods: Adults with newly diagnosed MZL from 8 academic centers were prospectively enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis from 2015-2020 in the LEO cohort (NCT02736357). Participants were actively followed for disease progression/relapse, retreatment and death. QOL was measured at BL, and at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years after diagnosis using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym) scale (range 0-164), which consists of the FACT-General (FACT-G, range 0-104) plus a lymphoma-specific scale (range 0-60). Total FACT-G measures 4 QOL domains (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being (WB). We also used the Trial Outcome Index (TOI; range 0-112), which consists of FACT-G physical and functional WB plus the lymphoma-specific scale and is commonly used as an endpoint in treatment trials. All MZL patients with both BL and at least one follow-up QOL questionnaire were eligible for analysis. Patients were grouped by initial management: active surveillance (observation), local/antibiotic therapy (radiation, surgery, or anti- H. pylori therapy), or systemic therapy (chemotherapy, targeted agents, or antibody therapy). Change in QOL scores over time was analyzed using mixed models for repeated measurements, and initial treatment groups were compared. Results: Of 384 patients, 60% were female, 91% were White, 6.6% were Black/African American, and 13% were Hispanic (all races). The median age was 64 years (range 19-94). For initial management, 28% (N=106) were observed, 31% (N=118) received local/antibiotic therapy, and 42% (N=160) received systemic therapy. Across treatment groups, there were no significant differences by age, gender, race, or performance status, while there were differences by Hispanic ethnicity (p=0.006), Ann Arbor stage (p<0.001) and MALT-IPI score (p<0.001) (Table). At BL, patients receiving systemic therapy had lower physical WB (p=0.008), emotional WB (p=0.04), functional WB (p=0.03), FACT-G total score (p=0.008), lymphoma subscale (p<0.001), FACT-Lym (p=0.001) and TOI (p<0.001) compared to observation and local/antibiotic therapy (Table). While FACT-G total scores were largely stable through 5 years after diagnosis, social/family WB declined from BL for patients initially receiving either local/antibiotic therapy (mean at 1-year -1.4, p<0.05; 2-year -2.1, p<0.05; 3-year -1.6, p<0.05; 5-year-2.9, p<0.05) or systemic therapy (mean at 2-year -1.2 , p<0.05; 3-year -1.4, p<0.05; and 5-year -1.2, p<0.05), while this was stable for observed patients. In patients receiving initial systemic therapy, there was a transient improvement in the lymphoma-specific scale (mean +1.7, p<0.05) and TOI (mean +3.7, p<0.05). Otherwise, QOL remained stable over time and global QoL (FACT-G, FACT-Lym), TOI, Lymphoma-specific scale (Figure), and the other FACT-G subscales (physical, emotional, or functional WB) did not differ by initial treatment strategy. Conclusions: In the diverse LEO cohort from the recent treatment era, we confirm our prior findings for newly diagnosed MZL patients that QOL is globally stable over the first 5 years after diagnosis; emotional WB is not associated with initial treatment type, providing evidence that being initially observed does not negatively impact emotional health; and there is a decline in social/family WB (support from friends and family, family acceptance of illness, family communication, close to partner), which supports the need to consider interventions for patients to address these unmet needs. In addition, this study extends these findings to the lymphoma-specific scale, FACT-Lym, and TOI, which all showing largely stable trends in the 5 years after diagnosis and suggest that recent MZL treatment strategies, including systemic therapies, neither impair nor improve QOL.

Background Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) comprise a rare, heterogeneous group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas of mature T-cell origin. Most systemic (s) PTCL subtypes typically have poor outcomes with conventional anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Biomarker-driven and subtype-specific treatments are promising but unmet needs. Few benchmark studies exist to characterize the current real-world landscape of clinical and pathologic practice. We report the patterns of care and updated outcome data for PTCL patients enrolled in the LEO-MER multi-center prospective cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02736357). Methods Patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed PTCL were prospectively enrolled in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER cohort (2002-2015) or the expanded LEO cohort (2015-2020). Clinical, pathology, treatment, and outcome data were abstracted from medical records using a standard protocol in both cohorts. Pathology underwent expert re-review based on WHO criteria. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of diagnosis to date of death or last follow-up. Event-free survival (EFS) was calculated from date of diagnosis to disease progression, initiation of 2 nd line therapy, or death from any cause. EFS and OS were evaluated using Cox model and Kaplan-Meier estimator. Log-rank test was used to test the significance of difference between groups. Results LEO-MER enrolled 1132 PTCL patients during the study period (462 MER and 670 LEO). Of these, 722 were sPTCLs (281 MER and 441 LEO), including PTCL-NOS (N=253, 35%), anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL; N=180, 24.9% [74 ALK+, 106 ALK-]), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL, N=164, 22.7%), extranodal NK-TCL (N=50, 6.9%), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (N=33, 4.6%), enteropathy-associated TCL (N=19, 2.6%), and hepatosplenic TCL (N=13, 1.8%) ( Table 1). Median age at diagnosis was 60 years. M:F ratio was 1.5. Comparing LEO to MER, African American population was 15.4% vs 0.7%, and Hispanic was 10% vs 2.2%. Clinical characteristics were comparable between MER and LEO overall: PS≥2, 20.9%; elevated LDH, 50.7%; stage III-IV, 67.6%; and IPI 2-5, 65.7%. The most common 1 st line chemotherapy regimens overall were CHOP-based (N=506, 70%), including 60% receiving CHOP-like chemotherapy in both MER and LEO cohorts (CHOP [N=268, 37%], CHOEP [N=91, 13%] or EPOCH [N=75, 10%]), and 16% with CHOP-like in combination with novel agents in LEO cohort (BV+ [N=41, 9.3%], azacitidine+ [N=11, 2.5%], pralatrexate+ [N=10, 2.3%], lenalidomide+ [N=8, 1.9%]) ( Table 1). More patients received etoposide in LEO (40.3%) than in MER (20.3%). 74 patients (10.3%) underwent consolidative SCT following induction chemotherapy (71 auto and 3 allo). 65 patients (11.2%) received frontline therapy on clinical trials. At a median follow-up of 9.4 years in MER and 4 years in LEO, 177 (MER) and 269 (LEO) events, and 150 (MER) and 206 (LEO) deaths were observed, respectively. The 3-year EFS and 4-year OS estimates for sPTCL were 46.3% and 59.1% in MER, and 40.4% and 51.3% in LEO. EFS and OS correlated with IPI scores and differed by sPTCL subtypes ( Figure 1). ALCL had superior survival, with 3-year EFS and 4-year OS of 78.2% and 90.5% for ALK+, and 65.9% and 76.9% for ALK-. Non-ALCL subtypes including PTCL-NOS and AITL had inferior outcomes, with 3-year EFS and 4-year OS of 31.4% and 42.8% for PTCL-NOS, and 33.4% and 50.7% for AITL. In subset analysis, the addition of etoposide to CHOP chemotherapy as either CHOEP or EPOCH was associated with improved OS for ALK- ALCL (p=0.038, log-rank), but not for ALK+ ALCL (p=0.75) or non-ALCL subtypes of PTCL-NOS and AITL (p=0.88). Conclusion The LEO-MER study is the largest prospective cohort study of PTCL to date. Patterns of care in the LEO cohort begin to incorporate novel agents in frontline therapy. Outcomes continue to mature with longitudinal follow-up and ongoing accrual, which poise to shape benchmarks in the contemporary era. The lack of benefit of etoposide adding to CHOP induction and poor overall survival of non-ALCL subtypes underscores the unmet need of therapeutic breakthrough for non-ALCL frontline treatment, particularly through clinical trials with biomarker-guided approaches incorporating novel agents.

Background: Recently, large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs) have undergone major shifts in classification and treatment paradigm, particularly with the advent of CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T). Initially approved as third-line treatment in LBCL in 2017, as of early 2022 CAR-T is indicated for second-line therapy (2L) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) disease within 12 months of frontline treatment or who are not candidates for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Given this quickly changing landscape, we aimed to describe disease characteristics, patterns of care, and survival outcomes in patients with R/R LBCL receiving two or more lines of systemic therapy across modern treatment eras. Methods: We developed a database of patients with R/R LBCL from 8 U.S. academic centers in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort study (NCT02736357) and Consortium for Real World Evidence (CReWE). Unlike the SCHOLAR-1 dataset (M Crump et al, Blood 2017), our cohort included any patient receiving 2L, regardless of timing of progression/relapse. For this analysis, eligible patients were aged ≥18 years and received 2L between 2002-2022. Patients with histologic transformation, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder, primary CNS lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, Burkitt lymphoma, or plasmablastic lymphoma were excluded. Prognostic factors, therapy details (including intent for ASCT and/or CAR-T), and outcomes, including treatment response, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS), were abstracted for all lines of therapy. Treatment eras were defined as pre-CAR-T (2002-2010), CAR-T available via clinical trial (2011-2017), and post-FDA approval of CAR-T (2018-2022). Results: Of 1760 patients initiating 2L for R/R disease, 1523 were eligible for analysis. Median age at start of 2L was 62 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-70), and 65% were male; 11% were non-White, and 8% were Hispanic. High-grade subtypes comprised 16% of all cases. IPI was available for 1013 patients at time of 2L therapy, with 54% having IPI 3-5. Median time from diagnosis to 2L was 8.7 months (IQR 5.6-18.5), with 834 patients not having achieved complete response (CR) to 1L, 285 patients relapsing <12 months after 1L, and 404 patients relapsing ≥12 months after 1L. The median number of total lines of therapy received was 4 (range 2-18), with 586 and 347 receiving ASCT and CAR-T, respectively, at any line of treatment. At a median follow-up of 48 months from the start of 2L, 926 patients (61%) had died. Progressive lymphoma was the primary cause of death in 75% of deceased patients, with 8% of reported deaths due to therapy. 2L was received at an academic medical center in 83% cases, and 209 patients (14%) received 2L on a clinical trial. ASCT and/or CAR-T was planned at 2L for 989 patients (65%), of whom 463 ultimately received ASCT, 88 received CAR-T, and 21 received allogeneic transplant at 2L. 494 patients were not considered for ASCT or CAR-T at 2L, and 40 were unknown for ASCT/CAR-T intent. Breakdown by treatment era (n = 1518 with available treatment start date) is shown in the Table. Median EFS from start of 2L was 4.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.8-4.8). Median OS from start of 2L was 18 months (95% CI: 17-22), and 2- and 5-year OS estimates were 46% (95% CI: 44-49%) and 35% (95% CI: 33-38%), respectively. EFS and OS improved significantly for patients initiating 2L between 2011-2017 compared to 2002-2010. However, EFS and OS in the 2018-2022 era remained similar to 2011-2017 (Figure). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first-ever large-scale attempt to describe patterns of care and outcomes in LBCL 2L in the modern era, inclusive of all treatment approaches. The rich and unique LEO CReWE dataset captures evolving practice approaches over time in terms of both intent for and receipt of cellular therapies. Likely reflecting the rapid development of many novel immune effector cell products and bispecific antibodies, we observed increased enrollment on 2L clinical trials in the 2018-2022 period, including a substantial proportion of patients receiving CAR-T in 2L. Importantly, survival increased in treatment eras during which CAR-T was available. Ongoing analyses of factors associated with improved survival will be presented at the meeting.

Background: We previously reported thatearly events in follicular lymphoma (FL), defined as progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) or early transformation to a more aggressive histology, are significantly associated with increased risk of lymphoma related death. To refine clinical management, the FLIPI24 prognostic model was developed to predict the risk of early events after starting immunochemotherapy (IC) (Maurer et al, 2022). The FLIPI24 model was found to be significantly superior to standard clinical models for prediction of both event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) and overall survival (OS) in internal and external validation sets of patients receiving IC. We sought to evaluate the prognostic ability of the FLIPI24 model in patients with FL not receiving IC. Methods: The cohort consists of prospectively enrolled patients in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the multicenter Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohorts. Data were collected from medical records by standard protocol with all events verified by medical record review. Eligible patients were those diagnosed with grades 1-3A FL and initiated observation, rituximab monotherapy, radiation, or other non-IC therapy. The FLIPI24 model utilizes 5 continuous variables: age (linear 60-90 years with inflection at age 75), HGB (linear 8-17 g/dL), WBC (linear 4-11x10 9/L), LDH/ULN (linear 0.5-5), and B2M (linear 1-10 mg/L). FLIPI24 risk is grouped as follows: low risk (≤10%], low-average risk (10-15%], average risk (15-20%], high risk (20-40%], very high risk (>40%) for an early event. EFS was defined as time from diagnosis to progression, relapse, (re)treatment, histologic transformation, or death due to any cause. OS was defined as the time from diagnosis until death from any cause. Cox models and Kaplan Meier curves were used to evaluate association between FLIPI24 and EFS or OS. Results: 1542 patients initiating non-IC management approaches at diagnosis from 2002-2020 were identified. 51% were >60 years (IQR 52-70), and 49% were male. Most patients (86%) had FL grade 1-2. 61% of patients met any criteria for high tumor burden per GELF, BLNI, or GITMO based on available variables. Treatment approaches were 833 observation (54%), 315 rituximab monotherapy (20%), 186 radiation (12%), and 208 other non-IC approaches (14%). At median follow-up of 58 months, EFS24 was 73.8% (95% CI: 71.6%, 76.1%), 5-year OS was 90.9% (95% CI: 89.3%, 92.5%) and 253 (16%) patients died. The FLIPI24 score identified poor outcomes among patients with high/very high-risk score (FLIPI24 >20%), with median EFS of 1.8 years (95% CI, 1.3, 3.28) and 5 year OS of 65.1% (95% CI: 55.9-75.8) (Figure 1). When evaluating patient subsets, for patients with high tumor burden (defined based on available variables) and high/very high-risk score, median EFS was 1.6 years and 5 year OS was 64.6% (95% CI: 54.9%-76.1%). Among patients with low tumor burden FL and high/very high-risk score, median EFS was 2.0 years (95% CI: 0.84-NA) and 5 year OS was 66.2% (95% CI: 42.4%-100%). Patients undergoing observation with high/very high-risk score similarly had shortened median EFS of 1.53 years (95% CI: 1.25-NA) and 5 year OS of 68.9% (95% CI: 56.4%-84.1%). The FLIPI24 had superior concordance for OS (c=0.726) compared to the FLIPI (c=0.646) when evaluated in patients not treated with IC. Results were comparable in the subsets of patients observed (c=0.706 vs 0.596) and receiving rituximab monotherapy (c=0.764 vs 0.721). Conclusion: The FLIPI24 model has been previously validated to provide an individual risk score at diagnosis for the likelihood of experiencing an event within 24 months from starting IC. Here we demonstrate that a high FLIPI24 score predicts for poorer outcomes following non-IC strategies including observation, treatment with radiation, and rituximab monotherapy. The FLIPI24 has better prognostic performance for OS than FLIPI in this non-IC population. High FLIPI24 in patients not treated with IC identifies a patient population who should be considered for IC and/or novel frontline therapies when feasible.

Introduction: Despite governmental and industry-sponsored efforts, clinical trial participation among rural residents and racial and ethnic minorities remains low. The NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 directed the NIH to establish guidelines for inclusion of women and minorities in clinical research. In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration launched an action plan to improve the quality of demographic subgroup data collection, identify barriers to enrollment, employ strategies to increase participation, and promote transparency of related data. However subsequent studies (Green et al. Health Aff. March 2022, Kanapuru et al. Blood Advances. March 2022.) showed no improvement in participation of racial minorities, including Blacks and Hispanics since this plan was enacted. Various complex system- and individual-based factors, including lack of clinical trial availability; lack of diversity in the investigator work force; scant patient and provider awareness of clinical trials; lack of trust in the health care system; and issues with access to care-often driven by financial, geographic, or social constraints (Allison et al. Cureus. Apr 2022.), and stringent eligibility criteria are deemed responsible. The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) IMPACT (Influential Medicine Providing Access to Clinical Trials) research grant strives to bridge this unrelenting care gap. Methods: The LLS IMPACT program includes a 5-year research grant which was launched in 2021. The IMPACT grants support the establishment of clinical trial networks involving academic cancer centers (“Hubs”) linked to community clinics and oncology centers (“Spokes”). The program's overall goal is to provide patients access to trials through participation at the community sites. Initially, 3 institutional sites were selected to participate. These institutions had unique and tailored strategies to improve engagement of underrepresented patients, including black, indigenous, people of color, Hispanic, Latina/Latino, and people from rural communities in vastly different climates and local cultures. The IMPACT grant expanded to encompass 4 additional sites given the imminent needs and clamor of the hematology clinical trials community (Figure 1A). The catchment areas and strategies employed at each institution are summarized in the table (Figure 1B). Results: At the start of the grant period, focus was on building clinical research infrastructure and opening non-interventional clinical trials to teach personnel about clinical research and create relationships with patients. Other programs such as webinar series, tumor boards, technological advancements, and educational workshops were also established to enhance engagement among physicians, match patients to clinical trials, and to provide clinical trial education to potential patients. One trial that has seen early success is the CHIVE IMPACT trial, a non-interventional registry and biorepository which has enrolled 24 patients at a rural and underserved site as of July 2023. The purpose of CHIVE is to enroll patients who have clonal hematopoiesis (CH) or are at risk of CH and follow prospectively in efforts to understand risk of progression and potential for early intervention. The Universal Protocol is another biorepository trial which has more than tripled its enrollment number at a community site between 2021 and 2022. Of the 63 patients enrolled in 2022, 66% of them identified as a race other than White. As our core goal is to increase access to interventional trials, we hope to bring industry sponsored phase II and phase III studies to underrepresented areas that serve a broad patient population. Lack of financial resources, lack of transportation and distance to trial sites, and residual distrust of the medical community (e.g., legacy of Tuskegee experiments) are barriers the grantees are focused on overcoming to enroll the intended populations into clinical trials. Conclusion: The innovative strategies employed to expand access to clinical trials for underrepresented population at the various institutions through the LLS's IMPACT research grant can be utilized during clinical trials design and implementation phases to improve generalizability of clinical trials in hematologic malignancies. In the third year of this program, 7 participating sites are engaging impactful strategies (Figure 1B) which will be reported at the end of the grant period.

Background: Understanding the symptoms and quality of life (QOL) over time of adults with follicular lymphoma (FL) is important for treatment decision-making and clinical management. However, there are limited population-level data on the long-term QOL of adults with FL. We aim to describe the real-world, long-term QOL of adults with newly diagnosed FL up to 5/6 years after diagnosis. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic/Iowa Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the multi-institutional Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) to identify adults with grade 1-3A FL who completed QOL surveys at baseline and follow-up. Participants with lymphoma were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the MER cohort from 2002-2015 and within 6 months of diagnosis in the multi-institutional LEO cohort study across 8 cancer centers from 2015-2020. The LEO/MER cohort studies systematically collected information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and functional assessment. Treatments, disease relapses, and deaths were verified by medical record review. Treating physicians determined clinical management. QOL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1, 2, 3, and 5/6 post-diagnosis. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better QOL across 4 subscales (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being. We categorized participants based on their frontline management at time of diagnosis: “observation” (surveillance), “treatment” (systemic treatment with immunotherapy +/- chemotherapy), and “local” (radiation) groups. We employed a generalized linear mixed model to evaluate and compare the changes in QOL scores (as a continuous variable) from baseline for the observation, treatment, and local groups, adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age, FLIPI risk, and cohort (i.e., LEO or MER). We also evaluated QOL changes by FLIPI risk. Results: Our study included 1,544 participants with FL and QOL data. At the time of enrollment, median age was 61 years (range 19-91), 88% were non-Hispanic White, and 49% were female. Based on initial management, 529 (34%) were in the observation group, 880 (57%) were in the treatment group, and 135 (9%) were in the local group. FLIPI risk was high for 17% in the observation group, 29.3% in the treatment group, and 3% in the local group. The mean (standard deviation) baseline FACT-G total score was lowest in the treatment group with the following baseline scores: 86 (13) for the observation group, 83 (14) for the treatment group, and 88 (12) for the local group (Table 1). The observation and local groups reported a greater worsening of their baseline FACT-G total score vs the treatment group at both the 2-year (-1.2, -0.8 vs +1.8, respectively) and 5/6 year (-5.4, -6 vs. -1.6, respectively) timepoints (Figure 1). This appeared to be driven by worsened physical and functional well-being in the observation (-1.3, -2.2, respectively) and local (-0.9, -2.4, respectively) groups vs the treatment group (0, -0.3, respectively). These differences were statistically significant between the observation vs treatment groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the other subscales, i.e., social/family and emotional well-being, by frontline management. Social/family well-being decreased across all groups by 5/6 years (-2.3 in observation, -2.2 in treatment, and -3 in local, p<0.05). Regardless of FLIPI risk, the total FACT-G scores decreased within each FLIPI risk group at 5/6 years (-4.4 for low, -3.8 for intermediate, and -4.9 for high, p<0.05). This was primarily due to worsened social/family well-being (-2.4 for low, -2.2 for intermediate, and -3 for high, p<0.05) at 5/6 years. There was no statistically significant difference in QOL between FLIPI risk groups. Conclusion: This is one of the first and largest studies with real-world longitudinal QOL data for FL. Our study suggests that frontline systemic treatment initially improved QOL and resulted in a lower degree of QOL decline over time. Social/family well-being decreased over time regardless of frontline management or FLIPI risk. Further research is warranted to explore the impact of timing and specific systemic treatments on QOL, incorporate the patient/caregiver experience to address social/family well-being, and identify the clinical significance of our findings.

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.

Background: Shorter diagnosis to treatment interval (DTI) has been shown to be associated with more aggressive disease features and inferior outcomes in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; Maurer et al, JCO 2018). Additional confirmatory studies have also shown that DTI is related to tumor volume (Alig et al, JCO 2021) and molecular phenotype (Aluaij et al, Blood 2023). Here we evaluate DTI in a large multicenter cohort of patients prospectively enrolled and followed as part of the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcome (LEO) cohort. Methods: Patients were enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis at one the 8 LEO cohort academic medical centers in the United States between 2015 and 2020. Patients in this analysis had aggressive B-cell lymphoma (BCL) treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy. DTI was defined as the initial lymphoma biopsy date until the start of initial chemotherapy; patients with DTI between 0-100 days were evaluated. Short DTI was defined as DTI ≤ 14 days (DTI≤14) as previously described in prior publications (e.g. Maurer et al, JCO 2018) and confirmed via examination of functional forms via splines. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time from start of treatment until progression/relapse, retreatment, or death due to any cause. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from start of treatment until death due to any cause. Results: 2565 patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma were evaluated. Median age was 62 years (IQR 51-71) and 1469 (57%) were male. 297 patients (12%) were self-reported non-White race and 314 patients (12%) were self-reported Hispanic or Latino. The majority had DLBCL, NOS subtype (N=1927, 75%), while 227 (9%) had high-grade BCL with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (HG, DH) and 90 (4%) had high-grade BCL NOS (HG, NOS). Clinical characteristics are summarized in the table. At median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 36-68), 800 patients (31%) had an event and 578 patients (23%) died. EFS at 24 months (EFS24) was 76% (95% CI: 74-77). Median DTI across all subtypes was 21 days (IQR 12-33) and 845 patients (33%) had DTI≤14. Patients with DTI≤14 were significantly younger (median age 59 years) but there was no association between DTI and gender, race, or ethnicity. Patients with DTI≤14 were more likely to have HG, DH or HG NOS subtypes, ECOG PS 2-4, advanced stage, elevated LDH, CNS involvement, B symptoms, and bulky disease ( see table). Patients with DTI≤14 were more likely to receive R-EPOCH-based or intensive therapies (41%) and less likely to receive 1L therapy on a clinical trial (3.8%) compared to DTI>14 (26% and 10.1%, respectively). Consistent with previously reported data, DTI≤14 was associated with inferior EFS (HR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.41-1.87, figure), OS (HR=1.73, 95% CI: 1.47-2.04), and EFS24 (OR=1.93, 95% CI: 1.60-2.38). The association between DTI and outcomes remained significant after stratifying for subtype (EFS HR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.46-1.94; OS HR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.50-2.10) and adjustment for IPI (EFS HR=1.43, 95% CI: 1.24-1.65; OS HR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.24-1.74). In subset analysis, DTI≤14 was significantly associated with inferior outcomes within the subtypes of HG, DH (EFS HR=2.70, 95% CI: 1.82-4.01; OS HR=2.97, 95% CI: 1.92-4.60); HG, NOS (EFS HR=2.07, 95% CI: 0.93-4.60; OS HR=2.36, 95% CI: 1.03-5.43); and DLBCL, NOS (EFS HR=1.51, 95% CI: 1.27-1.78; OS HR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.45-1.85). Analysis was limited in other subtypes due to number of events. Notably, within the subset of patients with DTI>14, there was no significant difference in EFS between subtypes for DLBCL, NOS (EFS24=80%, EFS HR=ref), HG, DH (EFS24=73%, EFS HR=1.26, 95% CI: 0.92-1.73) and HG, NOS (EFS24=83%, EFS HR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.40-1.78), logrank p=0.29; similar results were observed for OS (p=0.22). Conclusions: Patients requiring early initiation of therapy for aggressive B-cell lymphoma represent a distinct population of patients with more aggressive clinical features and inferior outcomes. In patients with longer DTI, high grade subtypes had similar outcomes to DLBCL, NOS. Efforts should be made to include patients with anticipated short DTI in clinical trials and translational studies to fully capture the spectrum of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma.