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