Citations

SummaryPatients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) disease progression on ibrutinib or after sequential ibrutinib and venetoclax‐based treatments (double‐refractory) have poor outcomes. In this retrospective study, we analysed outcomes with combined ibrutinib and venetoclax treatment in these groups of patients. The median treatment‐free and overall survival for 22 patients with prior progression on ibrutinib (venetoclax‐naïve) were 23.7 and 47.1 months respectively. In 11 patients with double‐refractory CLL, the median treatment‐free and overall survival were 11.2 and 27.0 months respectively. The combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax may help bridge the current gap in options for patients with disease refractory to the most commonly used novel agents.

Flow cytometric (FC) immunophenotyping is critical but time-consuming in diagnosing minimal residual disease (MRD). We evaluated whether human-in-the-loop artificial intelligence (AI) could improve the efficiency of clinical laboratories in detecting MRD in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We developed deep neural networks (DNN) that were trained on a 10-color CLL MRD panel from treated CLL patients, including DNN trained on the full cohort of 202 patients (F-DNN) and DNN trained on 138 patients with low-event cases (MRD < 1000 events) (L-DNN). A hybrid DNN approach was utilized, with F-DNN and L-DNN applied sequentially to cases. “Ground truth” classification of CLL MRD was confirmed by expert analysis. The hybrid DNN approach demonstrated an overall accuracy of 97.1% (95% CI: 84.7–99.9%) in an independent cohort of 34 unknown samples. When CLL cells were reported as a percentage of total white blood cells, there was excellent correlation between the DNN and expert analysis [r > 0.999; Passing–Bablok slope = 0.997 (95% CI: 0.988–0.999) and intercept = 0.001 (95% CI: 0.000–0.001)]. Gating time was dramatically reduced to 12 s/case by DNN from 15 min/case by the manual process. The proposed DNN demonstrated high accuracy in CLL MRD detection and significantly improved workflow efficiency. Additional clinical validation is needed before it can be fully integrated into the existing clinical laboratory practice.

Composite classic Hodgkin lymphoma and follicular lymphoma (CHLFL) is a rare and poorly characterized entity. Herein, we report the clinicopathologic features of 22 cases of CHLFL from 3 institutions and we assess 27 additional cases reported in the literature. In our cohort (n=22), patients with CHLFL had a median age of 61 years and an equal male to female incidence. Most cases (95%) arose de novo with the remaining patients having a history of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. CHLFL always involved lymph nodes (100%) and most cases (95%) revealed 2 distinct areas separately diagnostic for CHL and FL. The CHL component represented a variable proportion of the overall neoplasm (5% to 90%) and was either mixed cellularity (82%) or nodular sclerosis (18%) type. The Hodgkin/Reed-Sternberg cells expressed CD30 (100%), PAX5 (100%), CD15 (62%), BCL6 (47%), BCL2 (29%), and EBER (25%), in a polymorphous inflammatory background typical of CHL. The FL component was low-grade in 55%, grade 3A in 36%, and grade 3B in 9% of cases. All 3 cases investigated by cytogenetic methods for a clonal relationship between the CHL and FL components were clonally related. These clinicopathologic features of our cohort are similar to those of cases reported in the literature. The 5-year overall survival in combined patients with CHLFL (n=49) was 48%, comparable to CHL but worse than FL in the elderly. In summary, CHLFL is a rare entity that most often occurs in older adults, involves lymph nodes, and most commonly presents de novo. In the small number of cases assessed, the CHL and FL components are usually clonally related suggesting that the CHL and FL components may share a common progenitor B-cell, likely a mutated germinal center B-cell.

AbstractBackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluated by flow cytometry is a surrogate for progression‐free and overall survival in clinical trials. However, analysis and reporting between centers lack uniformity. We designed and evaluated a consensus protocol for MM MRD analysis to reduce inter‐laboratory variation in MM MRD reporting.MethodsSeventeen participants from 13 countries performed blinded analysis of the same eight de‐identified flow cytometry files from patients with/without MRD using their own method (Stage 1). A consensus gating protocol was then designed following survey and discussions, and the data re‐analyzed for MRD and other bone marrow cells (Stage 2). Inter‐laboratory variation using the consensus strategy was reassessed for another 10 cases and compared with earlier results (Stage 3).ResultsIn Stage 1, participants agreed on MRD+/MRD− status 89% and 68% of the time respectively. Inter‐observer variation was high for total numbers of analyzed cells, total and normal plasma cells (PCs), limit of detection, lower limit of quantification, and enumeration of cell populations that determine sample adequacy. The identification of abnormal PCs remained relatively consistent. By consensus method, average agreement on MRD− status improved to 74%. Better consistency enumerating all parameters among operators resulted in near‐unanimous agreement on sample adequacy.ConclusionUniform flow cytometry data analysis substantially reduced inter‐laboratory variation in reporting multiple components of the MM MRD assay. Adoption of a harmonized approach would meet an important need for conformity in reporting MM MRD for clinical trials, and wider acceptance of MM MRD as a surrogate clinical endpoint.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Sparse data exist regarding I+V in an off-trial setting, particularly in patients (pts) with progression of disease on either I or V as single agent treatment. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rates with V monotherapy following I range from 75%-91% (Eyre et al, BJH 2019; Jones et al, Lancet Oncol 2018); however, longer-term follow-up of these or other patient cohorts treated with V after I has not yet been reported. Effective options in double-refractory pts are lacking when a clinical trial is not feasible. Here, we report our experience with I+V in these patient groups. METHODS After IRB approval, we reviewed the records of pts seen at Mayo Clinic (between 4/2012-1/2021) who received I+V therapy off-trial for CLL progression. Pts treated with I+V for Richter's transformation were excluded. Time to next treatment (TTNT) was measured from I+V treatment start date to the date of next treatment start or last known treatment status with death as a competing risk. OS was measured from I+V start date until date of death or when the patient was last known alive; OS was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Thirty-three pts with progressive CLL were treated with I+V (median duration 13.3 months [95% CI: 7.1 months-not estimable (NE)]). The median age was 70 years (range 47-86), 6 (18%) were women, and 20 (65%) had del(17p) or TP53 mutation. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1-15). Additional characteristics at the time of I+V start are shown in Table 1. Median follow-up from start of I+V was 23.8 months. Among 22 pts with prior progression on I only (V-naïve), the median duration of I+V was 14.8 months (95% CI 7.6 months-NE). The median duration on either I or V from the start of combination was 20.3 months (95% CI 8.3 months-NE). The median TTNT was 25.1 months (Figure 1A). Four pts proceeded to cellular therapy (alloSCT [n=3], CAR-T [n=1]) while on I+V. Next therapy (n=9) consisted of Richter transformation treatment (n=2), chemotherapy plus continued I+V (n=1), anti-CD20 plus continued I+V (n=1), duvelisib + I (n=1), TP-0903 + I (n=1), reintroduction of I at disease progression after previously stopping I during I+V therapy (n=1), and reintroduction of I (n=1) or V (n=1) at disease progression after previously stopping I+V. Of 9 pts who did not receive subsequent therapy, 4 pts remain on I+V (median duration 16.4 months), 4 pts continued V after discontinuing I (median duration on V from start of I+V was 21.5 months), and 1 pt discontinued I+V following a second cancer diagnosis and died without receiving additional CLL-directed treatment. Eleven pts received I+V in the double-refractory setting; 9 pts had prior disease progression on sequential I then V and 2 pts had prior disease progression on sequential V then I. The median duration of I+V was 7.5 months (95% CI 4.3 months-NE), and the median duration of either agent from I+V start was 10.8 months (95% CI 7.1 months-NE). The median TTNT was 14.0 months (Figure 1A). Eight pts required additional treatment, consisting of PI3K inhibitor (n=2), anti-CD20 added to I+V (n=1), CAR-T (n=1), anti-CD20 with (n=1) or without (n=1) bendamustine added to continued I, and Richter transformation treatment (n=2). One pt continues I+V (17.4 months ongoing) without further treatment. Two pts died from disease progression without receiving additional treatment. The median OS of all 33 pts was 27.4 months (95% CI 25.9 months-NE; Figure 1B). The median OS of the 22 pts with prior progression on I (V-naïve) was 47.1 months (95% CI 27.7 months-NE), and the median OS of the 11 pts with prior progression on I and V separately was 27.0 months (95% CI 15.5 months-NE). In univariate analyses, prior progression on V was a predictor of shorter OS (HR=3.9; 95% CI 1.4-11.2; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Combination I+V therapy in heavily pre-treated CLL pts who have disease progression after I provides durable benefit with a median OS approaching 4 years. In the double-refractory setting, repurposing both drugs as combination I+V therapy can be a useful strategy, despite the short-term disease control, for pts where clinical trial options are limited or not available. Further examination of these approaches in larger cohorts and understanding the operative resistance mechanisms in pts with double-refractory disease are key next studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ding: Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Chanan-Khan: BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Kenderian: Humanigen, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Wang: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Koehler: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kay: AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Combination ibrutinib and venetoclax in patients with relapsed CLL.

Abstract Introduction/Objective Composite classic Hodgkin lymphoma and follicular lymphoma (CHLFL), defined as CHL and FL occurring simultaneously at the same site, is rare and poorly understood. While both Hodgkin/Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells and FL are thought to be derived from germinal center B-cells, the relationship between CHL and FL when coexistent is unclear. Here, we present two cases of CHLFL and show that the CHL and FL components have a clonal relationship by FISH. Methods/Case Report Case #1 is a 50-year-old man with abdominal and mediastinal lymphadenopathy. An excised mesenteric lymph node showed two distinct components diagnostic for FL, grade 1-2 and CHL. Case #2 is a 63-year- old woman with a history of FL with transformation to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Cytogenetic studies showed a complex karyotype with an add(9p), del(10q), and trisomy 16. Post-treatment imaging revealed left axillary adenopathy. An excised axillary lymph node showed CHL with peripheral areas of FL, grade 3A. Both cases had areas of typical FL with BCL2-positive phenotype and no significant CD30/CD15 expression. HRS cells were CD45/CD20-negative, expressed CD30 (strong), CD15, and PAX5, and were present in a mixed inflammatory background. No EBV RNA was present by in situ hybridization. Interestingly, HRS cells in case #1 expressed both BCL6 and BCL2. FISH was performed in both cases. Case #1 had a BCL2 rearrangement in 48% of FL nuclei and in 100% of HRS cells. In case #2, targeted probes were used based on prior cytogenetic results. Here, 47% of FL nuclei and 44% of HRS cells had a 16p duplication; additionally, 32% of HRS cells had an unbalanced IGH rearrangement with loss of the IGH variable region, suggesting possible clonal evolution. No rearrangement of BCL2 or BCL6 was present. An additional 27 CHLFL cases from the literature were reviewed. CHLFL was mostly nodal and occurred in late adulthood in patients with or without a history of FL. It presented at advanced clinical stage, with a 5-year overall survival of 22%. BCL2 expression in HRS cells was common. Bone marrow involvement was 45% (5/11) and consisted of FL exclusively. Five of six tested cases demonstrated BCL2/IGH rearrangement in both FL and HRS cells. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) NA Conclusion Composite CHL and FL are often clonally related and may share a common progenitor B-cell origin – likely a germinal center B-cell – from which additional genetic abnormalities are acquired to develop two distinct lymphomas.