Citations

Abstract Varlilumab is a monoclonal antibody with agonistic activity on CD27. The efficacy of single-agent PD-1 inhibitors on aggressive B-cell non-Hodkin lymphoma is limited. Preclinical and phase 1 data suggest that Varlilumab is safe and may have synergistic activity with PD-1 inhibitors. In the DIAL study, we explored whether dual immunomodulatory therapy with Varlilumab and Nivolumab in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-NHL was safe and effective. We conducted a randomized phase II clinical trial on adult patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-NHL. Patients were randomized to receive Nivolumab monotherapy in the control group and Varlilumab combined with Nivolumab in the experimental group. Crossover to the experimental group was allowed upon progression in the control group. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate based on the Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria (LYRIC). 54 patients underwent randomization, and 51 received assigned intervention and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Objective response was observed in 6 out of 51 patients (ORR 12%). There were 4 responders (ORR 16%) in the Nivolumab group and 2 responders (ORR 7.6%) in the Nivolumab and Varlilumab combination group (p = 0.3). None of the 7 patients that crossed over to the experimental group responded to the addition of Varlilumab. The ORR of patients who were previously exposed to CAR-T cell therapy was 13% (5 out of 39) compared to 8.3% (1 out of 12) in the unexposed patients (p > 0.99). The rate of treatment emergent adverse events was similar between groups, and there was no fatal TEAE in the study. The addition of Varlilumab to Nivolumb did not improve outcomes in patients with aggressive B-NHL. Even though this trial was not designed to evaluate immunotherapy as a rescue therapy after CAR-T failure, most patients (76%) had previously received CAR-T therapy, and their outcomes were equally poor.

Abstract Germinal center (GC)-derived lymphomas arise within a specialized immune ecosystem, yet whether malignant cells direct its remodeling remains unclear. Integrating genomic, transcriptomic, spatial, and functional analyses across follicular lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, we define a developmental framework linking malignant B-cell differentiation state to tumor microenvironment (TME) organization. Rather than segregating by histology, lymphomas align along a shared differentiation continuum in which proliferative dark zone (DZ) states associate with immune-depleted TMEs, whereas post-GC/memory B-cell (MBC) states drive inflamed but immunosuppressed TMEs. Spatial profiling reveals collapse of GC architecture and emergence of suppressive myeloid niches along this trajectory. Single-cell lineage reconstruction uncovers a DZ-to-MBC developmental axis underlying lymphoma evolution. Genetic reprogramming in vivo demonstrates that malignant differentiation state is sufficient to instruct TME remodeling. Collectively, these findings establish malignant differentiation state as a causal determinant of immune architecture across GC-derived lymphomas and identify lineage-directed immune reprogramming as a potential therapeutic strategy.

The phase III AUGMENT trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01938001 ) demonstrated improved efficacy for lenalidomide plus rituximab (R 2 ) versus rituximab with placebo (R-placebo) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). Here, we present the long-term follow-up results and prespecified subgroup analyses of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), including those 70 years and older. Patients with R/R grade 1 to 3a iNHL were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive R 2 or R-placebo. In this long-term follow-up report, progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed per the investigator. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. Of the 358 randomly assigned patients (intent-to-treat [ITT] population), 295 had FL (≥70 years, n = 66). At long-term follow-up (median, 65.9 months), in the ITT iNHL population, PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.66]) and OS (HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.95]) were improved with R 2 versus R-placebo. Safety findings were consistent with the primary analysis. Improved long-term efficacy with R 2 versus R-placebo and manageable safety with R 2 were observed in patients with FL, including those 70 years and older. With a follow-up of >5 years, data from the AUGMENT trial continue to support the use of R 2 as a standard of care for patients with R/R iNHL.

e15138 Background: Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) are poorly characterized due to their innate heterogeneity, thus limiting treatment and clinical trial options for patients. Here, we used whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) to explore the genetic and microenvironmental landscape of NECs in order to understand the unique features of different NEC types, with the aim of improving treatment modalities. Methods: We analyzed 51 NEC clinical samples morphologically verified by a pathologist: lung NEC (20 small cell NEC and 1 large cell NEC cases), gastroenteropancreatic NEC (GEP, 12 cases), cancer of unknown primary (7 cases), Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC, 5 cases), genitourinary tract NEC (3 cases), and breast NEC (3 cases). Findings on tumor mutational burden (TMB, mut/Mb), microsatellite instability (MSI), gene expression signatures, and tumor microenvironment (TME) profiling were reported. Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) subtyping was performed as reported by Gay et al. on the entire NEC cohort. Results: Half of the patients with lung NEC and 84% of those with extrapulmonary NEC satisfied the molecular inclusion criteria for clinical trials, with the most frequent criterion being KRAS G12X or G13X mutations. Among the extrapulmonary NEC samples, 13.7% were deemed eligible for targeted therapy, specifically for cases with BRAF V600E mutation and/or high TMB (> 10 mut/Mb). We detected varying TMB and distinct gene expression features across the entire cohort. Specifically, we found 2 MCC cases to be Merkel cell polyomavirus-positive with low TMB and devoid of UV-associated mutations. One GEP-NEC case exhibited a high MSI (MSI-high) status. We detected 6 SCLC cases (3 non-smokers, 3 former smokers) with surprisingly low levels of tobacco-associated mutations (<10% of all mutations). Two GEP-NEC cases had high levels of mutations associated with tobacco smoking. While TME profiling showed no significant difference in cell population makeup across all samples, transcriptional SCLC subtyping revealed significant differences among the cases. Inflammatory SCLC (SCLC-I) samples showed statistically significant enrichment of all subpopulations of the immune microenvironment (i.e., B cells, T cells, NK cells), supporting the use of immune checkpoint blockade for treatment. The POU2F3+ SCLC (SCLC-P) samples showed low expression of all neuroendocrine diagnostic markers (i.e., INSM1, NCAM1, SYP, CHGA). Conclusions: Given the heterogeneous molecular features across diverse NEC tumors, a uniform treatment strategy is unlikely to benefit all NEC patients. Hence, our ability to detect these unique molecular features is crucial for matching individual NEC patients with specific clinical trials and targeted therapies that may improve their outcomes. Thus, a concerted effort using in-depth genomic, transcriptomic, and TME profiling for NEC tumors is warranted.

Introduction Frontline therapy for pts with follicular lymphoma (FL) is not based on the molecular profile of the tumor. The PI3K pathway is central to FL biology, but the molecular profile of tumors most sensitive to PI3K inhibition (PI3Ki) is unknown. Copanlisib inhibits both PI3Kα and δ isoforms, and we hypothesized that most pts with treatment naïve FL will have PI3Ki-sensitive tumors and durable complete responses (CRs) may be achievable with short durations of targeted therapy. A gene expression profiling (GEP) predictor utilizes a combination of the expression of 45 selected informative genes and an additional 19 housekeeping genes to identify FL pts at high-risk for early progression within 24 months (Wright et al. ASH Annual Meeting2022). We also hypothesized that copanlisib would induce durable CRs in high-risk pts by the GEP assay. Here, we report a preliminary analysis of an ongoing “window of opportunity” study of copanlisib followed by response-adapted copanlisib and rituximab in treatment-naïve pts with FL (NCT03789240). Methods Pts with untreated grade 1-2, 3A FL, ≥stage 2 are eligible if systemic therapy is indicated: symptoms, progressive lymphadenopathy, or organ compromise. Prior radiation is permitted. Eligibility includes age ≥18 and adequate organ function unless due to lymphoma. HIV, CMV, Hep B or C, and autoimmune conditions are excluded. Pts first receive copanlisib 60mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day “window of opportunity” to explore the activity of copanlisib. Following the window, pts receive 6 cycles of copanlisib 60mg on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle along with rituximab 375mg weekly x 4 then on day 1 of each cycle and response is assessed with FDG-PET and CT scans. Pts without response after C6 are taken off study and those with a partial response (PR) can continue for an additional 6 cycles and then stop therapy. Pts who achieve a CR after 6 cycles stop therapy. No maintenance is given. Supportive care includesPCP prophylaxis. The primary endpoint is the CR rate with secondary endpoints of safety, duration of CR, and PFS. Exploratory objectives include identification of a predictive signature of PI3Ki response and the response rate in high-risk pts identified by the GEP assay. Results Twenty-eight pts have enrolled. Median age was 56y (range, 24-80). Seventeen (61%) and 12 (43%) pts had high-risk FLIPI and FLIPI-2 scores ≥3, respectively; 6 (21%) pts had Grade 3A FL, and 17 (61%) pts met two or more GELF criteria. After copanlisib monotherapy in the window, 27 (96%) pts had tumor reductions by CT with a median change of -38% (-62% to +16%) (Figure 1). Among 22 pts who completed 6 cycles, 21 (96%) responded, including 9 (41%) pts with PR and 12 (55%) pts with CR. Of 9 pts with PR who received an additional 6 cycles of therapy, only 1 (11%) converted to a CR bringing the overall CR rate to 59% (13/22 pts). After a median follow-up of 25.8 months, the 2-year PFS was 43.2% (95% CI, 20.7-64.0%). The median duration of CR was 29.7 months (95% CI, 6.3 months - not estimable) with 8 (62%) CRs ongoing (Figure 2). Toxicity was evaluated in 28 pts across 220 cycles. Most common were rash (64%), mucositis (50%), and nausea/vomiting (50%), all G1-2 except 1 (4%) pt with G3 mucositis. The most common ≥G3 toxicities were neutropenia and infections in 5 (18%) pts each. ≥G3 neutropenia occurred in 10 (5%) cycles, responded to therapy interruption and/or growth factors, and did not require dose reduction. Two (8%) pts had copanlisib dose reduced, 1 (4%) each due to rash and mucositis. Therapy was prematurely discontinued in 5 pts: 3 due to COVID-19, 1 for hepatotoxicity that resolved, and 1 due to infusion reaction to rituximab. Nine of 24 (38%) pts were poor risk by the GEP assay. Complete responses were observed in 71%, 67%, and 57% of pts categorized as high-risk by FLIPI, FLIPI-2, and GEP assay, respectively. The CR rate was not affected by bulky disease (any LN &gt;7cm; p=1.00), high-risk FLIPI (p=0.19), high-risk FLIPI-2 (p=0.67), poor-risk GEP (p=1.00), or metabolic tumor volume (p=0.33). Conclusion Nearly all pts with treatment naïve FL have PI3Ki-responsive tumors, and the combination of copanlisib with rituximab achieved a CR rate of 59% at the end of induction therapy. The median duration of CR is nearly 30 months, including ongoing remissions without maintenance. CRs were observed in pts deemed high-risk by the GEP assay and FLIPI score. The safety profile is excellent, with mostly G1-2 toxicities manageable with supportive care.

Abstract The ELARA trial indicates tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is an effective anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL). As ELARA is a single-arm trial, this study compares tisa-cel outcomes from the ELARA trial with usual care from a real-world cohort. ELARA enrolled 98 patients as of 29 March 2021 (median follow-up: 15 months from enrollment). Usual care data were obtained from ReCORD-FL, a global retrospective study of patients with r/r FL, who met similar eligibility criteria to ELARA. With a data cutoff date of 31 December 2020, 187 patients with ≥2 preceding treatment lines were included in the ReCORD-FL (median follow-up: 57 months from third-line) study. An indirect treatment comparison was performed for 97 patients from the ELARA trial and 143 patients from the ReCORD-FL study with no missing data on baseline factors. The line of therapy for which outcomes were assessed was selected or matched between cohorts using propensity score modeling. After baseline factor adjustment via weighting by odds, complete response rate (CRR; 95% confidence interval) was 69.1% (59.8%-78.3%) for tisa-cel vs. 37.3% (26.4%-48.3%) for usual care; overall response rate was 85.6% (78.7%-92.5%) vs. 63.6% (52.5%-74.7%). Kaplan-Meier probability of being progression/event-free at 12 months was 70.5% (61.4%-79.7%) for tisa-cel vs. 51.9% (40.6%-63.3%) for usual care, with hazard ratio (HR)=0.60 (0.34-0.86); 12-month overall survival was 96.6% (92.9%-100%) vs. 71.7% (61.2%-82.2%), with HR=0.2 (0.02-0.38). In conclusion, tisa-cel was associated with a 1.9-fold higher complete response rate and a 1.4-fold higher rate of being progression or event free at 12 months vs usual care, as well as a death risk reduction of 80%. The findings provide additional evidence on the benefit of tisa-cel in patients with r/r FL after ≥2 treatment lines. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03568461

Abstract Background: In the ELARA (E2202) trial (NCT03568461), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) demonstrated high response rates in patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL), including those with high-risk disease, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 86% and complete response rate (CRR) of 66%. As ELARA did not include a comparator arm, an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (ITC) using patient-level data from a global retrospective cohort study was conducted. This study aimed to provide comparative, contextual evidence to the efficacy outcomes of tisa-cel from ELARA relative to standard of care (SOC) in routine practice. Methods: ELARA is an ongoing, single-arm, global, multicenter, phase II trial which evaluates the efficacy and safety of tisa-cel in adult patients with r/r FL. As of March 29, 2021, 98 patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 15 months. SOC data were obtained from ReCORD-FL, a global retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients with r/r FL meeting the ELARA eligibility criteria who were treated per routine practice at 10 academic centers across North America and Europe; 7 ReCORD-FL sites are also participating in ELARA, but no patients are enrolled in both studies. In ReCORD-FL, with a data cutoff date of December 31, 2020, a total of 187 patients with ≥2 lines of previous treatment were identified for inclusion, with a median follow-up from third-line of 57 months. A complete-case comparison analysis was performed for 97 ELARA apheresed patients and 143 ReCORD-FL patients with complete data on all baseline variables and prognostic factors used for adjustment. For the comparative analysis, one line of therapy (LoT) per patient was selected using a propensity score model to identify the LoT which had the highest chance of being enrolled in ELARA conditional on baseline characteristics and prognostic factors available at the start of the LoT (i.e., the selected LoT was the one with the highest propensity score to be in ELARA). After selection of LoT, an adjusted ITC was performed to assess the effect of tisa-cel versus SOC by measuring CRR, ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and time to next treatment (TTNT). A subgroup analysis of SOC patients with ≥1 eligible LoT initiated from 2014 on (coinciding with the introduction of the Lugano response criteria as well as regulatory approval of idelalisib) was performed for all endpoints. Results: Baseline characteristics for the tisa-cel and SOC cohorts are described in Table 1; after weighting, baseline variables, including number of previous lines of systemic therapy (median: 4 lines) were well balanced between the tisa-cel and SOC cohorts. Treatment regimens observed for ReCORD-FL patients at LoT selection were: anti-CD20 antibody plus alkylator (31.5% of patients), anti-CD20 antibody without alkylator (25.9%), alkylator without anti-CD20 antibody (17.5%), and regimens other than anti-CD20 antibody and alkylator (25.2%). After LoT selection and adjusting for differences in baseline variables, tisa-cel was associated with improvement over SOC in CRR (69.1% vs. 37.3%), ORR (85.6% vs. 63.6%), as well as PFS, TTNT and OS (Table 2, Figures 1-2), with a numerically higher 6-month PFS rate vs. SOC (85.3% vs. 66.5%), as well as higher 24-month OS rate (87.8% vs. 64.8%). Further, there was an estimated 80% reduction in death risk in favor of tisa-cel over SOC, a 40% reduction in risk of progression in favor of tisa-cel over SOC and a 69% reduction in risk of death or requiring a new anticancer therapy (Table 1). In the sub-analysis of SOC patients with lines of therapy initiated in or after 2014, the superiority of tisa-cel over SOC was confirmed in all the efficacy outcomes (CRR: 69.1% vs. 30.5%; ORR: 85.6% vs. 58.8%; hazard ratios substantially &lt; 1 for OS, PFS, TTNT). Conclusion: The ITC results suggest that tisa-cel has superior efficacy over SOC in r/r FL for all evaluated endpoints. A key limitation of this study is that response assessment criteria and schedule was more heterogeneous in ReCORD-FL than in ELARA. However, the sub-analysis on SOC patients assessed with a LoT selected in 2014 or later (when more patients could have been assessed using the Lugano response criteria) showed similar favorability for tisa-cel over SOC in all the efficacy outcomes. Moreover, outcome parameters independent of response criteria, namely OS and TTNT, were also significantly better for tisa-cel vs. SOC. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Salles: Abbvie, Epizyme, Morphosys, Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Beigene, BMS/Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Ipsen, anssen, Novartis. Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Miltneiy, Rapt, TAKEDA, Velosbio, Allogene: Consultancy. Schuster: Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dreyling: BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Genmab: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kuruvilla: AbbVie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Antengene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Novartis: Honoraria; Medison Ventures: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria. Patten: ROCHE: Research Funding; GILEAD SCIENCES: Honoraria, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria; ASTRA ZENECA: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Honoraria. Von Tresckow: AbbVie: Other: Congress and travel support; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support; BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress and travel support, Research Funding; Pentixafarm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding. Smith: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Other: Study investigator; Celgene, Genetech, AbbVie: Consultancy. Davis: Novartis, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Eisai, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Anjos: Novartis: Current Employment. Chu: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zhang: Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lobetti Bodoni: Spouse: Harlcok Healthcare: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Spouse: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Spouse: Celgene: Honoraria; Spouse: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Spouse: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Spouse: Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spouse: NHS: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Spouse: F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Gilead: Other: Travel sponsorship in June 2019; Novartis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Thieblemont: Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses , Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses ; Hospira: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses . Fowler: BostonGene, Corp: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Bristol Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, TG Therapeutics and Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dickinson: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Martinez-Lopez: Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Wang: Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Link: Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Consultancy; Novartis, Jannsen: Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: Tafasitamab, an Fc-modified, humanized, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody, in combination with lenalidomide, demonstrated efficacy in transplant-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), in the single-arm, phase II L-MIND study (NCT02399085). RE-MIND, a retrospective observational study, generated a historic control for L-MIND to delineate the contribution of tafasitamab to the efficacy of the combination. Patients and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from patients with R/R DLBCL treated with lenalidomide monotherapy for comparison with tafasitamab + lenalidomide–treated patients (L-MIND). Key eligibility criteria were aligned with L-MIND. Estimated propensity score–based Nearest Neighbor 1:1 Matching methodology balanced the cohorts for nine prespecified prognostic baseline covariates. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Data from 490 patients going through lenalidomide monotherapy were collected; 140 qualified for matching with the L-MIND cohort. The primary analysis included 76 patients from each cohort who received a lenalidomide starting dose of 25 mg/day. Cohort baseline covariates were comparable. A significantly better ORR of 67.1% (95% confidence interval, 55.4–77.5) was observed for the combination therapy versus 34.2% (23.7–46.0) for lenalidomide monotherapy [odds ratio, 3.89 (1.90–8.14); P &lt; 0.0001]. Higher CR rates were achieved with combination therapy compared with lenalidomide monotherapy [39.5% (28.4–51.4) vs. 13.2% (6.5–22.9)]. Survival endpoints favored combination therapy. Lenalidomide monotherapy outcomes were similar to previously published data. Conclusions: RE-MIND enabled the estimation of the additional treatment effect achieved by combining tafasitamab with lenalidomide in patients with R/R DLBCL.

8020 Background: Patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) have a poor prognosis. In these patients, tafasitamab (anti-CD19 antibody) plus lenalidomide (LEN) has shown encouraging results in the open-label, single-arm, phase II L-MIND study (n = 81; NCT02399085). To evaluate the contribution of tafasitamab to the activity of this doublet, we conducted a global, real-world study of patients treated with LEN monotherapy (RE-MIND; NCT04150328). Here we present the primary analysis of a 1:1 patient-level matched comparison between the L-MIND and RE-MIND cohorts. Methods: Patients treated with LEN monotherapy for R/R DLBCL were enrolled in the observational, retrospective RE-MIND cohort. As in L-MIND, patients had 1–3 prior systemic therapies, including ≥1 CD20-targeting regimen; were aged ≥18 years; and were not eligible for ASCT. A 1:1 estimated propensity score (ePS) matching methodology ensured balancing of nine pre-specified baseline covariates. The primary analysis set, Matched Analysis Set 25 (MAS25), included patients who received a LEN starting dose of 25 mg/day. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best objective response rate (ORR). Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and complete response (CR) rate. Results: 490 patients were enrolled in RE-MIND across 58 centers in the US and Europe, of which 140 fulfilled the ePS matching criteria. The MAS25 included 76 patients each from the two cohorts. Baseline characteristics between cohorts were comparable. The primary endpoint was met with a significantly better ORR of 67.1% (95% CI: 55.4–77.5) for the L-MIND cohort versus 34.2% (95% CI: 23.7–46.0) for the RE-MIND cohort (odds ratio 3.89; 95% CI: 1.90–8.14; p < 0.0001). The CR rate was 39.5% (95% CI: 28.4–51.4) in the L-MIND cohort and 13.2% (95% CI: 6.5–22.9) in the RE-MIND cohort. A significant difference in OS favored the L-MIND cohort (HR = 0.499; 95% CI: 0.317–0.785). ORR and CR outcomes in the RE-MIND cohort were similar to the published literature for LEN monotherapy in R/R DLBCL. Conclusions: Significantly better ORR, CR and OS indicate potential synergistic effects of the tafasitamab + LEN combination in ASCT-ineligible R/R DLBCL. ePS-based 1:1 matching allows robust estimation of the treatment effect of tafasitamab when added to LEN. RE-MIND demonstrates the utility of real-world data in interpreting non-randomized trials. Clinical trial information: NCT04150328 .