Survival Patterns in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma: Treatment Trajectories and Responses after the First Relapse

Background: Nearly 40% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are either refractory to or relapse (R/R) after initial first-line (L1) treatment. These patients frequently receive subsequent lines of treatment, although to achieve long-term remission requires aggressive chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous bone marrow transplant (BMT). Few real-world studies have examined the treatments used in R/R DLBCL patients over the entire disease trajectory. Methods: Using the VA Cancer Registry System and electronic healthcare records (EHR), we identified Veterans diagnosed with DLBCL between January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2016 who relapsed or progressed after L1 RCHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone ± rituximab) ± etoposide and then proceeded to receive at least one additional line of treatment. Human annotation of EHR notes confirmed DLBCL diagnosis, treatment regimen(s) received (including BMT), and treating physician response assessment after each line. Treatment regimens were classified as aggressive (with intent to proceed to BMT) or non-aggressive per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Eligible patients were followed until loss to follow-up, death or the end of the study period (March 31, 2019). Patients with a cancer diagnosis other than DLBCL were excluded from the study. Results: We identified 270 R/R DLBCL patients who received a second-line (L2) treatment after having previously received L1 with RCHOP ± etoposide. The mean age of patients was 64.6 years; 97.4% of patients were male. Of the 270 patients, 166 (61.5%) patients received an aggressive L2 treatment regimen. RICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide ± rituximab) and BR (bendamustine ± rituximab) were the most commonly used aggressive and non-aggressive regimens, accounting for 39.3% and 8.9% of L2 treatment, respectively. Compared with patients who received non-aggressive L2 treatment, aggressive L2 treatment patients were younger (61.4 versus 69.7 years). Following aggressive L2 treatment, 87 patients (52.4%) achieved complete or partial response (CR/PR), while CR/PR was achieved in 43 (41.3%) patients who received non-aggressive L2. Of the 29 (10.7%) patients who received BMT, 28 received an aggressive L2 regimen. Approximately half of all patients who received L2 therapy (121/270) proceeded to third-line (L3) treatment, of which 47 (38.8%) received an aggressive L3 regimen. Nearly half of those patients who received an aggressive L2 treatment (36, 47.4%) proceeded to an aggressive L3 regimen, while only 11 (18.8%) non-aggressive L2 patients proceeded to aggressive L3 treatment. Following L3 treatment, 7 (5.8%) patients proceeded to a BMT. The median overall survival (OS) in patients receiving L2 was 9.7 months (CI: 8.2-11.7 months). The median OS for patients treated with aggressive L2 was 9.7 months (CI: 8.1-12.2 months) compared with 9.7 months (CI: 6.8-12.9 months) in patients treated with a non-aggressive L2. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients treated with aggressive L2 was 5.6 months (CI: 4.6-7.9 months) and 4.9 months (CI: 3.5-8.4 months) for patients treated with non-aggressive L2. Median OS in patients receiving L3 was 6.3 months (CI: 5.1-8.7 months). The median OS for patients treated with aggressive L3 was 6.8 months (CI: 5.1-12.5 months) compared with 6.6 months (CI: 4.8-9.7 months) in patients treated with a non-aggressive L3. The median PFS for patients treated with aggressive L3 was 4.5 months (CI: 2.6-6.9 months) and 2.9 months (CI: 1.8-5.7 months) for patients treated with non-aggressive L3. Conclusions: Patients who receive aggressive L2 treatment tend to be younger, more likely to receive another aggressive therapy (if L3 treatment is needed), and were much more likely to proceed to BMT than patients who received non-aggressive L2 therapy. Patients who received aggressive L2 treatments resulted in higher response rates compared to less aggressive treatment. We did not find a difference in OS between patients who received aggressive and non-aggressive treatment, the cause of which may be multifactorial. Future studies will examine factors that may impact OS in these patient groups. Acknowledgments: The study was sponsored by Genentech, Inc. Masaquel, Halloran, DeLong-Sieg, Schulz, and Li are employees of Genentech and may receive stock options from Roche. Disclosures Halwani: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Masaquel:Roche: Equity Ownership; Genentech: Employment. Halloran:Genentech, Inc.: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Delong-Sieg:Genentech/Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schulz:Roche: Equity Ownership; Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Li:Genentech: Employment; Roche: Equity Ownership. Sauer:University of Utah and SLC VA Medical Center: Employment.

Download Full-text

Blinatumomab Monotherapy Shows Efficacy in Patients with Relapsed Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v118.21.1637.1637 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 118 (21) ◽

pp. 1637-1637 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Andreas Viardot ◽

Mariele Goebeler ◽

Richard Noppeney ◽

Stefan W. Krause ◽

Stefan Kallert ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

B Cell ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Large B Cell

Abstract Abstract 1637 Blinatumomab (MT103) is a single-chain bispecific antibody construct with specificity for CD19 and CD3 belonging to the class of bispecific T cell engager (BiTE®). A phase I trial with indolent and mantle cell lymphoma patients established a maximal tolerable dose (MTD) at 60 μg/m2/d. The trial was subsequently amended to evaluate blinatumomab in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients were treated by 4–8-week continuous i.v. administration with the following dosing regimen: first week at 5 μg/m2/d, second week at 15 μg/m2/d and for the remaining treatment period at 60 μg/m2/d. Two cohorts each with 6 DLBCL patients were enrolled. The two cohorts solely differed by the dose and schedule of corticosteroid medication administered at the beginning of blinatumomab infusion for mitigation of adverse events. In the first cohort 100 mg prednisolone was applied 1 hour prior to start; and in the second cohort patients received dexamethasone on days 1, 2, and 3. Three sequential patients received dexamethasone also 6–12 hours prior to start of infusion. Out of the twelve patients, 5 were male and 7 female. The median age was 57 years (range from 26 to 78 years). Patients had received a median of 4 prior regimens (range from 2–6). All patients had been exposed to rituximab. Eight of the 12 patients had undergone autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). International prognostic index (IPI) at screening ranged from 1 to 3 with a median of 2. The most common clinical adverse events (AEs) regardless of causality (>30%) were pyrexia (81.8%), fatigue (54.5%), constipation (36.4%), headache (36.4%), tremor (36.4%) and weight increase (36.4%). The most frequent laboratory AEs regardless of causality (>30%) were hyperglycemia (63.6%), lymphopenia (54.5%), C-reactive protein increase (45.5%), gamma-glutamyltransferase increase (45.5%) and thrombocytopenia (36.4%). Most AEs occurred early and were reversible. Four of 12 patients discontinued infusion due to fully reversible CNS events, 2 of which qualified as dose limiting toxicities (DLTs). Although just one DLT (reversible CNS event grade 3) occurred in the prednisolone cohort, a further cohort applying prophylactic dexamethasone was opened to optimize management of CNS events. A further refinement of the dexamethasone schedule, starting longer time prior to start of blinatumomab, was introduced after one early patient in the cohort receiving dexamethasone had experienced a reversible CNS event leading to discontinuation. All three patients treated in this manner completed the first blinatumomab cycle without discontinuations. Only one showed a grade 1 tremor, and no other CNS AEs were reported in these three patients. Two of 12 patients were not exposed to 60 μg/m2/d due to early discontinuations and 1 patient is too early in treatment for response evaluation. Five out of the remaining 9 evaluable patients (56%) showed objective clinical responses (4 CR/CRu; 1 PR). Three out of the 5 patients with CR/CRu or PR had prior ASCT. Two patients achieved objective responses (1 CR, 1 PR) despite of discontinuation at 60 μg/m2/d. The median response duration is +182 days (longest current duration +428 days), with 4 out of 5 responses still ongoing. Further evaluation of the last cohort will refine the recommended phase II dose, and the intensity and timing of dexamethasone comedication. The observation of lasting CRs after blinatumomab monotherapy in DLBCL patients is promising and warrants further exploration in a phase II study. Disclosures: Krause: Micromet: Research Funding. Mackensen:Micromet Inc.: Research Funding. Topp:Micromet: Consultancy, Honoraria. Scheele:Micromet Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Nagorsen:Micromet Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Zugmaier:Micromet: Employment. Degenhard:Micromet Inc: Employment. Schmidt:Micromet AG: Employment. Kufer:Micromet Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Libicher:Micromet Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bargou:Micromet: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Preliminary Results from a Phase I Trial of Pembrolizumab Plus Vorinostat in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Follicular Lymphoma, and Hodgkin Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-123163 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 759-759 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Alex F. Herrera ◽

Lu Chen ◽

Leslie L. Popplewell ◽

Lihua E Budde ◽

Matthew Mei ◽

...

Keyword(s):

T Cells ◽

B Cell ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Pd1 Blockade ◽

Expansion Cohort ◽

Large B Cell

Introduction: Up to 20-40% of patients (pts) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and most treated pts with follicular lymphoma (FL) will have relapsed or refractory (RR) disease. Despite recent therapeutic advances, a minority of pts with transplant-ineligible RR HL or DLBCL, or RR FL will achieve durable remission with currently available treatments (tx). Effective novel therapies for pts with RR HL, DLBCL, or FL remain an unmet need. Although responses to PD1 blockade have been observed in pts with RR HL, DLBCL, and FL, there is room for improvement. Despite a high overall response rate (ORR) to anti-PD1 monotherapy in RR HL, the complete response (CR) is low and most patients with RR DLBCL or FL will not respond. Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) have immunomodulatory effects, including enhancing antigen presentation, recruiting T-cells into tumors, and promoting T-cell function. Preclinical models in melanoma and lung cancer demonstrated enhanced anti-tumor activity when HDACi were combined with PD1 blockade. We conducted a phase I study to determine the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab plus vorinostat in RR DLBCL, FL, and HL. Methods: Adult pts with RR HL, DLBCL, or FL who had failed ≥ 1 prior line of tx and were transplant-ineligible were enrolled to receive IV pembrolizumab and oral vorinostat in 21-day cycles. Pts were treated in a dose-escalation cohort with 2 dose levels (DL) using a Rolling 6 design and then onto an expansion cohort with tx at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). In DL1, vorinostat was administered at 100mg BID on days 1-5 and 8-12 and in DL2, vorinostat was administered at 200mg BID on days 1-5 and 8-12. Pembrolizumab dose was 200mg every 3 weeks in all DLs. Tx could continue for a maximum of 2 years. The primary endpoint was safety and determination of the RP2D. Responses were assessed using PET-CT (DLBCL, HL, FL) or CT (FL) by investigators according to the 2014 Lugano Classification. Results: 30 pts were enrolled, including 12 in the dose escalation and 18 in the expansion cohort. At baseline, 67% were male, 73% were Caucasian, the median age was 44 years (range 19-79), the median number of prior tx was 4 (range 1-7), 9 pts had DLBCL, 9 had FL, and 12 had HL. Among DLBCL pts, 4 had primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBL), 4 were non-GCB by Hans criteria, 3 had double-expressor lymphoma, and 3 had prior CAR T-cells. Among HL pts, 11 had prior BV, 7 had prior PD1 blockade, and 3 were refractory to prior PD1 blockade. Additional baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. In 28 pts with tx data, the median number of cycles was 5 (range 1-16). Of 6 pts treated at DL1, 1 had a DLT (Grade 4 Stevens-Johnson syndrome, SJS) and 1 out of 6 pts had a DLT in DL2 (Grade 3 pulmonary embolism, PE); therefore, DL2 was chosen as the RP2D. In all pts, including the expansion cohort, the most common adverse events (AEs) were nausea (61%), fatigue (57%), hypertension (54%), anemia (50%), leukopenia (50%), hyponatremia (43%), diarrhea (43%), neutropenia (39%), and thrombocytopenia (39%). Grade (gr) 3-4 AEs included 2 pts with gr 3 neutropenia, 1 pt had Gr 4 SJS, and 1 pt each with gr 3 hypertension, anemia, thrombocytopenia, hyperkalemia, lymphopenia, or PE. Immune-related AEs included the Gr 3 SJS and 5 (18%) pts with thyroiditis. 2 patients had vorinostat dose reduction - 1 for neutropenia, 1 for GI toxicity. 12 pts remain on tx; tx was discontinued for toxicity in 3 pts (SJS, PE, elevated creatinine), stem cell transplant in 3 pts, patient preference in 2 pts, and insufficient response in 10 pts. Among 27 evaluable pts, the ORR was 59% and the CR rate was 30% (Table 2). The 9 pts with DLBCL had an ORR of 56% with a CR of 33%, including 2 CR, 1 PR, 1 PD in the 4 PMBL pts (1 had been refractory to CAR T-cells). The 9 pts with FL had an ORR of 22% and CR rate of 11%, and the 9 pts with HL had an ORR of 100% with a CR rate of 44% - both evaluable HL pts who were previously refractory to PD1 blockade responded (2 PR). The median follow-up time in all pts was 4 months (mo, range 1-11). The median duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in all patients were 6 mo, 8 mo, and not reached. The overall 6 mo PFS and OS were 59% and 76%, including 67%/71% in DLBCL, 33%/40% in FL, and 80%/100% in HL. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab and vorinostat was tolerable and produced objective responses in pts with RR DLBCL, FL, and HL. A majority of DLBCL pts and all HL pts responded, including pts who had progressed on prior anti-PD1 tx. Disclosures Herrera: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Popplewell:City of Hope: Employment. Budde:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy. Mei:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Chen:Autolus Therapeutics: Employment. Kwak:Pepromene Bio: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Research Funding; InnoLifes: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Xeme BioPharma, Inc: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Enzychem LifeSciences: Consultancy; Celltrion Healthcare: Consultancy; Celltrion, Inc.: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

A Phase 2, Open-Label, Multicenter Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel in Combination with Either Rituximab or Lenalidomide in Patients with Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma (ZUMA-14)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126369 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4093-4093 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sattva S Neelapu ◽

Mohamed A Kharfan-Dabaja ◽

Olalekan O. Oluwole ◽

Patel Krish ◽

Ran Reshef ◽

...

Keyword(s):

T Cells ◽

B Cell ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rate ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Car T ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Large B Cell

Background: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for the treatment of adult patients who have relapsed/refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) and have had ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. In ZUMA-1, the registrational study of axi-cel in patients with refractory LBCL, the objective response rate was 83% (complete response rate, 58%), with ongoing responses in 39% after a median follow-up of 27.1 months (Locke FL, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Despite the success of axi-cel, approximately 60% of patients have no response or relapse after treatment, indicating that additional strategies are needed for patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL. Preclinical murine studies have shown that rituximab augmented the tumor-suppressing effects of anti-CD19 CAR T cells, and the combination led to higher rates of tumor reduction (Mihara K, et al. Br J Haematol. 2010; Rufener GA, et al. Cancer Immunol Res. 2016). The IMiD® immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide has shown activity in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma and has also been shown to enhance the antitumor functions of anti-CD19 and anti-CD20 CAR T cells in mice (Otahal P, et al. Oncoimmunology. 2016). In ZUMA-14, the aim is to investigate the efficacy and safety of axi-cel in combination with rituximab or lenalidomide in adult patients with refractory LBCL. Methods: This Phase 2 study (NCT04002401) has a planned enrollment of approximately 60 patients aged ≥ 18 years with refractory LBCL, defined as a response of either progressive disease or stable disease to previous chemotherapy or progressive disease or relapse ≤ 12 months after an autologous stem cell transplant. Patients with prior IMiD® treatment, including lenalidomide, prior CAR T cell therapy, and/or prior CD19-targeted therapy are excluded. After leukapheresis, patients will be assigned 1:1 to receive axi-cel with either rituximab (Cohort 1) or lenalidomide (Cohort 2). Patients will receive lymphodepleting chemotherapy of fludarabine (30 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m2) on days -5 to -3 before axi-cel infusion (2 × 106 cells/kg) on Day 0. Cohort 1 will receive rituximab (375 mg/m2) every 28 days starting on Day -5 for a total of 6 doses. Cohort 2 will receive lenalidomide (10 mg) daily starting 7 days after leukapheresis through Day 3 and for 5 additional cycles (20 mg, first 21 days of each 28-day cycle) beginning after axi-cel infusion starting on Day 21. Patients may not receive any therapy other than conditioning therapy and rituximab or lenalidomide, as specified by cohort, between leukapheresis and axi-cel infusion. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed complete response rate per the Lugano classification (Cheson BD, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014). Key secondary endpoints include safety, objective response rate, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and pharmacokinetics (levels of blood CAR T cells over time). Exploratory endpoints for both cohorts include pharmacodynamic assessment of cytokine profiles and the rate of CD19-negative relapses. An additional exploratory endpoint for Cohort 2 is to investigate immunomodulation of the tumor microenvironment, including the number and activation of T cells and natural killer cells. Enrollment is expected to start in September 2019. Disclosures Neelapu: Cell Medica: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Krish:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genetech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Reshef:BMS: Consultancy; Shire: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Riedell:Bayer: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Stiff:Amgen: Research Funding; Gamida-Cell: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Goyal:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Kawashima:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment, Equity Ownership. Milletti:Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel Expenses, Patents & Royalties; Gilead: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel Expenses, Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Oliva:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Sun:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Munoz:Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: ZUMA-14 is a clinical trial evaluating the investigational combination of axicabtagene ciloleucel with either rituximab or lenalidomide in refractory large B cell lymphoma

Download Full-text

Combination of Nivolumab, Lenalidomide and Rituximab in Relapsed/Refractory Non-Germinal Center Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma: Results from a Dose-Escalation Cohort

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-129634 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4100-4100

Author(s):

Tarsheen Sethi ◽

Alexandra E. Kovach ◽

Emily F Mason ◽

Heidi Chen ◽

Tamara Moyo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Dose Escalation ◽

Germinal Center ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Large B Cell

Background: Ten to 15% of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients exhibit primary refractory disease (nonresponse or relapse within 3 months of therapy) and an additional 20-25% relapse following initial response. There is an unmet need for effective therapeutic regimens in relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Lenalidomide is an immune modulator that reverses T cell dysfunction and also inhibits the NFκB pathway, which is constitutively active in non-germinal center (non-GCB) DLBCL. Lenalidomide and nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, each have single agent activity in R/R DLBCL. Here, we report the results of the dose-escalation cohort of this investigator-initiated, single-arm open-label study of the combination of nivolumab, lenalidomide and rituximab (NiLeRi) in R/R non-GCB DLBCL. Methods: Adult patients with R/R non-GCB DLBCL, as determined by the Hans algorithm, with adequate organ function and an ECOG performance status of ≤2 were eligible for the study. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety of NiLeRi, and determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lenalidomide in combination with fixed doses of rituximab and nivolumab, using a 3+3 dose escalation design. The secondary objectives were to determine efficacy in terms of overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of patients treated with NiLeRi. All patients received nivolumab IV 3 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 and rituximab IV 375mg/m2 on day 1 of each 28-day cycle. Lenalidomide was initiated at 5 mg po once daily on days 1-21. Additional planned dose levels were 10 mg, 15 mg and 20 mg. Patients were evaluable for toxicity if they received all doses of nivolumab and rituximab and at least 16 doses of lenalidomide during cycle 1 or if they experienced a dose limiting toxicity (DLT), regardless of the number of doses. NiLeRi was given for 8 cycles and patients with partial response could receive lenalidomide and nivolumab for an additional 4 cycles. Response was assessed by PET-CT after 2, 5 and 8 cycles and defined by Lugano criteria. Results: Six patients with non-GCB subtype of DLBCL were enrolled in this study. The median age was 60.5 years (range 28-79), and 5 patients were male. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 4 (range 2-5), and the median IPI score was 3. None of the patients had bone marrow involvement. One patient each had been treated with autologous stem cell transplant (Auto-SCT) and CAR-T cell therapy. One patient withdrew consent before completing cycle 1 and was not evaluable for safety or efficacy. Safety: Five out of the six enrolled patients were evaluable for safety. All patients received lenalidomide 5 mg dose. Two patients experienced DLTs (grade 3 rash) resulting in lenalidomide discontinuation during cycle 2. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were fatigue (20%), neutropenia (60%), thrombocytopenia (40%), and rash (40%). A total of 3 patients experienced grade 1/2 diarrhea and elevated liver enzymes. One patient experienced a grade 1 infusion reaction with rituximab. Efficacy: Patients who completed at least 1 cycle of therapy were evaluable for response, and this included 5 out of the 6 enrolled patients. The ORR and complete response (CR) rate were both 40%. Patients who responded did so early, with one patient achieving CR after 2 cycles and another patient achieving CR after 5 cycles. The best response seen in patients with primary refractory disease was PR. At a median follow up of 9.5 months, median PFS was 8.4 months (95% CI; 4.3 to not reached), and median OS was not reached. Discussion: This is the first study reporting the safety results of the combination of lenalidomide, nivolumab and rituximab in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Rash was the most common DLT, limiting dose escalation of lenalidomide above 5mg in this cohort of patients. Two patients experienced durable CR early in the study after 2 and 5 cycles, respectively. This ORR and CR rate of 40% each in this small cohort of patients who had relapsed after multiple prior lines of therapy is encouraging. Correlative studies, including whole exome sequencing of patient samples, are underway, in an attempt to explore predictive markers for response and toxicity. Figure. Disclosures Mason: Sysmex: Honoraria. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Morgan:Biogen: Equity Ownership; Eli Lilly: Equity Ownership; Vertex: Equity Ownership; Zoetis: Equity Ownership; Pfizer: Equity Ownership; Novo Nordisk: Equity Ownership; Gilead: Equity Ownership; Johnson and Johnson: Equity Ownership; Merck: Equity Ownership. Reddy:Abbvie: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE Pharma: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Nivolumab and lenalidomide are not FDA approved for use in diffuse large B cell lymphoma

Download Full-text

The Dual Cell Cycle Kinase Inhibitor JNJ-7706621 Reverses Resistance to CD37 Targeted Radioimmunotherapy in Activated B Cell like Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma Cell Lines

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-123287 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 2574-2574

Author(s):

Gro Elise Rødland ◽

Katrine Melhus ◽

Roman Generalov ◽

Sania Gilani ◽

Francesco Bertoni ◽

...

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Cell Lines ◽

Research Funding ◽

Kinase Inhibitor ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Large B Cell

The CD37 targeting radioimmunoconjugate 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan (Betalutin®) is currently being evaluated as monotherapy in a clinical phase 2b trial for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) and in a phase 1 trial for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), as well as in a phase 1b trial in combination with rituximab for patients with relapsed/refractory FL. Herein we have investigated the effect of 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan in seven activated B-cell like (ABC) DLBCL cell lines. Although the radioimmunoconjugate showed anti-tumor activity, primary resistance was observed in a subset of cell lines: U-2932 and RIVA. Both cell lines are representative for TP53 deficient Double Expressor (DE) DLBCL. Importantly, resistance was not a consequence of reduced binding of the radioimmunoconjugate to cell surface expressed CD37. Thus, we set out to identify drugs able to overcome the resistance to 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan in both resistant ABC-DLBCL cell lines. We performed a viability-based screen combining 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan with the 384-compound Cambridge Cancer Compound Library. Drug combinations were scored using Bliss and Chou-Talalay algorithms. We identified and characterized the dual-specific CDK1/2 and AURA/B kinase inhibitor JNJ-7706621 as compound able to revert the resistance to radioimmunotherapy (RIT), alongside topoisomerase and histone deacetylases (HDAC) inhibitors. Kinetic studies of the effect of mono- and combination therapy of U-2932 and RIVA cells with JNJ-7706621 and 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan are suggestive of a model in which radiation damage induced G2-arrested lymphoma cells eventually enter mitosis (repair or escape) and mitotic entry, progression and exit are impaired by JNJ-7706621 mediated inhibition of CDK1/2 and AURKA/B. Extended residence-time of cells in mitosis due to chromosome condensation and congression defects as well as spindle and mid-spindle assembly failure is likely pivotal for the increased sensitivity to persistent 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan deposited DNA damage, ultimately promoting cytokinesis failure (multinucleation, aneuploidy, increased cell size) and cell death. In conclusion, CD37-targeting 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan RIT showed activity in several ABC-DLBCL lymphoma cell lines. CD37-independent RIT-resistance was identified in two cell lines representative of aggressive DE ABC-DLBCLs with inactive TP53, and reversed by subsequent inhibition of CDK1/2 and AURKA/B by JNJ-7706621. These findings may be of potential relevance for ongoing clinical trials of 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan in relapsed, ASCT-non-eligible DLBCL, and may also be more generally applicable to other 177Lu-based RITs and alternative radionuclide utilizing targeted therapies. Future pre-clinical investigations are required to elucidate the potential application of CDK1/2 and AURKA/B inhibitors as a strategy to revert RIT resistance in TP53 deficient cancers. Disclosures Rødland: Nordic Nanovector ASA: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Melhus:Nordic Nanovector ASA: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Generalov:Nordic Nanovector ASA: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Bertoni:Nordic Nanovector ASA: Research Funding; Oncology Therapeutic Development: Research Funding; PIQUR Therapeutics AG: Other: travel grant, Research Funding; HTG: Other: Expert Statements ; Amgen: Other: travel grants; Astra Zeneca: Other: travel grants; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: travel grants; NEOMED Therapeutics 1: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer AG: Research Funding; Cellestia: Research Funding; CTI Life Sciences: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Helsinn: Consultancy, Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Menarini Ricerche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dahle:Nordic Nanovector ASA: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Syljuåsen:Nordic Nanovector ASA: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Patzke:Nordic Nanovector ASA: Employment, Patents & Royalties.

Download Full-text

CD19-Loss with Preservation of Other B Cell Lineage Features in Patients with Large B Cell Lymphoma Who Relapsed Post-Axi-Cel

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126218 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 203-203 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Sattva S Neelapu ◽

John M. Rossi ◽

Caron A. Jacobson ◽

Frederick L. Locke ◽

David B. Miklos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

Cell Lineage ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

Cd19 Expression ◽

Large B Cell

Background: Axi-cel is the first, personalized autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies (YESCARTA. Prescribing Information. 2017). With a median follow-up of 27.1 months in ZUMA-1, the overall response rate was 83%, and 39% of the treated patients had ongoing response (Locke et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). To gain insights into the mechanism of secondary treatment failure post-axi-cel, as well as define alternative targets and product optimization approaches, we analyzed tumor biopsies obtained prior to axi-cel therapy and at relapse. Methods: Tumor tissue samples from patients in Cohorts 1 and 2 of ZUMA-1 who had responded and subsequently relapsed were assessed in a post-hoc analysis for protein expression of B cell linage markers (CD19, CD20, PAX5, CD79a, and CD22) by multiplex immunohistochemistry (IHC), followed by multiplex immunofluorescence (IF) staining and confocal microscopy in representative cases. Pretreatment tissue samples were available from 96 patients, and 21 were available post-relapse. Paired pretreatment and post-relapse samples were available for 16 patients. CD19 and CD20 H-scores were derived based on proportion and intensity of antigen expression. Scores of 0 - 5 were considered negative, and scores of 6 - 300 were considered positive. CD19 splice variants were assessed by RNA sequencing. Results: Among all patients with available post-relapse samples, 7/21 (33%) showed loss of CD19 expression. Analysis of the 16 paired pretreatment and post-treatment samples showed loss of CD19 expression in 4 patients (25%) who relapsed post-axi-cel (Figure). Nineteen post-relapse tumor samples were evaluable for other B cell lineage markers and showed preservation of CD20, CD22 and CD79a, and the B cell lineage transcription factor PAX5, even in samples with loss or substantial reduction of CD19 expression. Multiplex IF showed that CD19 and CD20 were expressed on the cell membrane, and analysis uncovered the presence of malignant cells with different relative expression levels of these two antigens within a given biopsy. Interestingly, among the 96 pretreatment tumor samples, IHC analysis demonstrated that CD20 was robustly expressed in nearly all samples, alongside CD19, despite all patients having previously relapsed after receiving rituximab-based regimens. The CD19 and CD20 expression levels in these tumor biopsies obtained pre-axi-cel did not correlate with each other. RNA sequencing showed alternative splicing of CD19 with loss of exon 2 and/or exons 5/6 in diffuse large B cell lymphoma tumors at baseline and/or relapse, similar to what has been described previously in B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Sotillo et al. Cancer Discov. 2015). In addition, several novel splice junctions have been identified. Data on the correlation between H-scores and CD19 splice forms and clinical outcomes, including response and progression-free survival, will be presented. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients relapsing after axi-cel, loss of CD19 expression was common by IHC as compared to pretreatment, likely due to alternative splicing and selection of variants devoid of target epitope. Additionally, the data showed that expression of alternate B cell lineage antigens was largely preserved. In particular, CD20 cell surface expression was strong in most tumors despite prior rituximab-based treatments. Altogether, these data point to strategies to improve efficacy of anti-CD19 CAR T cell products through co-targeting or sequential targeting of alternate B cell antigens. Disclosures Neelapu: Novartis: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rossi:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Jacobson:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor. Miklos:AlloGene: Consultancy; Celgene-Juno: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Rodig:Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squib: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Affirmed: Research Funding. Flinn:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics, Trillum Therapeutics, Abbvie, ArQule, BeiGene, Curis, FORMA Therapeutics, Forty Seven, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Teva, Verastem, Gilead Sciences, Astra Zeneca (AZ), Juno Therapeutics, UnumTherapeutics, MorphoSys, AG: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma, Agios, Calithera Biosciences, Celgene, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, TG Therapeutics, Verastem: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics, Trillum Therapeutics, Abbvie, ArQule, BeiGene, Curis, FORMA Therapeutics, Forty Seven, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda, Teva, Verastem, Gilead Sciences, Astra Zeneca (AZ), Juno Therapeutics, UnumTherapeutics, MorphoSys, AG: Research Funding. Milletti:Gilead: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel Expenses, Patents & Royalties; Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel Expenses, Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Chang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment, Equity Ownership. Xue:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Plaks:Gilead: Equity Ownership. Kim:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment. Bot:Kite, a Gilead Company: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text

Relapses after Achieving EFS24 in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the Rituximab Era

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113213 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 454-454 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yucai Wang ◽

Umar Farooq ◽

Brian K. Link ◽

Mehrdad Hefazi ◽

Cristine Allmer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Cumulative Incidence ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Salvage Chemotherapy ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Indolent Lymphoma ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Large B Cell

Abstract Introduction: The addition of Rituximab to chemotherapy has significantly improved the outcome of patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients treated with immunochemotherapy for DLBCL who achieve EFS24 (event-free for 2 years after diagnosis) have an overall survival equivalent to that of the age- and sex-matched general population. Relapses after achieving EFS24 have been considered to be unusual but have been understudied. We sought to define the rate, clinical characteristics, treatment pattern, and outcomes of such relapses. Methods: 1448 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL from March 2002 to June 2015 were included. Patients were enrolled in the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma SPORE, treated per physician choice (predominantly R-CHOP immunochemotherapy) and followed prospectively. An event was defined as progression or relapse, unplanned re-treatment after initial therapy, or death from any cause. Cumulative incidence of relapse and non-relapse mortality after achieving EFS24 were analyzed as competing events using Gray's test in the EZR software. Post-relapse survival was defined as time from relapse to death from any cause and analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method in SPSS (V22). Results: Among the 1448 patients, 1260 (87%) had DLBCL alone at diagnosis, and 188 (13%) had concurrent indolent lymphoma (follicular lymphoma 115, marginal zone lymphoma 18, chronic lymphocytic leukemia 14, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma 4, unspecified 37) at diagnosis. After a median follow-up of 83.9 months, 896 patients achieved EFS24. For all 896 patients who achieved EFS24, the cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) was 5.7%, 9.3% and 13.2%, respectively, at 2, 5 and 10 years after achieving EFS24. Patients with concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis had a higher CIR compared to those with DLBCL alone at diagnosis (10.2 vs 4.8% at 2 years, 15.7 vs 8.0% at 5 years, 28.8 vs 9.7% at 10 years, P<0.001; Figure 1). There were a total of 84 patients who relapsed after achieving EFS24. The median age at initial diagnosis was 66 years (range 35-92), and 48 (57%) were male. At diagnosis, 11 (13%) had ECOG PS >1, 37 (50%) had LDH elevation, 62 (74%) were stage III-IV, 14 (17%) had more than 1 extranodal site, and 26 (31%) were poor risk by R-IPI score. There were 58 patients with DLBCL alone at diagnosis who relapsed after achieving EFS24, and 38 (75%) relapsed with DLBCL, 13 (25%) relapsed with indolent lymphoma (predominantly follicular lymphoma), and pathology was unknown in 7 patients. In contrast, there were 26 patients with concurrent indolent lymphoma at diagnosis who relapsed after achieving EFS24, and 9 (41%) relapsed with DLBCL, 13 (59%) relapsed with indolent lymphoma, and pathology was unknown in 4 patients. In the 47 patients who relapsed with DLBCL after achieving EFS24, 45% received intensive salvage chemotherapy, 19% received regular intensity chemotherapy, 9% received CNS directed chemotherapy, and 36% went on to receive autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). In the 26 patients who relapsed with indolent lymphoma after achieving EFS24, 27% were initially observed, 54% received regular intensity chemotherapy, 4% received intensive salvage chemotherapy, and 19% received ASCT after subsequent progression. The median post-relapse survival (PRS) for all patients with a relapse after achieving EFS24 was 38.0 months (95% CI 27.5-48.5). The median PRS for patients who relapsed with DLBCL and indolent lymphoma after achieving EFS24 were 29.9 (19.9-39.9) and 89.9 (NR-NR) months, respectively (P=0.002; Figure 2). Conclusions: Relapses after achieving EFS24 in patients with DLBCL were uncommon in the rituximab era. Patient with DLBCL alone at diagnosis can relapse with either DLBCL or indolent lymphoma (3:1 ratio). Patients with concurrent DLBCL and indolent lymphoma at diagnosis had a significantly higher CIR, and relapses with DLBCL and indolent lymphoma were similar (2:3 ratio). Even with high intensity salvage chemotherapy and consolidative ASCT, patients who relapsed with DLBCL had a significantly worse survival compared to those who relapsed with indolent lymphoma. Late relapses with DLBCL remain clinically challenging, with a median survival of 2.5 years after relapse. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Maurer: Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding. Witzig:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Cerhan:Celgene: Research Funding; Jannsen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Nanostring: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Central Nervous System Relapse in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Analysis of Incidence and Prognostic Factors

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v124.21.1666.1666 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 124 (21) ◽

pp. 1666-1666

Author(s):

Masahiro Uni ◽

Yuki Kagoya ◽

Yasuhito Nannya ◽

Fumihiko Nakamura ◽

Mineo Kurokawa

Keyword(s):

B Cell ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Initial Diagnosis ◽

High Dose ◽

Cns Involvement ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Cns Relapse ◽

Large B Cell

Abstract The addition of rituximab to CHOP (R-CHOP; CHOP, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) has significantly improved the outcome of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, its secondary involvement in the central nervous system (CNS) is still a fatal event, and optimal therapeutic strategies have remained to be established. Combined immunochemotherapy with rituximab, methotrexate, procarbazine, and vincristine (R-MPV) followed by consolidation reduced-dose whole-brain radiotherapy and high-dose cytarabine is currently in use for patients with CNS relapse, though treatment outcome has not been evaluated enough. In the present study, we aimed to analyze the incidence and prognosis of CNS relapse of aggressive B-cell lymphoma in comparison with those of systemic relapse in the era of rituximab-containing regimens. We also estimated the risk factors and prognostic factors for CNS relapse. We retrospectively analyzed 278 consecutive adult patients (≥16 years old) who were diagnosed as DLBCL or primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMLBL) at The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, from August 2003 through August 2013. We excluded patients who had CNS or intraocular involvement at diagnosis since those patients had received high-dose methotrexate-based therapy instead of R-CHOP. Four to six courses of intrathecal administration of methotrexate were performed in patients with adrenal gland, testis or breast involvement as prophylaxis for CNS relapse. The median follow-up period was 42 months, and the median age was 66 years (range, 23-91). Overall, 67 patients (24.1%) had relapse at any site, of which 24 patients (35.8%) had CNS involvement. The median interval between initial diagnosis and the occurrence of secondary CNS involvement was 212 days, and 15 of the 24 patients (62.5%) had CNS relapse within 1 year from the initial diagnosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that multiple or diffuse extranodal involvement at initial diagnosis (hazard ratio [HR] 3.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-10.91; P<0.01) was associated with the development of CNS relapse against non-CNS relapse. Chromosomal abnormality was investigated in 112 patients, of which 38 had abnormal karyotypes as identified by G-banding analysis for lymph nodes. Patients with CNS relapse more frequently harbored chromosomal abnormalities compared with those without relapse in univariate analysis (P=0.01). We also analyzed the survival of patients with primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) as a control. Only two (7%) of 27 patients with PCNSL died during the follow-up period. Five-year OS from initial diagnosis was 92.3% (95% CI: 82.5-100.0%), and was significantly better than that for patients with CNS relapse (33.9%, 95% CI: 17.3-66.3%, P<0.01). Among 24 patients with CNS relapse, eight (33%) had systemic lesions other than CNS when diagnosed as CNS relapse, and four (17%) patients newly developed systemic lesions while treated for CNS relapse. Patients without concurrent systemic lesions attained a rather good prognosis by chemo-radiotherapy, while those harboring concurrent systemic lesions had dismal outcome (one-year OS after the diagnosis of relapse: 74.0% versus 12.4%, P<0.01, Figure 1, systemic relapse was treated as a time-dependent covariate). These results indicate that controlling systemic lesions as well as CNS ones is essential for treating patients with secondary CNS involvement of DLBCL. CNS lesions would be well controlled with R-MPV implementation as salvage therapy, nevertheless we should be careful for concurrent systemic lesions which might require different therapeutic strategies. Disclosures Nannya: Chugai Pharmaceutical　CO., LTD: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding. Kurokawa:Chugai Pharmaceutical　CO., LTD: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer Japan Inc.: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Outcome of Elderly Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated with R-CHOP: Subgroup Analysis from the UK NCRI R-CHOP 14 Vs 21 Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.1516.1516 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 1516-1516

Author(s):

Andrea Kühnl ◽

David Cunningham ◽

Nicholas Counsell ◽

Eliza A Hawkes ◽

Wendi Qian ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Elderly Patients ◽

B Cell ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Bulky Disease ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

The Uk ◽

Large B Cell ◽

Grade Iii

Abstract Background: Elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have an inferior prognosis compared to younger patients. Dose intense administration of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (CHOP14) is superior to 3-weekly CHOP in elderly DLBCL patients (Pfreundschuh, Blood 2004), but this benefit has not been demonstrated with addition of rituximab (Delarue, Lancet Oncol 2013). We have previously shown that R-CHOP14 did not improve outcome compared to standard R-CHOP21 in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients aged 19-88 years across all subgroups (Cunningham, Lancet 2013). Here, we provide a detailed subgroup analysis of elderly patients (over 60 years) from the UK NCRI R-CHOP14 vs 21 randomised phase 3 trial. Methods: Between 2005 and 2008, 1080 patients were randomly assigned to receive 8 cycles R-CHOP21 or 6 cycles R-CHOP14 (+ G-CSF) with two additional rituximab applications. Of these, 604 patients were over 60 years and included in the current analysis (301 in the R-CHOP21 arm, 303 in the R-CHOP14 arm), with a median follow-up of 45 months. Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms. 36% of patients were over 70 years, 15% had a WHO performance status (PS) of 2, 65% stage III/IV disease, 44% bulky disease and 42% B symptoms. There was a trend towards a higher rate of BCL6 rearrangements (26% vs. 16%; P=0.10) and concurrent MYC - and BCL2 rearrangements (double hit lymphoma as determined by FISH, 8% vs. 2%; P=0.06) in the R-CHOP14 arm compared to the R-CHOP21 arm. 85% (257/303) of patients received 8 cycles of R-CHOP14, whereas only 76% (230/301) completed all 8 cycles R-CHOP21. However, percentage of patients receiving at least 6 cycles of therapy was similar (88% and 89%, respectively). Dose delays of myelosuppressive drugs occurred more frequently in patients receiving R-CHOP21 vs. R-CHOP14 (51% vs. 39%; P=0.03) due to a higher incidence of haematological toxicities likely related to the reduced use of G-CSF. G-CSF was mandatory for patients on R-CHOP14 and was given to 57% of patients on R-CHOP21 as secondary prophylaxis. The frequency of dose reductions was similar in the R-CHOP21 and R-CHOP14 arms (15% vs. 16%; P=0.73). Toxicities of grade III+ were seen in 72% and 60% of patients in the R-CHOP14 and R-CHOP21 arms, respectively. There was evidence of a higher incidence of grade III+ neutropenia (62% vs. 36%) and a lower rate of thrombocytopenia (7% vs. 12%) in the R-CHOP21 arm compared to R-CHOP14. The incidence of fever and infections was similar in both arms. There was no evidence of a difference in response rates between the R-CHOP14 and R-CHOP21 arms [complete response (CR)/unconfirmed CR (CRu) rates: 62% vs. 67%, respectively; overall response rate both 91%]. CR/CRu rates after 4 cycles of therapy were 33% and 39% respectively (P=0.15). There was no difference regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between arms, neither in the total cohort of elderly patients, nor in the subgroup of patients over 70 years [OS (all elderly): hazard ratio (HR) 0.91 (95% CI: 0.67-1.24); P=0.55; PFS (all elderly): HR 0.98 (95% CI: 0.74-1.29); P=0.86]. 3-year PFS was 71% (95% CI: 67-74) in all patients over 60 years and 64% (95% CI: 58-71) in patients over 70 years. 3-year OS was 75% (95% CI: 72-79) and 67% (95% CI: 61-74) in patients over 60 years and over 70 years, respectively. In multivariate analysis including individual factors of the International Prognostic Index (IPI), as well as age as continuous variable, gender, presence of B symptoms, bulky disease, b2-microglobulin higher than 3mg/l and albumin higher than 35 g/l, only age was of independent prognostic significance for OS (P=0.01). Besides the standard IPI and the NCCN-IPI, an elderly IPI (E-IPI; Advani, BJH 2010) and the ABE4 score (Prochazka, PLoS One 2014) have been proposed for better prognostication of elderly DLBCL patients. A detailed comparison of these different prognostic models in our dataset will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: Outcome and toxicities in DLBCL patients over 60 years treated within the NCRI R-CHOP14 vs 21 trial are comparable to results from other randomised studies investigating R-CHOP14 or R-CHOP21 in elderly DLBCL patients. Our data further support the similar efficacy and tolerability of both R-CHOP variants for first-line treatment of this patient group. Disclosures Cunningham: Amgen: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Merck Serono: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Pocock:Janssen: Honoraria. Ardeshna:Roche: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Gray Zone Lymphoma (GZL) with Features Intermediate Between Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) and Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL): Pathologic Classification and Clinical Outcomes from a Multicenter Consensus Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4145.4145 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4145-4145

Author(s):

Andrew M Evens ◽

Monika Pilichowska ◽

Stefania Pittaluga ◽

Judith Ferry ◽

Jessica Hemminger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Tumor Cell ◽

B Cell ◽

Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Lymphoma ◽

B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Large B Cell Lymphoma ◽

Relative Rarity ◽

Relapse Rates ◽

Large B Cell

Abstract BACKGROUND: GZL (B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between DLBCL andcHL) was first described in 2005 and included in the 2008 WHO classification. The majority of cases present withmediastinal disease and share features withcHL and primarymediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). Non-mediastinal lymphomas with similar features have also been reported. Due to the relative rarity and the diagnostic complexity of this disease, data on GZL are limited and further description of this entity is desired. METHODS: Clinical data from cases originally diagnosed as GZL were collected from 15 academic centers across the United States and Canada (Evens et al. Am J Hematol, 2015). In an attempt to further characterize the diagnostic features and clinical correlations, 73 cases (including 62 cases from the aforementioned series and 11 subsequently collected cases) were obtained and submitted for central pathology review using criteria of the 2016 revisedWHO classification. All diagnostic samples were evaluated with a panel comprising CD20, CD79a, PAX5, OCT2, BCL6, MUM1, CD30, CD15, CD3 and EBV by in situ hybridization (EBER). Beyond the tumor cellimmunoprofile, diagnostic criteria included: tumor cell density and morphology, necrosis, and the microenvironment. Five cases were rejected for insufficient material/technical issues. Collectively, 68 cases were evaluated by 5 experthematopathologists and consensus diagnosis was reached at multi-headed scope review. Additionally, clinical data were obtained to analyze patient (pt) characteristics and disease outcomes. RESULTS: Of 68 cases given an original diagnosis of GZL from academic institutions, only 26 cases (38%) were confirmed as GZL on consensus review. Pt characteristics of these 26 GZL cases included: 15M/11F; median age 37 years (range 19-72); 42% B symptoms; 61% anemia; 35% increased LDH; and 33% with hypoalbuminemia. 11/26 (42%) biopsies were mediastinal in origin, and in an additional 4 cases, a mediastinal mass was present clinically; 11 (42%) had only peripheral lymphadenopathy/disease (ie, non-mediastinal). 60% of pts had stage I/II disease with 16% having stage IV. GZL cases were characterized by high tumor cell density and paucity of a mixed inflammatory background (both contrary as seen in cHL). The immunohistochemical profiles of the 26 consensus GZL cases are noted in the Table. Notably, only 1 GZL case was EBV positive. 42/68 (62%) of the original cases were reclassified as follows: nodular sclerosis (NS)cHL, n=27 [n=10 of which werecHL, NS grade 2 (cHL-NS2)] and one lymphocyte-richcHL (LRCHL), n=1; DLBCL NOS, n=4; PMBCL, n=2; nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL), n=3; EBV positive LBCL, n=3; and B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder, n=1. Most cases ofcHL diagnosed as GZL had strong CD20 expression. Further, cHL-NS2 was often misdiagnosed as GZL usually due to confluent growth of lacunar cells. Clinically, therapy received and outcomes were available for 25 of 26 of the aforementioned consensus GZL cases; the overall response rate (ORR) for these consensus confirmed GZL cases was 64% (complete remission (CR) 48%) with 28% ofpts experiencing primary refractory disease to frontline therapy. Relapse rates by primary chemotherapy regimen for thesepts were: ABVD 5/6 (83%); CHOP 7/17 (41%); and EPOCH 1/2 (50%). Among consensus GZLpts with relapsed disease, 71% underwent autologous SCT. With a median follow-up of 40 months, the 3-year PFS was 44% with 3-year OS of 90% for the consensus GZL pts. Among all other cases that were reclassified to a non-GZL diagnostic entity, the ORR was 75% (CR 67%) with 3-year PFS and OS rates of 52% and 80%, respectively. This included a relapse rate of 86% amongpts with cHL-NS2. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate diagnosis of GZL remains challenging. Relative rarity of the cases and overlap withcHL, especially thecHL-NS variant with lymphocytic depletion and confluent lacunar cells (also known as cHL-NS2), contribute to this difficulty. Diagnosis should be based on integration of architectural, cytological andimmunophenotypic features. In addition, relapse rates are high with standard chemotherapy regimens, especially ABVD-based therapy. Enhanced biologic understanding and improved therapeutic strategies are needed for GZL. Disclosures Evens: Takeda: Other: Advisory board. Abramson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy. Fenske:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Seatle Genetics: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board. Blum:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Download Full-text