Timing of high dose methotrexate CNS prophylaxis in DLBCL: a multicenter international analysis of 1,384 patients

Prophylactic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is often used for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients at high risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse, despite limited evidence demonstrating efficacy or the optimal delivery method. We conducted a retrospective, international analysis of 1,384 patients receiving HD-MTX CNS prophylaxis either intercalated (i-HD-MTX) (n=749) or at the end (n=635) of R-CHOP/R-CHOP-like therapy (EOT). There were 78 CNS relapses (3-year rate 5.7%), with no difference between i-HD-MTX and EOT; 5.7% vs 5.8%, p=0.98, 3-year difference: 0.04% (-2.0% to 3.1%). Conclusions were unchanged on adjusting for baseline prognostic factors or on 6-month landmark analysis (n=1,253). In patients with high CNS international prognostic index (n=600), 3-year CNS relapse rate was 9.1% with no difference between i-HD-MTX and EOT. On multivariable analysis, increasing age and renal/adrenal involvement were the only independent risk factors for CNS relapse. Concurrent intrathecal prophylaxis was not associated with reduction in CNS relapse. R-CHOP delays of ≥7 days were significantly increased with i-HD-MTX versus EOT, with 308/1573 (19.6%) i-HD-MTX treatments resulting in delay to subsequent R-CHOP (median 8 days). Increased risk of delay occurred in older patients when delivery was later than day 10 in the R-CHOP cycle. In summary, we found no evidence that EOT delivery increases CNS relapse risk versus i-HD-MTX. Findings in high-risk subgroups were unchanged. Rates of CNS relapse in this HD-MTX-treated cohort were similar to comparable cohorts receiving infrequent CNS prophylaxis. If HD-MTX is still considered for certain high-risk patients, delivery could be deferred until R-CHOP completion.

Characteristics, Management and Outcomes of Patients with Intravascular Lymphoma: A Mayo Clinic Experience

Introduction: Intravascular lymphoma (IVL) is an extra nodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tropism for vascular endothelium. It is characterized by growth of large cells within the lumen of small to medium sized blood vessels. Central nervous system (CNS) and skin are predominantly involved. This report represents a retrospective single-institution review of IVL. Methods: We identified patients (pts) with IVL evaluated at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between January 2003 and December 2018. Demographic, clinical, radiologic, pathologic, and therapeutic data were extracted. Statistical analysis of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS)] was performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Total number of pts was 55; 22% (12/55) had CNS-only IVL, 14.5% (8/55) had CNS and non-CNS IVL, and 63.6% (35/55) had non-CNS IVL. Eighty seven percent (47/54) pts were B cell type, 11% (6/54) were T cell type, one pt had NK cell type IVL and another was unknown. Four pts were diagnosed by autopsy. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (range, 40-85). Sixty-four percent were males. ECOG performance status was <2 in 66%. The median follow-up time from diagnosis was 63 months [CI 95%, 9-NR], and 47% (26/55) were alive. The most common diagnostic biopsy sites were bone marrow (BM) 45% (25/55), skin 25% (14/55), and brain 29% (16/55). Twenty-nine patients had a PET scan. Seventy nine percent (23/29) had abnormal PET findings, with mean SUV of 8.6 (range 2.5-19.1). Of the 35 pts with non-CNS IVL, 76% (16/21) had abnormal PET; furthermore, the diagnosis was made with biopsies of the following sites: bone marrow 54% (19/35), skin 40% (14/35), lung 14% (5/35), liver 5.7% (2/35), spleen 2.8% (1/35), and omentum 2.8% (1/35). Forty-six percent (13/28) received CNS prophylaxis and ten percent (3/55) had relapse in CNS. Two out of the three pts who had CNS relapse had received CNS prophylaxis. The median time to CNS relapse in non-CNS IVL was 9 months. The most common first-line regimen was high-dose methotrexate+ rituximab containing regimen 62% (10/16) in IVL with CNS involvement and RCHOP (60%) (17/28) in non-CNS IVL. Seventeen percent of (8/48) pts received autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and 63% (5/8) pts were transplanted in first complete remission (CR1), and 3 pts after the first relapse. Median OS (mOS) for the whole cohort was 57 months, [CI 95%, 9-NR], and median PFS was 7 months [CI 95%, 2-NR]. There was no significant difference in mOS between groups; CNS-only IVL- 9 months (CI 95%, 1-NR), non-CNS IVL -62 months (CI 95%, 20-NR) vs combined CNS and non-CNS IVL- 4 months (CI 95%, 3-NR). mOS for those who received ASCT in CR1 was not reached (CI 95%, 10-NR) vs 51 months in non-transplant group (CI 95%, 3-NR) p=0.24. In pts with non-CNS IVL, there was no significant difference in mOS between CNS prophylaxis subgroup (NR: CI 95%, 57-NR) vs no-CNS prophylaxis subgroup (20 months: CI 95%, 0-NR), p=0.12. In those with CNS IVL mOS for early diagnosis (0-30 days from symptom onset to diagnosis was NR (CI 95%, 3-NR) vs mOS for late diagnosis (>30 days {31-14,440})-5months (CI 95% 1-NR), p=0.29]. Conclusion: 1. BM was most frequently involved in our patients. We suggest that BM biopsy should be part of diagnostic testing when IVL is suspected. 2. Most cases are of B-cell linage, consistent with reported literature. All non-B cell cases were in non-CNS locations. 3. PET scans were abnormal in more than 70% of cases indicating that this imaging modality is vital in the diagnosis due to odd location and small size of lesions. 4.Overall prognosis in the literature was poor with most patients surviving <1 year. Our cohort has mOS of 57 months. The reason(s) for better survival in our cohort could not be definitively determined. 5. CNS involvement had an overall trend towards poor prognosis; however, those diagnosed early had better outcomes; this did not reach statistical significance due to small sample size. 6. mOS was not reached for those transplanted CR1. There was a trend towards a better survival associated with CNS prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis in non-CNS IVL. 7. We suggest that CNS-centric therapeutic approach and intensive consolidation with ASCT should be considered in managing IVL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Habermann: Incyte: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Seagen: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Tess Therapeutics: Other: Data Monitoring Committee; Morphosys: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Loxo Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board; Eli Lilly & Co.,: Other: Scientific Advisor. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Tun: Mundipharma, Celgene, BMS, Acrotech, TG therapeutics, Curis, DTRM: Research Funding; Gossamer Bio, Acrotech: Consultancy.

Characteristics of Patients with Central Nervous System Relapse in Veterans with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma within the Veterans Health Administration

Introduction Around 2-5% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) will experience central nervous system (CNS) relapse resulting in a poor prognosis. The Central Nervous System International Prognostic Index (CNS-IPI) is a validated risk model used to help identify DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) chemotherapy who are at risk for CNS relapse. CNS prophylaxis is recommended for those with high-risk CNS-IPI scores; however, the role of CNS prophylaxis has been called into question given recent large datasets showing no impact on CNS relapse. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the characteristics of Veterans who experienced CNS relapse within the Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA) and to validate the CNS-IPI risk stratification within this population. Methods Trained abstractors performed a retrospective chart review of 3287 lymphoma patients seen in the VHA nationwide between 01/01/2011 and 12/31/2017. Figure 1 describes the selection of the study cohort. We evaluated baseline patient and disease characteristics including CNS-IPI score, performance of diagnostic lumbar puncture (LP) and first-line chemotherapy regimen. Pathology reports to identify cell of origin (COO), and additional risk factors for CNS relapse present at the time of original diagnosis including HIV associated lymphoma, testicular lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphomas (HGBLs) defined as double or triple-hit DLBCL were evaluated. We also assessed response to first-line treatment, type of CNS prophylaxis used, including number of doses, and time to CNS relapse. Results A total of 1621 patients met criteria for analysis. Patients were predominately male, white, had a median age of 67, and presented with advanced disease (Table 1). At the time of diagnosis, 81% of the cohort had an ECOG performance status of 0-2, 73% received a CHOP based regimen, and 52% were designated as having a high-risk CNS-IPI score. Patients were about twice as likely to have a germinal center B-cell (GCB) COO rather than activated B-cell (ABC), but the COO was unavailable for almost 30% of the cohort. About 6% of the patients were known to have HGBLs, but the "hit status" of around 65% of the patients was unknown. Diagnostic LP was performed in 10%, 14%, and 19% of patients in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk CNS-IPI groups respectively. The median follow-up time for the subjects in the study was 44 months. The low-risk group (12% of all patients analyzed), the intermediate-risk group (36%) and the high-risk group (52%) showed rates of CNS relapse of 1% (with a 95% CI: 0% to 2.4%), 2.4% (CI: 1.2% to 3.7%), and 2.4% (CI: 1.3% to 3.4%) respectively with no statistically significant difference across the risk groups (p=0.30). In patients with CNS relapse, only 35% of patients had a diagnostic LP. More than 90% of patients deemed high-risk for CNS relapse did not receive CNS prophylaxis. Among the 36 patients with CNS relapse, only 3 were given CNS prophylaxis at baseline (Table 2). Of the patients with CNS relapse, 75% of patients achieved a complete response with initial treatment. When categorized by the CNS-IPI score, there is no significant difference between intermediate- and high-risk based on type of CNS relapse, type of CNS prophylaxis used, response to first-line therapy, median time to relapse, median survival time, or median time from relapse to death. Those with CNS relapse had a shorter survival time compared to those with systemic relapse or no relapse (Figure 2). Conclusions When compared to the previously validated CNS-IPI study, there were fewer instances of CNS relapse in our patient population in the intermediate- and high-risk groups, however, about a quarter of the patients in these groups did not receive CHOP based therapy. Although there is published data demonstrating COO and HGBLs as contributing factors to CNS relapse, our data did not show any statistically significant difference in relapse rates. Potential limitations include that the study is a retrospective chart review of a predominately male veteran population. Our data suggests the CNS-IPI may not identify patients at risk for CNS relapse with adequate accuracy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Nooruddin: AstraZeneca: Research Funding.

Effective Central Nervous System (CNS) Prophylaxis Chemotherapy Approach in High Risk Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction: CNS relapses with DLBCL tend to be uncommon. The risk increases with certain DLBCL types and certain risk features. There is no consensus regarding the optimal approach to CNS prophylaxis for high-risk DLBCL patients. While some favor prophylaxis with high-dose systemic therapy or intrathecal chemotherapy (IT), some experts advocate combining both approaches. In the absence of randomized trials, the role of CNS chemotherapy prophylaxis remains controversial in DLBCL with contradictory comparative studies. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the impact of CNS prophylaxis approaches on the clinical outcomes of high-risk DLBCL. Methods: A review of the medical literature was conducted using online databases. Inclusion criteria consisted of DLBCL diagnosis, English language, IT or high-dose systemic prophylactic chemotherapy, and comparative studies reporting CNS recurrence rates. A frequentists and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted using the netmeta package and random-effects model. Results: Twenty-one comparative studies with a total of 11,507 patients were included and analyzed. The relative risk (RR) of CNS recurrence was not statistically different between IT prophylaxis, high-dose chemotherapy, and no prophylaxis. However, the combination of IT prophylaxis and high-dose chemotherapy was found to be significantly associated with a reduced RR of CNS recurrence when compared to IT prophylaxis (RR=0.28, 95%CI 0.13-0.58), high-dose chemotherapy (RR=0.34, 95%CI 0.14-0.80), and no prophylaxis (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.19-0.87). Conclusions: This network meta-analysis is the first to compare the different CNS prophylactic approaches. It indicates that IT prophylaxis and high-dose chemotherapy each were not better than no prophylaxis. However, the combination of IT prophylaxis with high-dose chemotherapy was significantly superior to each approach alone as well as no prophylaxis. In the absence of randomized clinical trials, this network meta-analysis represents the most compelling data supporting the use of CNS prophylaxis in patients with high-risk DLBCL. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

NCOG-04. THE IMPACT OF PROPHYLAXIS CHEMOTHERAPY ON CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM (CNS) RELAPSES OF HIGH RISK DIFFUSE LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA (DLBCL): A NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND CNS relapses with DLBCL tend to be uncommon. The risk increases with certain DLBCL types and certain identified risk features. There is no consensus regarding the optimal approach to CNS prophylaxis for high-risk DLBCL patients. While some favor prophylaxis with high-dose systemic therapy or intrathecal chemotherapy (IT), some experts advocate combining both approaches. In the absence of randomized trials, the role of chemotherapy prophylaxis remains controversial in DLBCL with contradictory comparative studies. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the impact of CNS prophylaxis approaches on the clinical outcomes of high-risk DLBCL. METHODS A review of the medical literature was conducted using online databases. Inclusion criteria consisted of DLBCL diagnosis, English language, IT or high-dose systemic prophylactic chemotherapy, and comparative studies reporting CNS recurrence rates. A frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted using the netmeta package and random-effects model. RESULTS Twenty-one comparative studies with a total of 11,507 patients were included and analyzed. The relative risk (RR) of CNS recurrence was not statistically different between IT prophylaxis, high-dose chemotherapy, and no prophylaxis. However, the combination of IT prophylaxis and high-dose chemotherapy was found to be significantly associated with a reduced RR of CNS recurrence when compared to IT prophylaxis (RR 0.28, 95%CI 0.13-0.58), high-dose chemotherapy (RR 0.34, 95%CI 0.14-0.80), and no prophylaxis (RR 0.41, 95%CI 0.19-0.87). CONCLUSIONS This network meta-analysis is the first to compare the different CNS prophylactic approaches. It indicates that IT prophylaxis and high-dose chemotherapy each were not better than no prophylaxis. However, the combination of IT prophylaxis with high-dose chemotherapy was significantly superior to each approach alone as well as no prophylaxis. In the absence of randomized clinical trials, this network meta-analysis represents the most compelling data supporting the use of CNS prophylaxis in patients with high-risk DLBCL.

Updates in the Management of Early-Stage Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Several important updates have emerged in the management of early-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Three trials resulted in the approval of rituximab + cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone (R-CHOP) for use in these patients internationally. Furthermore, studies have been initiated to determine whether 4 or 6 cycles of this regimen should be administered without radiation therapy (RT). Six cycles of R-CHOP plus central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis and prophylactic testicular RT are recommended for patients with extranodal disease occupying the testicles. Although controversial, there is a reasonable consensus in the literature to consider 6 cycles of R-CHOP plus involved-site RT and CNS prophylaxis for patients with extranodal disease of the breast. Patients with primary bone and gastric extranodal disease do not seem to derive a significant survival benefit from RT. Molecular subtype evaluations may change treatment approaches.

Can high-dose methotrexate be safely administered to outpatients?

34 Background: High-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is administered as prophylaxis for central nervous system (CNS) relapse in Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL). It is traditionally administered in an inpatient setting due to its complex supportive care regimen. We developed an outpatient protocol and evaluated the safety of this approach. Methods: In 2019 a multidisciplinary team at Kingston Health Sciences Centre developed an outpatient HD-MTX protocol for CNS prophylaxis in DLBCL. Select eligible patients received their HD-MTX infusion in the day unit and returned daily for bloodwork and monitoring. Leucovorin and continuous intravenous hydration were administered via ambulatory infusion pumps. A single centre retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on all patients who received outpatient HD-MTX. These patients were compared to a historical control group who underwent inpatient HD-MTX and who would have met outpatient eligibility criteria. To evaluate the safety of the outpatient protocol we compared the risk of significant toxicity, defined as an elevation in serum creatinine or oral mucositis of grade III or higher, or development of febrile neutropenia. We also evaluated the time to MTX serum clearance, patient admissions and delays of subsequent chemotherapy cycles. Results: From June 2017 to March 2021, 6 outpatients undergoing 14 HD-MTX cycles and 13 inpatients undergoing 28 cycles were evaluated. Significant toxicity occurred in one outpatient cycle compared to five inpatient cycles (7.1% vs 17.9%, p = 0.79). Average time to MTX clearance was 4.1 days for outpatients and 3.5 days for inpatients (p = 0.013). Only one outpatient was admitted to hospital, resulting in an average length of hospital stay of 0.5 days for outpatients compared to 4.96 days for inpatients. There was no significant difference in the need to delay a subsequent cycle of chemotherapy. Conclusions: Outpatient administration of HD-MTX can be administered safely and effectively as CNS prophylaxis in select patients with DLBCL.[Table: see text]