Search

Autologous(auto-) and allogeneic(allo-) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are key treatments for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), although their roles are challenged by CAR-T-cells and other immunotherapies. We examined the transplantation trends and outcomes for DLBCL patients undergoing auto-/allo-HSCT between 1990 and 2021 reported to EBMT. Over this period, 41,148 patients underwent auto-HSCT, peaking at 1911 cases in 2016, while allo-HSCT saw a maximum of 294 cases in 2018. The recent decline in transplants corresponds to increased CAR-T treatments (1117 cases in 2021). Median age for auto-HSCT rose from 42 (1990-1994) to 58 years (2015-2021), with peripheral blood becoming the primary stem cell source post-1994. Allo-HSCT median age increased from 36 (1990-1994) to 54 (2015-2021) years, with mobilized blood as the primary source post-1998 and reduced intensity conditioning post-2000. Unrelated and mismatched allo-HSCT accounted for 50% and 19% of allo-HSCT in 2015-2021. Three-year overall survival (OS) after auto-HSCT improved from 56% (1990-1994) to 70% (2015-2021), p < 0.001, with a decrease in relapse incidence (RI) from 49% to 38%, while non-relapse mortality (NRM) remained unchanged (4%). After allo-HSCT, 3-year-OS increased from 33% (1990-1999) to 46% (2015-2021) (p < 0.001); 3-year RI remained at 39% and 1-year-NRM decreased to 19% (p < 0.001). Our data reflect advancements over 32 years and >40,000 transplants, providing insights for evaluating emerging DLBCL therapies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies approved for relapsed/refractory aggressive large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Significant costs and complex manufacturing underscore the importance of evidence-based counseling regarding the outcomes of these treatments. With the aim of examining the efficacy and safety of axi-cel versus tisa-cel in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL, we performed a systematic literature search of comparative studies evaluating outcomes in relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL after treatment with axi-cel or tisa-cel. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and hematotoxicity. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were used to generate summary statistics. A total of 2372 participants were included in the 8 studies in our analysis. The dropout rate between apheresis and infusion was 13% for axi-cel versus 18% for tisa-cel, and the median time from apheresis to infusion was 32 days versus 45 days. Axi-cel showed higher odds for a complete response (OR, 1.65; P < .001) and was associated with higher odds for PFS at 1 year after infusion (OR, .60; P < .001). OS appeared to be improved with axi-cel (OR, .84; 95% CI, .68 to 1.02; P = .08), whereas the cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 11.5% for axi-cel versus 3.7% for tisa-cel (P = .002). The main predictors for survival were lactate dehydrogenase level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and response to bridging, and axi-cel maintained superior efficacy even in elderly patients. In terms of safety, axi-cel was associated with significantly higher odds of any-grade CRS (OR, 3.23; P < .001), but not of grade ≥3 CRS (P = .92). Axi-cel was associated with significantly higher odds of severe ICANS grade ≥3 (OR, 4.03; P < .001). In terms of hematotoxicity, axi-cel was significantly associated with higher odds of severe neutropenia at 1 month after infusion (OR, 2.06; P = .003). As a result, axi-cel was associated with significantly greater resource utilization, including prolonged hospital stay, more frequent intensive care admission, and use of agents such as tocilizumab for toxicity management. We provide strong evidence of the greater efficacy of axi-cel versus tisa-cel in relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL. The higher toxicity and NRM seen with axi-cel might not counterbalance the overall results, highlighting the need for timely intervention and careful selection of patients, balancing resource utilization and clinical benefit., (Copyright © 2024 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. All rights reserved.)

The approval of CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for the second-line treatment of high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) has greatly affected salvage algorithms for this condition, and such therapies could have the potential to improve the course of relapsed or refractory LBCL. In this Review, we provide guidance for a rational management approach to the use of commercial CD19-directed CAR T cells in the second-line treatment of LBCL, addressing crucial questions regarding eligible histologies; age, comorbidity, and tumour biology restrictions; the handling of very aggressive tumour behaviour; and holding and bridging therapies. The guidance was developed in a structured manner and, for each question, consists of a description of the clinical issue, a summary of the evidence, the rationale for a practical management approach, and recommendations. These recommendations could help to decide on the optimal management of patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL who are considered for second-line CAR T-cell treatment., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PC reports consultancy for BMS, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sanofi, and BeiGene; participation on speakers’ bureaus for BMS, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis; and travel grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Gilead Sciences, and Novartis. PD reports consultancy for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Miltenyi Biotec, Novartis, and Riemser; participation on speakers’ bureaus for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Riemser, and Roche; and research support from Riemser, all to his institution. BG reports consultancy for BMS and Roche and research funding from Riemser. JGG reports consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Kite Gilead, and Novartis; and research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. MJ reports consultancy for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Autolus, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; and research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Roche. MJK reports honoraria from BMS/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and Roche; consulting or advisory roles for BMS/Celgene, Kite Gilead, Miltenyi Biotec, Novartis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Adicet Bio; and research funding from Kite Gilead, all to her institution. FM reports consulting fees from Roche, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, BMS, AbbVie, Genmab, Miltenyi Biotec, Allogene Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. AM reports consultancy for BMS, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and research funding from Kite Gilead. AS reports consultancy for BMS, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; participation on speakers’ bureaus for BMS, MSD, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and travel grants from BMS, Celgene, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. AV reports consultancy for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, BMS, Roche, and Amgen; honoraria from Roche, Gilead Sciences, BMS, and AbbVie; and travel grants from Roche, Gilead Sciences, and AbbVie. PLZ reports consultancy for ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Celltrion, EUSA Pharma, Incyte Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Roche, Sandoz, Secura Bio, Servier Laboratories, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and participation on speakers’ bureaus for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Celltrion, EUSA Pharma, Incyte Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Roche, Servier Laboratories, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We investigated ≥ grade 3 (CTC-AE) organ toxicities for commercial CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T cell) products in 492 patients (Axi-Cel; n = 315; Tisa-Cel; n = 177) with Large B-cell Lymphoma in the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) CAR-T registry. The incidence of ≥ grade 3 organ toxicities during the first 100 days after CAR-T was low and the most frequent were: renal (3.0%), cardiac (2.3%), gastro-intestinal (2.3%) and hepatic (1.8%). The majority occurred within three weeks after CAR-T cell therapy. Overall survival was 83.1% [79.8-86.5; 95% CI] at 3 months and 53.5% [49-58.4; 95% CI] at one year after CAR-T. The most frequent cause of death was tumour progression (85.1%). Non-relapse mortality was 3.1% [2.3-4.1; 95% CI] at 3 months and 5.2% [4.1-6.5; 95% CI] at one year after CAR-T. The most frequent causes of non-relapse mortality were cell-therapy-related toxicities including organ toxicities (6.4% of total deaths) and infections (4.4% of total deaths). Our data demonstrates good safety in the European real-world setting., Competing Interests: OP has received honoraria or travel support from Gilead, Jazz, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Therakos. He has received research support from Incyte and Priothera. He is member of advisory boards to Equillium Bio, Jazz, Gilead, Novartis, MSD, Omeros, Priothera, Sanofi, Shionogi and SOBI. CC: BELLICUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, BMS/CELGENE: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EBMT: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; FRESENIUS KABI: Research Funding; GILEAD: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau, Honoraria; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; MILTENYI BIOTECH: Research Funding; NOVARTIS: Speakers Bureau, SANOFI SA: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau, TERUMO BCT: Speakers Bureau. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Penack, Peczynski, Koenecke, Polge, Sanderson, Yakoub-Agha, Fegueux, Daskalakis, Collin, Dreger, Kröger, Schanz, Bloor, Ganser, Besley, Wulf, Novak, Moiseev, Schoemans, Basak, Chabannon, Sureda, Glass and Peric.)

Most patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can be cured with immunochemotherapy such as R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). Patients with progression or relapse in the central nervous system (CNS) face dismal outcomes. The impact of more aggressive regimens used in frontline therapy has not been systematically investigated in this context. To this end, we analyzed a large cohort of 2203 younger patients with DLBCL treated on 10 German (German Lymphoma Alliance [GLA]/The German High Grade Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Study Group [DSHNHL]) and French (The Lymphoma Study Association [LYSA]) prospective phase 2 and 3 trials after first-line therapy with R-CHOP, R-CHOEP (R-CHOP + etoposide), dose-escalated R-CHOEP followed by repetitive stem cell transplantation (R-MegaCHOEP), or R-ACVBP (rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycine, and prednisone) followed by consolidation including multiple drugs crossing the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Patients with DLBCL with an age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI) of 0 to 1 showed very low cumulative incidence rates of CNS relapse regardless of first-line therapy and CNS prophylaxis (3-year cumulative incidences 0%-1%). Younger high-risk patients with aaIPI of 2 to 3 had 3-year cumulative incidence rates of 1.6% and 4% after R-ACVBP plus consolidation or R-(Mega)CHO(E)P, respectively (hazard ratio 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 0.8-7.4; P = .118). Thus, for younger high-risk patients, frontline regimens incorporating agents crossing the BBB may reduce often fatal CNS relapse., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

This global phase 3 study compared lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) with a standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy for primary refractory or early relapsed (≤12 months) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Adults eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT; N = 184) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to liso-cel (100 × 106 chimeric antigen receptor-positive T cells) or SOC (3 cycles of platinum-based immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT in responders). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). In this primary analysis with a 17.5-month median follow-up, median EFS was not reached (NR) for liso-cel vs 2.4 months for SOC. Complete response (CR) rate was 74% for liso-cel vs 43% for SOC (P < .0001) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was NR for liso-cel vs 6.2 months for SOC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.400; P < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was NR for liso-cel vs 29.9 months for SOC (HR = 0.724; P = .0987). When adjusted for crossover from SOC to liso-cel, 18-month OS rates were 73% for liso-cel and 54% for SOC (HR = 0.415). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events occurred in 1% and 4% of patients in the liso-cel arm, respectively (no grade 4 or 5 events). These data show significant improvements in EFS, CR rate, and PFS for liso-cel compared with SOC and support liso-cel as a preferred second-line treatment compared with SOC in patients with primary refractory or early relapsed LBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03575351., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) has shown promising efficacy in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We present health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results from the TRANSFORM study, the first comparative analysis of liso-cel vs standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy in this population. Adults with LBCL refractory or relapsed ≤12 months after first-line therapy and eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation were randomized 1:1 to the liso-cel or SOC arms (3 cycles of immunochemotherapy in which responders proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation). HRQOL was assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - 30 items and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma subscale. Patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessment were analyzed (liso-cel, n = 47; SOC, n = 43). The proportion of patients with meaningful improvement in global health status/quality of life (QOL) was higher, whereas deterioration was lower in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm from day 126 to month 6. Mean change scores showed meaningful worsening in global health status/QOL at month 6, fatigue at day 29 and month 6, and pain at month 6 with SOC; mean scores for other domains were maintained or improved in both arms. Time to confirmed deterioration favored the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm in global health status/QOL (median: not reached vs 19.0 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.94). HRQOL was either improved or maintained from baseline in patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm as second-line treatment. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT0357531., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have evolved as a new standard-of-care (SOC) treatment in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Here, we report the first German real-world data on SOC CAR T-cell therapies with the aim to explore risk factors associated with outcomes. Patients who received SOC axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) for LBCL and were registered with the German Registry for Stem Cell Transplantation (DRST) were eligible. The main outcomes analyzed were toxicities, response, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). We report 356 patients who received axi-cel (n = 173) or tisa-cel (n = 183) between November 2018 and April 2021 at 21 German centers. Whereas the axi-cel and tisa-cel cohorts were comparable for age, sex, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), international prognostic index (IPI), and pretreatment, the tisa-cel group comprised significantly more patients with poor performance status, ineligibility for ZUMA-1, and the need for bridging, respectively. With a median follow-up of 11 months, Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS, PFS, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM) 12 months after dosing were 52%, 30%, and 6%, respectively. While NRM was largely driven by infections subsequent to prolonged neutropenia and/or severe neurotoxicity and significantly higher with axi-cel, significant risk factors for PFS on the multivariate analysis included bridging failure, elevated LDH, age, and tisa-cel use. In conclusion, this study suggests that important outcome determinants of CD19-directed CAR T-cell treatment of LBCL in the real-world setting are bridging success, CAR-T product selection, LDH, and the absence of prolonged neutropenia and/or severe neurotoxicity. These findings may have implications for designing risk-adapted CAR T-cell therapy strategies., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) primary refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line therapy are at high risk for poor outcomes with current standard of care, platinum-based salvage immunochemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an autologous, CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has previously demonstrated efficacy and manageable safety in third-line or later LBCL. In this Article, we report a prespecified interim analysis of liso-cel versus standard of care as second-line treatment for primary refractory or early relapsed (within 12 months after response to initial therapy) LBCL., Methods: TRANSFORM is a global, phase 3 study, conducted in 47 sites in the USA, Europe, and Japan, comparing liso-cel with standard of care as second-line therapy in patients with primary refractory or early (≤12 months) relapsed LBCL. Adults aged 18-75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or less, adequate organ function, PET-positive disease per Lugano 2014 criteria, and candidates for autologous HSCT were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of interactive response technology, to liso-cel (100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells intravenously) or standard of care. Standard of care consisted of three cycles of salvage immunochemotherapy delivered intravenously-R-DHAP (rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, two infusions of cytarabine 2000 mg/m 2 on day 2, and cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 1), R-ICE (rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 1, ifosfamide 5000 mg/m 2 on day 2, etoposide 100 mg/m 2 on days 1-3, and carboplatin area under the curve 5 [maximum dose of 800 mg] on day 2), or R-GDP (rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1)-followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous HSCT in responders. Primary endpoint was event-free survival, with response assessments by an independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria. Efficacy was assessed per intention-to-treat (ie, all randomly assigned patients) and safety in patients who received any treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03575351, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Oct 23, 2018, and Dec 8, 2020, 232 patients were screened and 184 were assigned to the liso-cel (n=92) or standard of care (n=92) groups. At the data cutoff for this interim analysis, March 8, 2021, the median follow-up was 6·2 months (IQR 4·4-11·5). Median event-free survival was significantly improved in the liso-cel group (10·1 months [95% CI 6·1-not reached]) compared with the standard-of-care group (2·3 months [2·2-4·3]; stratified hazard ratio 0·35; 95% CI 0·23-0·53; stratified Cox proportional hazards model one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (74 [80%] of 92 patients in the liso-cel group vs 46 [51%] of 91 patients in the standard-of-care group), anaemia (45 [49%] vs 45 [49%]), thrombocytopenia (45 [49%] vs 58 [64%]), and prolonged cytopenia (40 [43%] vs three [3%]). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events, which are associated with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in one (1%) and four (4%) of 92 patients in the liso-cel group, respectively (no grade 4 or 5 events). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 44 (48%) patients in the liso-cel group and 44 (48%) in the standard-of-care group. No new liso-cel safety concerns were identified in the second-line setting. There were no treatment-related deaths in the liso-cel group and one treatment-related death due to sepsis in the standard-of-care group., Interpretation: These results support liso-cel as a new second-line treatment recommendation in patients with early relapsed or refractory LBCL., Funding: Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MK is a consultant for ADC Therapeutics, Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) company, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene, outside of the submitted work; reports speakers bureau fees for Seagen outside of the submitted work; and reports research funding from TG Therapeutics, Genentech, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. JA reports honoraria from Juno Therapeutics and BMS, outside of the submitted work. BG is a consultant for BMS, Roche, Kite, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; reports research funding from Roche and Riemser, outside of the submitted work; reports speakers bureau from Roche outside of the submitted work; and is a current employee of Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch. VB reports membership on Board of Directors or advisory committees for Karyopharm, FATE, and Gamida Cell, outside of the submitted work; and research funding from Incyte, FATE, and Gamida Cell, outside of the submitted work. SI reports divested equity in the past 24 months from Karyopharm Therapeutics outside of the submitted work. SM reports speakers bureaus for Novartis, DNA Prime, and Celgene–BMS, outside of the submitted work; travel support and expert panel from Gilead Kite, outside of the submitted work; and is on the data safety monitoring board for Miltenyi Biotec and Immunicum, outside of the submitted work. PM is a consultant for BMS and received research funding from AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. FH-I reports advisory boards from Amgen, Kite, Pharmacyclics, BMS, Celgene, Incyte, Abbvie, Gilead, and Epizyme, outside of the submitted work. KI reports honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fuji Film Toyama Chemical, Genmab, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Symbio, Takeda, Chugai, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Allergan Japan, and AbbVie outside of the submitted work; and research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genmab, Incyte, Huya Biosciences, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Solasia, Takeda, Yakult, Chugai, Celgene, BeiGene, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. FM is a member on Board of Directors or advisory committees for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Celgene, Incyte, Epizyme, BMS, F Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, Gilead, and Genmab, outside of the submitted work; is a consultant for Genentech, Novartis, Epizyme, BMS, Servier, F Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, and Gilead, outside of the submitted work; and reports honoraria from Janssen, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Chugai; and reports speakers bureau from F Hoffmann-La Roche outside of the submitted work. ML is a consultant for Karyopharm Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Legend, Verastem, Janssen, Myeloid Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Spectrum, Celgene, a BMS company, AbbVie, Acrotech, Beigene, ADC Therapeutics, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Kite, a Gilead company, and Kyowa Kirin, outside of the submitted work. DGM reports honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, A2 Biotherapeutics, BMS, Umoja, Janssen, Legend Biotech, Genentech, Novartis, MorphoSys, Navan Technologies, Kite Pharma, and Juno Therapeutics, outside of the submitted work; rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/BMS from Celgene, BMS, and Juno Therapeutics, outside of the submitted work; research funding paid to his institution from Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, and Kite Pharma, outside of the submitted work; stock options from A2 Biotherapeutics and Navan Technologies, outside the submitted work; and research funding from Celgene and Juno Therapeutics, outside of the submitted work. AC, AP, and SM are current employees of Celgene, a BMS company; and current equity holders in BMS. KO and LS are current employees of BMS; and current equity holders in BMS. TM was an employee of BMS at the time this research was conducted; and is a current equity holder in BMS. JSA is a consultant for Kymera, Genentech, Incyte Corporation, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MorphoSys, Bluebird Bio, Genmab, EMD Serono, BMS, C4 Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, AbbVie, Allogene Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and received research funding from BMS and Seagen, outside of the submitted work. SRS and PBJ declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Six cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) are the standard treatment for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the FLYER trial, we assessed whether four cycles of CHOP plus six applications of rituximab are non-inferior to six cycles of R-CHOP in a population of patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with favourable prognosis., Methods: This two-arm, open-label, international, multicentre, prospective, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial was done at 138 clinical sites in Denmark, Israel, Italy, Norway, and Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18-60 years, with stage I-II disease, normal serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, ECOG performance status 0-1, and without bulky disease (maximal tumour diameter <7·5 cm). Randomisation was computer-based and done centrally in a 1:1 ratio using the Pocock minimisation algorithm after stratification for centres, stage (I vs II), and extralymphatic sites (no vs yes). Patients were assigned to receive either six cycles of R-CHOP or four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab. CHOP comprised cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m 2 ), doxorubicin (50 mg/m 2 ), and vincristine (1·4 mg/m 2 , with a maximum total dose of 2 mg), all administered intravenously on day 1, plus oral prednisone or prednisolone at the discretion of the investigator (100 mg) administered on days 1-5. Rituximab was given at a dose of 375 mg/m 2 of body surface area. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. No radiotherapy was planned except for testicular lymphoma treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after 3 years. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned treatment. A non-inferiority margin of -5·5% was chosen. The trial, which is completed, was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00278421., Findings: Between Dec 2, 2005, and Oct 7, 2016, 592 patients were enrolled, of whom 295 patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of R-CHOP and 297 were assigned to receive four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab. Four patients in the four-cycles group withdrew informed consent before the start of treatment, so 588 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After a median follow-up of 66 months (IQR 42-100), 3-year progression-free survival of patients who had four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab was 96% (95% CI 94-99), which was 3% better (lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference was 0%) than six cycles of R-CHOP, demonstrating the non-inferiority of the four-cycles regimen. 294 haematological and 1036 non-haematological adverse events were documented in the four-cycles group compared with 426 haematological and 1280 non-haematological adverse events in the six-cycles group. Two patients, both in the six-cycles group, died during study therapy., Interpretation: In young patients with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and favourable prognosis, four cycles of R-CHOP is non-inferior to six cycles of R-CHOP, with relevant reduction of toxic effects. Thus, chemotherapy can be reduced without compromising outcomes in this population., Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

To further improve outcome in young high-risk patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) the number of rituximab (R) infusions was doubled in combination with standard CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, etoposide, vincristine, prednisone) chemotherapy. Seventy-seven patients (aged 18-60 years) with an age-adjusted International Prognostic Index of 2-3 received 12 × R (375 mg/m 2 ) on days 0, 1, 4, 8, 15, 22, 29, 43, 57, 71, 85 and 99 together with eight cycles of CHOEP-14. Results were retrospectively compared to those of patients receiving 6 × R and 8 × CHOEP-14 in the standard arm of the randomized R-MegaCHOEP trial. Two-year overall survival (OS) was 82% [95% confidence interval (CI) 73%-92%]; 2-year event-free (EFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 69% (95% CI 59-80%) and 76% (95% CI 66%--6%), respectively. Comparing 12 to six doses of R revealed no differences (univariate/multivariate) in EFS (at 2 years: 69% vs. 71%), PFS (76% vs. 75%) and OS (82% vs. 85%), with P = 0·766, P = 0·871 and P = 0·843, respectively. Doubling the number of R infusions concomitant to CHOEP did not improve treatment outcomes. Nonetheless, OS and PFS of young high-risk patients who received only six infusions of R combined with CHOEP remain excellent and were confirmed in an independent cohort of patients., (© 2018 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: To develop and validate a risk score for relapse in the CNS in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)., Patients and Methods: A total of 2,164 patients (18 to 80 years old) with aggressive B-cell lymphomas (80% DLBCL) treated with rituximab and CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone)-like chemotherapy, who were enrolled in studies from the German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group and the MabThera International Trial, were analyzed for occurrence of relapse/progression in the CNS. The resulting risk model was validated in an independent data set of 1,597 patients with DLBCL identified in the British Columbia Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer database., Results: The risk model consists of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) factors in addition to involvement of kidneys and/or adrenal glands (CNS-IPI). In a three-risk group model, the low-risk group (46% of all patients analyzed), the intermediate-risk group (41%), and the high-risk group (12%) showed 2-year rates of CNS disease of 0.6% (CI, 0% to 1.2%), 3.4% (CI, 2.2% to 4.4%), and 10.2% (CI, 6.3% to 14.1%), respectively. Patients from the validation British Columbia Cancer Agency data set showed similar rates of CNS disease for low-risk (0.8%; CI, 0.0% to 1.6%), intermediate-risk (3.9%; CI, 2.3% to 5.5%), and high-risk (12.0%; CI, 7.9% to 16.1%) groups., Conclusion: The CNS-IPI is a robust, highly reproducible tool that can be used to estimate the risk of CNS relapse/progression in patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemotherapy. Close to 90% of patients with DLBCL belong to the low- and intermediate-risk groups and have a CNS relapse risk < 5%; they may be spared any diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. In contrast, those in the high-risk group have a > 10% risk of CNS relapse and should be considered for CNS-directed investigations and prophylactic interventions., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: The standard treatment for relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT). The impact of maintenance rituximab after ASCT is not known., Patients and Methods: In total, 477 patients with CD20(+) DLBCL who were in their first relapse or refractory to initial therapy were randomly assigned to one of two salvage regimens. After three cycles of salvage chemotherapy, the responding patients received high-dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT. Then, 242 patients were randomly assigned to either rituximab every 2 months for 1 year or observation., Results: After ASCT, 122 patients received rituximab, and 120 patients were observed only. The median follow-up time was 44 months. The 4-year event-free survival (EFS) rates after ASCT were 52% and 53% for the rituximab and observation groups, respectively (P = .7). Treatment with rituximab was associated with a 15% attributable risk of serious adverse events after day 100, with more deaths (six deaths v three deaths in the observation arm). Several factors affected EFS after ASCT (P < .05), including relapsed disease within 12 months (EFS: 46% v 56% for relapsed disease after 12 months), secondary age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (saaIPI) more than 1 (EFS: 37% v 61% for saaIPI < 1), and prior treatment with rituximab (EFS: 47% v 59% for no prior rituximab). A significant difference in EFS between women (63%) and men (46%) was also observed in the rituximab group. In the Cox model for maintenance, the saaIPI was a significant prognostic factor (P < .001), as was male sex (P = .01)., Conclusion: In relapsed DLBCL, we observed no difference between the control group and the rituximab maintenance group and do not recommend rituximab after ASCT.

Purpose: Salvage chemotherapy followed by high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) is the standard treatment for relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Salvage regimens have never been compared; their efficacy in the rituximab era is unknown., Patients and Methods: Patients with CD20(+) DLBCL in first relapse or who were refractory after first-line therapy were randomly assigned to either rituximab, ifosfamide, etoposide, and carboplatin (R-ICE) or rituximab, dexamethasone, high-dose cytarabine, and cisplatin (R-DHAP). Responding patients received high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT., Results: The median age of the 396 patients enrolled (R-ICE, n = 202; R-DHAP, n = 194) was 55 years. Similar response rates were observed after three cycles of R-ICE (63.5%; 95% CI, 56% to 70%) and R-DHAP (62.8%; 95 CI, 55% to 69%). Factors affecting response rates (P < .001) were refractory disease/relapse less than versus more than 12 months after diagnosis (46% v 88%, respectively), International Prognostic Index (IPI) of more than 1 versus 0 to 1 (52% v 71%, respectively), and prior rituximab treatment versus no prior rituximab (51% v 83%, respectively). There was no significant difference between R-ICE and R-DHAP for 3-year event-free survival (EFS) or overall survival. Three-year EFS was affected by prior rituximab treatment versus no rituximab (21% v 47%, respectively), relapse less than versus more than 12 months after diagnosis (20% v 45%, respectively), and IPI of 2 to 3 versus 0 to 1 (18% v 40%, respectively). In the Cox model, these parameters were significant (P < .001)., Conclusion: In patients who experience relapse more than 12 months after diagnosis, prior rituximab treatment does not affect EFS. Patients with early relapses after rituximab-containing first-line therapy have a poor prognosis, with no difference between the effects of R-ICE and R-DHAP.