Search

Non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) represent the most common hematologic malignancies. Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) are used for various aspects of translational research including preclinical in vivo validation of experimental treatment approaches. While it was repeatedly demonstrated that PDXs keep majority of somatic mutations with the primary lymphoma samples, from which they were derived, the composition of PDX tumor microenvironment (TME) has not been extensively studied. We carried out a comparative genetic and histopathological study of 15 PDX models derived from patients with various types of NHL including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 7), Burkitt lymphoma (BL; n = 1), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n = 2), and peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL; n = 5). Whole exome sequencing (WES) of the PDXs and primary lymphoma cells was implemented in 13 out of 15 cases with available DNA samples. Standard immunohistochemistry (IHC) was used to analyze the composition of PDX TME. WES data confirmed that PDXs maintained the genetic heterogeneity with the original primary lymphoma cells. In contrast, IHC analysis revealed the following recurrently observed alterations in the composition of PDX tumors: more blastoid lymphoma cell morphology, increased proliferation rate, lack of non-malignant cellular components including T cells and (human or murine) macrophages, and significantly lower intratumoral microvessel density and microvessel area composed of murine vessels. In addition, PDX tumors derived from T-NHL displayed additional differences compared to the primary lymphoma samples including markedly lower desmoplasia (i.e., the extent of both reticular and collagen fibrosis), loss of expression of cytotoxic granules (i.e., perforin, TIA, granzyme B), or loss of expression of T-cell specific antigens (i.e., CD3, CD4, CD8). Our data suggest that despite keeping the same genetic profiles, PDX models of aggressive NHL do not recapitulate the microenvironmental heterogeneity of the original lymphomas. These findings have implications on the relevance of PDX models in the context of preclinical research.

DLC-001 Study Design (CONSORT diagram)

Grade 3/4 Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events Reported in {greater than or equal to}5% of Patients (Safety Population)

List of Primer Sequences

Purpose:Natural killer (NK) cells are key effector cells for anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAb), such as obinutuzumab and rituximab. We assessed whether low pretreatment NK-cell count (NKCC) in peripheral blood or tumor tissue was associated with worse outcome in patients receiving antibody-based therapy.Patients and Methods:Baseline peripheral blood NKCC was assessed by flow cytometry (CD3−CD56+ and/or CD16+ cells) in 1,064 of 1,202 patients with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab or rituximab plus chemotherapy in the phase III GALLIUM trial (NCT01332968) and 1,287 of 1,418 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with obinutuzumab or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (G-CHOP or R-CHOP) in the phase III GOYA trial (NCT01287741). The prognostic value of tumor NK-cell gene expression, as assessed by whole-transcriptome gene expression using TruSeq RNA sequencing, was also analyzed. The association of baseline variables, such as treatment arm, was evaluated using multivariate Cox regression models using a stepwise approach.Results:In this exploratory analysis, low baseline peripheral blood NKCC was associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) in both follicular lymphoma [hazard ratio (HR), 1.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02–2.14; P = 0.04] and DLBCL (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01–1.83; P = 0.04), and overall survival in follicular lymphoma (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.26–3.86; P = 0.0058). Low tumor NK-cell gene expression was associated with shorter PFS in G-CHOP–treated patients with DLBCL (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22–3.15; P < 0.01).Conclusions:These findings indicate that the number of NK cells in peripheral blood may affect the outcome of patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving anti-CD20–based immunochemotherapy.

Baseline patient and disease characteristics in FL and DLBCL patients with NKCCs available (analysis population) and in the GALLIUM and GOYA ITT populations.

Investigator's Choice (IC) Dosing Regimens

Association between baseline peripheral blood NKCC and tumor NK cell gene expression in FL (A) and DLBCL (B)

Purpose: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 trial investigating lenalidomide versus investigator's choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).Experimental Design: Patients with DLBCL who received ≥2 prior therapies were stratified by DLBCL subtype [germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs. non-GCB; determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC)] and then randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin). Crossover to lenalidomide was permitted for IC-treated patients with radiologically confirmed progressive disease. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and subtype analysis [GCB vs. activated B-cell (ABC)] using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints.Results: Stage 1: 102 DLBCL patients (by IHC: non-GCB, n = 54; GCB, n = 48) received ≥1 dose of lenalidomide or IC. Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events with lenalidomide versus IC included neutropenia (42.6%; 36.4%), anemia (33.3%; 47.3%), thrombocytopenia (24.1%; 43.6%), and leukopenia (5.6%; 12.7%), respectively. Overall, lenalidomide-treated patients had an ORR of 27.5% versus 11.8% in IC (ORRs were similar regardless of IHC-defined DLBCL subtype). Median PFS was increased in patients receiving lenalidomide (13.6 weeks) versus IC (7.9 weeks; P = 0.041), with greater improvements in non-GCB patients (15.1 vs. 7.1 weeks, respectively; P = 0.021) compared with GCB (10.1 vs. 9.0 weeks, respectively; P = 0.550).Conclusions: The clinical benefit of lenalidomide monotherapy in DLBCL patients was more evident in the non-GCB subtype. Exploratory analyses suggest that this preferential benefit was more pronounced in the GEP-defined ABC population, demonstrating a need for additional studies of lenalidomide in DLBCL using GEP subtyping. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4127–37. ©2017 AACR.

BACKGROUND Rilzabrutinib, an oral, reversible covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, may increase platelet counts in patients with immune thrombocytopenia by means of dual mechanisms of action: decreased macrophage (Fcγ receptor)-mediated platelet destruction and reduced production of pathogenic autoantibodies. METHODS In an international, adaptive, open-label, dose-finding, phase 1-2 clinical trial, we evaluated rilzabrutinib therapy in previously treated patients with immune thrombocytopenia. We used intrapatient dose escalation of oral rilzabrutinib over a period of 24 weeks; the lowest starting dose was 200 mg once daily, with higher starting doses of 400 mg once daily, 300 mg twice daily, and 400 mg twice daily. The primary end points were safety and platelet response (defined as at least two consecutive platelet counts of ≥50×103 per cubic millimeter and an increase from baseline of ≥20×103 per cubic millimeter without the use of rescue medication). RESULTS Sixty patients were enrolled. At baseline, the median platelet count was 15×103 per cubic millimeter, the median duration of disease was 6.3 years, and patients had received a median of four different immune thrombocytopenia therapies previously. All the treatment-related adverse events were of grade 1 or 2 and transient. There were no treatment-related bleeding or thrombotic events of grade 2 or higher. At a median of 167.5 days (range, 4 to 293) of treatment, 24 of 60 patients (40%) overall and 18 of the 45 patients (40%) who had started rilzabrutinib treatment at the highest dose met the primary end point of platelet response. The median time to the first platelet count of at least 50×103 per cubic millimeter was 11.5 days. Among patients with a primary platelet response, the mean percentage of weeks with a platelet count of at least 50×103 per cubic millimeter was 65%. CONCLUSIONS Rilzabrutinib was active and associated with only low-level toxic effects at all dose levels. The dose of 400 mg twice daily was identified as the dose for further testing. Overall, rilzabrutinib showed a rapid and durable clinical activity that improved with length of treatment.

BackgroundThe prognosis for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is poor. Glofitamab is a bispecific antibody that recruits T cells to tumor cells.MethodsIn the phase 2 part of a phase 1-2 study, we enrolled patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least two lines of therapy previously. Patients received pretreatment with obinutuzumab to mitigate cytokine release syndrome, followed by fixed-duration glofitamab monotherapy (12 cycles total). The primary end point was complete response according to assessment by an independent review committee. Key secondary end points included duration of response, survival, and safety.ResultsOf the 155 patients who were enrolled, 154 received at least one dose of any study treatment (obinutuzumab or glofitamab). At a median follow-up of 12.6 months, 39% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32 to 48) of the patients had a complete response according to independent review. Results were consistent among the 52 patients who had previously received chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (35% of whom had a complete response). The median time to a complete response was 42 days (95% CI, 42 to 44). The majority (78%) of complete responses were ongoing at 12 months. The 12-month progression-free survival was 37% (95% CI, 28 to 46). Discontinuation of glofitamab due to adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients. The most common adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (in 63% of the patients). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 62% of the patients, with grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome in 4% and grade 3 or higher neurologic events in 3%.ConclusionsGlofitamab therapy was effective for DLBCL. More than half the patients had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, .)

Burkitt lymphoma (BL) is a rare subtype of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with an aggressive course. To refine the individual patient's prognosis, the International Prognostic Index for BL (BL-IPI) was recently developed and 4 risk factors (RF) were determined as optimal prognostic cut-off by multivariate analysis: age ≥40 years, lactate dehydrogenase3× upper limit of normal, ECOG performance status ≥2, and central nervous system involvement. The BL-IPI distinguishes 3 prognostic groups, low (without RF), intermediate (1 RF), and high risk (2-4 RF), with significant differences in survival. The aim of the current project was to perform an external validation of the BL-IPI in 101 patients from the Registry of Czech Lymphoma Study Group diagnosed between 1999 and 2016 (median age, 45 years). The median follow-up was 50.4 months. The induction treatment included rituximab plus chemotherapy in 82% and chemotherapy alone in 18%. The overall response rate was 78% and the complete remission rate was 73%. According to BL-IPI, low/intermediate/high risk was present in 21/35/45% of patients, showing high similarity to the training BL-IPI US (United States) dataset (18/36/46%). There were significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between patients with high vs. intermediate risk (PFS: hazard ratio 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.31, p0.0001; OS: hazard ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.35, p0.0001) but not between patients with low vs. intermediate risk. The 3-year OS probability according to BL-IPI with low/intermediate/high risk was 96/76/59% in the BL-IPI training dataset vs. 95/85/45% in our external validation cohort; the 3-year PFS probability with low/intermediate/high risk was 92/72/53% in the BL-IPI training dataset vs. 95/85/42% in our cohort. In summary, our external validation of the BL-IPI confirmed a good separation of high-risk patients, who have a poor prognosis and for whom the new therapeutic approaches are needed; patients with low and intermediate risk had favorable clinical outcomes, and differences between these groups were not significant, likely due to a small number of patients.

The use of novel small molecule inhibitors alone or in combination with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has raised a number of questions on efficacy, tolerability, long-term treatment adherence in patients with heterogeneous clinical features. To fill this gap, we designed a study focusing on treatment sequencing in patients with CLL in order to (i) compare the outcome of patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) combinations in first-line versus those receiving Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi); (ii) characterize the efficacy and tolerability of venetoclax-based regimens; (ii) understand the impact of treatment sequencing when it comes to chemo-free options including venetoclax after BTKi and vice versa. Data from consecutive sets of patients diagnosed with CLL between 2000-2020 attended at 77 institutions affiliated with ERIC were collected and analyzed. Collected variables included: demographics, clinical stage at diagnosis, IGHV gene somatic hypermutation status; cytogenetic status for chromosomes 11q, 13q 17p and 12 determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization; TP53 gene mutation status; treatment; treatment response; discontinuation; reason for discontinuation; death. We included 9173 patients with a diagnosis of CLL who received at least one line of treatment. The median age at diagnosis was 67 years with a male:female ratio of 1.9. The median follow-up was 78 months (IQR, 48-120 months). Regarding novel targeted agents, 1860/9173 (20.2%) patients had received at least one line of treatment with BTKi (ibrutinib, n=1788; acalabrutinib, n=72) over the disease course; 631/9173 (6.9%) with venetoclax; and, 447/9173 (4.9%) with the PI3K inhibitor idelalisib. Seventy-nine patients were treated with both BTKi and venetoclax (59 BTKi followed by BCL2i, 20 vice versa). At last follow-up, 5870/9173 patients (64.0%) were alive, 3229/9173 (35.2%) died and 74/9173 (0.8%) were lost to follow-up. Patients treated with BTKi in first-line were enriched for TP53 aberrations [del(17p) 27.6%, TP53 mutation 26.3%] and unmutated IGHV genes (69%) and obtained an ORR of 87.7%. Of these, 136 (26.3%) discontinued treatment after a median of 1.2 years (0.07-5.98); main reasons of discontinuation were toxicity (40.5%) and failure (26.2%). Among 631 patients treated with venetoclax at any line, 100 (15.8%) received BCL2 +/- anti-CD20 as first-line; 170 (26.9%) as second line (125 previously treated with CIT, 27 with BTKi); and, 361 as third or subsequent line. ORR ranged between 71.5% (≥3 lines) with 30.5% CR/CRi to 90.3% (first-line) with 68.1% CR/CRi. Treatment discontinuation was due to toxicity in 28.6% of patients treated in the first-line, and 17.6% and 21.8% of patients treated in second and third-or-higher-line, respectively. Disease progression led to treatment discontinuation in 14.3%, 20.6% and 33.6% in first, second and third-or-higher line, respectively. CIT was used as front-line treatment in 5465 patients (59.6%). Of these, 2070 (37.9%) and 1018 (18.6%) patients received a second and third line of treatment, respectively. The great majority (865/1086 cases, 79.7%) of patients who received a second line before 2014 were retreated with CIT, most commonly Bendamustine-Rituximab (284/1086, 26.1%) and Fludarabine-Cyclophosphamide-Rituximab (252/1086, 23.2%); alemtuzumab monotherapy was used in 55/1086 (5%) of patients. After 2014, 415/984 patients (42.1%) were retreated with BTKi; 93 (9.5%) with venetoclax; 70 (7.2%) with idelalisib; 50 (5%) with Alemtuzumab monotherapy, and 315 (32%) with CIT. Similarly, in the third-or-higher line of treatment, most patients (86.3%) were retreated with CIT before 2014, while BTKi, BCL2i, and PI3Ki were mainly used after 2014 (in 43.1%, 15.7% and 14.7% of cases, respectively). Finally, our cohort included 1075 patients with TP53 aberrations. The ORR of patients receiving BTKis (n=171) as first-line of treatment was 86.5% (22.2 CR+64.3 PR), while the ORR with venetoclax +/- anti-CD20 (n=15) was 91% (45.5% CR+45.5 PR). Patients treated with CIT (n=694) had an ORR of 68.7% (28.3% CR+40.4% PR). In conclusion, in a large international study we provide real world data regarding the selection and sequencing of treatment in CLL, charting a major shift in treatment patterns before and after the introduction of novel trargeted agents and confirming their efficacy even in high-risk CLL. Disclosures Scarfo: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Iacoboni: BMS/Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, Janssen, Roche: Honoraria. Collado: Abbvie,: Other: pharmaceutical Company, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Pharmaceutical Company, Research Funding. Galimberti: AbbVie, Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. García-Serra: AbbVie: Other: Educational grands; Janssen: Other: Educational grants; Novartis: Other: Educational grants. Gozzetti: Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Hatzimichael: Amgen, Roche, Genesis, Novartis, Bristol Mayer Squibb, Celgene, Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Mayer Squibb, MSD, Gilead, Janssen Cilag, Genesis Pharma, Roche, Takeda: Honoraria. Herishanu: AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria. Jaksic: Roche, Oktal-Pharma/Celtrion, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kater: Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding; Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee. Kotsianidis: Astellas: Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genesis: Consultancy, Other: NONE; Janssen Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis Hellas: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: NONE, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kreitman: NIH: Patents & Royalties: Moxetumomab Pasudotox; Genentech: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Research Funding; Innate: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding; Array BioPharma/Pfizer: Research Funding. Laribi: BeiGene: Other: Personal Fees; Jansen: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; Astellas Phama, Inc.: Other: Personal Fees; AstraZeneca: Other: Personal Fees; Le Mans Hospital: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding; IQONE: Other: Personal Fees. Lopez-Garcia: Roche: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Travel and accommodation grants; Novonordisk: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Fresenius: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Celgene: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Abbvie: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants; Janssen: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants, Research Funding. Milosevic: Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie,: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria. Reda: Beigene: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Šimkovič: Janssen, Gilead, Roche, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie: Other: consultancy fees, advisory board participation fees, travel grants, and honoraria; University Hospital Hradec Kralove: Current Employment; AbbVie: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Eli Lilly: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; J&J: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Gilead: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Špaček: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, and Roche: Honoraria. Tadmor: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Visentin: Italfarmaco and Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Vassilakopoulos: AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Other: Travel; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Integris: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel; Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Vitale: Janssen: Honoraria. Yáñez: Gilead-Kite, Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Roche, Pfizer, Jazz, BMS, and Merck: Other: Advisory board participation fees ; Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead-Kite, Roche, Pfizer, and Merck: Speakers Bureau. Antic: AbbVie, Janssen, and Roche: Honoraria. Coscia: Janssen: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other. Cuneo: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Gaidano: Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Guièze: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Laurenti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria. Murru: Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel and accommodation; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sportoletti: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Tam: Beigene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Loxo: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Trněný: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy; 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General Hospital in Prague: Current Employment; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Bosch Albareda: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria. Doubek: Janssen-Cilag, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Gilead, Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chatzidimitriou: Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ghia: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArQule/MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Juno/BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Research Funding. Stamatopoulos: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding.

The phase 2 CAVALLI (NCT02055820) study assessed efficacy and safety of venetoclax, a selective B-cell lymphoma-2 (Bcl-2) inhibitor, with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in first-line (1L) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including patients demonstrating Bcl-2 protein overexpression by immunohistochemistry (Bcl-2 IHC+). Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age and had previously untreated DLBCL, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2, and International Prognostic Index 2 to 5. Venetoclax 800 mg (days 4-10, cycle 1; days 1-10, cycles 2-8) was administered with rituximab (8 cycles) and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (6-8 cycles) in 21-day cycles. Primary end points were safety, tolerability, and research_plete response (CR) at end of treatment (EOT). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Comparative analyses used covariate-adjusted R-CHOP controls from the GOYA/BO21005 study, an appropriate contemporary benchmark for safety and efficacy. Safety and efficacy analyses included 206 patients. CR rate at EOT was 69% in the overall population and was maintained across Bcl-2 IHC+ subgroups. With a median follow-up of 32.2 months, trends were observed for improved investigator-assessed PFS for venetoclax plus R-CHOP in the overall population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.87) and Bcl-2 IHC+ subgroups (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.89) vs R-CHOP. Despite a higher incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events (86%), related mortality was not increased (2%). Chemotherapy dose intensity was similar in CAVALLI vs GOYA. The addition of venetoclax to R-CHOP in 1L DLBCL demonstrates increased, but manageable, myelosuppression and the potential of improved efficacy, particularly in high-risk Bcl-2 IHC+ patient subgroups. Key Points: • The phase 2 CAVALLI study assessed efficacy and safety of venetoclax + R-CHOP in patients with DLBCL, including Bcl-2+ subpopulations. • Venetoclax + R-CHOP showed potential for improved efficacy vs R-CHOP alone, supporting further investigation of venetoclax in Bcl-2+ DLBCL.

Twenty percent of patients with high-tumor-burden (HTB) follicular lymphoma (FL) develop progression/relapse of disease (POD) within 24 months of frontline immunochemotherapy. Unfortunately, about 50% of these patients die within 5 years since POD event. Rituximab maintenance was proven to reduce relapse rate in responding FL, but its role on preventing POD was not defined. We analyzed 1360 HTB-FL patients from the Czech Lymphoma Study Group registry treated with frontline rituximab-containing regimen. Of those, 950 cases received rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) and achieved complete or partial remission: 712 patients received rituximab maintenance (MAINT) and 238 were a historical observational cohort (OBS). We have proposed a modified POD24 (mPOD24) endpoint for the chemosensitive patients calculated from the end-of-induction (EOI). Survival rates since EOI were as follows: 5-year overall survival (OS) 86.2% versus 94.5% in the OBS and MAINT groups, respectively (

The utility of posttreatment bone marrow biopsy (BMB) histology to confirm complete response (CR) in lymphoma clinical trials is in question. We retrospectively evaluated the impact of BMB on response assessment in immunochemotherapy-treated patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the phase 3 Study of Obinutuzumab (RO5072759) Plus Chemotherapy in Comparison With Rituximab Plus Chemotherapy Followed by Obinutuzumab or Rituximab Maintenance in Patients With Untreated Advanced Indolent Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (GALLIUM; NCT01332968) and A Study of Obinutuzumab in Combination With CHOP Chemotherapy Versus Rituximab With CHOP in Participants With CD20-Positive Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (GOYA; NCT01287741) trials, respectively. Baseline BMB was performed in all patients, with repeat BMBs in patients with a CR by computed tomography (CT) at end of induction (EOI) and a positive BMB at baseline, to confirm response. Positron emission tomography imaging was also used in some patients to assess EOI response (Lugano 2014 criteria). Among patients with an EOI CR by CT in GALLIUM and GOYA, 2.8% and 4.1%, respectively, had a BMB-altered response. These results suggest that postinduction BMB histology has minimal impact on radiographically (CT)-defined responses in both FL and DLBCL patients. In GALLIUM and GOYA, respectively, 4.7% of FL patients and 7.1% of DLBCL patients had a repeat BMB result that altered response assessment when applying Lugano 2014 criteria, indicating that bone marrow evaluation appears to add little value to response assessment in FL; however, its evaluation may still have merit in DLBCL.

Zanubrutinib is a next-generation, selective Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor with efficacy in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). We compared zanubrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab to determine its effectiveness as frontline therapy in patients with CLL or SLL.We conducted an open-label, multicentre, phase 3 study at 153 academic or community hospitals in 14 countries and regions. Eligible patients had untreated CLL or SLL requiring treatment as per International Workshop on CLL criteria; were aged 65 years or older, or 18 years or older and had comorbidities; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. A central interactive web response system randomly assigned patients without del(17)(p13·1) to zanubrutinib (group A) or bendamustine-rituximab (group B) by sequential block method (permutated blocks with a random block size of four). Patients with del(17)(p13·1) were enrolled in group C and received zanubrutinib. Zanubrutinib was administered orally at 160 mg twice per day (28-day cycles); bendamustine at 90 mg/mBetween Oct 31, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 590 patients were enrolled; patients without del(17)(p13·1) were randomly assigned to zanubrutinib (group A; n=241) or bendamustine-rituximab (group B; n=238). At median follow-up of 26·2 months (IQR 23·7-29·6), median progression-free survival per independent review committee was not reached in either group (group A 95% CI not estimable [NE] to NE; group B 28·1 months to NE). Progression-free survival was significantly improved in group A versus group B (HR 0·42 [95% CI 0·28 to 0·63]; two-sided p0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event was neutropenia (27 [11%] of 240 patients in group A, 116 [51%] of 227 in group B, and 17 [15%] of 111 patients in group C). Serious adverse events occurred in 88 (37%) of 240 patients in group A, 113 (50%) of 227 patients in group B, and 45 (41%) of 111 patients in group C. Adverse events leading to death occurred in 11 (5%) of 240 patients in group A, 12 (5%) of 227 patients in group B, and three (3%) of 111 patients in group C, most commonly due to COVID-19 (four [2%] of 240 patients in group A), diarrhoea, and aspiration pneumonia (two each [1%] of 227 patients in group B).Zanubrutinib significantly improved progression-free survival versus bendamustine-rituximab, with an acceptable safety profile consistent with previous studies. These data support zanubrutinib as a potential new treatment option for untreated CLL and SLL.BeiGene.

Image texture analysis (radiomics) uses radiographic images to quantify characteristics that may identify tumour heterogeneity and associated patient outcomes. Using fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT)-derived data, including quantitative metrics, image texture analysis and other clinical risk factors, we aimed to develop a prognostic model that predicts survival in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) from GOYA (NCT01287741). Image texture features and clinical risk factors were combined into a random forest model and compared with the international prognostic index (IPI) for DLBCL based on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) predictions. Baseline FDG-PET scans were available for 1263 patients, 832 patients of these were cell-of-origin (COO)-evaluable. Patients were stratified by IPI or radiomics features plus clinical risk factors into low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups. The random forest model with COO subgroups identified a clearer high-risk population (45% 2-year PFS [95% confidence interval (CI) 40%-52%]; 65% 2-year OS [95% CI 59%-71%]) than the IPI (58% 2-year PFS [95% CI 50%-67%]; 69% 2-year OS [95% CI 62%-77%]). This study confirms that standard clinical risk factors can be combined with PET-derived image texture features to provide an improved prognostic model predicting survival in untreated DLBCL.