No abstract

Summary De novo diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) presenting with synchronous central nervous system (CNS) and systemic disease (synDLBCL) is not well described and is excluded from clinical trials. We performed a retrospective analysis of 80 synDLBCL patients treated across 10 Australian and UK centres. Of these patients, 96% had extranodal systemic disease. CNS‐directed treatment with combination intravenous cytarabine and high‐dose methotrexate (“CNS‐intensive”) (n = 38) was associated with favourable survival outcomes compared with “CNS‐conservative” strategies such as intravenous high‐dose methotrexate monotherapy, intrathecal therapy and/or radiotherapy (2‐year progression‐free survival [PFS] 50% vs. 31%, P = 0·006; 2‐year overall survival [OS] 54% vs. 44%, P = 0·037). Outcomes were primarily dictated by the ability to control the CNS disease, with 2‐year cumulative CNS relapse incidence of 42% and non‐CNS relapse 21%. Two‐year OS for CNS‐relapse patients was 13% vs. 36% for non‐CNS relapses (P = 0·02). Autologous stem cell transplantation as consolidation (n = 14) was not observed to improve survival in those patients who received CNS‐intensive induction when matched for induction outcomes (2‐year PFS 69% vs. 56%, P = 0·99; 2‐year OS 66% vs. 56%, P = 0·98). Hyperfractionated or infusional systemic treatment did not improve survival compared to R‐CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone) (2‐year OS 49% for both groups). Our study suggests that adequate control of the CNS disease is paramount and is best achieved by intensive CNS‐directed induction.

Introduction Central nervous system relapse (secondary central nervous system lymphoma -SCNS) is an uncommon but devastating complication of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Patients (Pts) with CNS-IPI 4-6 are at greatest risk (10.2% at 2 years). Intravenous high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is widely used to mitigate SCNS risk but data supporting this practice are limited. Methods We performed a multicentre, retrospective study at 21 sites in Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. Chart or registry review was performed for consecutively diagnosed pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and CNS-IPI 4-6, high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) with rearrangements of MYC+BCL2 and/or BCL6 and primary breast/testicular DLBCL irrespective of CNS-IPI. Pts were diagnosed between 2000-2020, 18-80 years at diagnosis, and treated with curative intent anti-CD20 based chemo-immunotherapy. Pts with CNS involvement at diagnosis were excluded. HD-MTX was defined as at least one cycle of intravenous MTX at any dose. Time to SCNS was calculated from date of diagnosis (all-pts), and from the end of frontline systemic lymphoma therapy, defined as 6x21 days from diagnosis (complete response (CR-pts)), until SCNS, systemic relapse, death, or censoring, whichever came first. Cumulative risk of SCNS was computed using the Aalen-Johansen estimator treating death and systemic relapses as competing events. Adjusted cumulative risks were obtained by using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. The average treatment effect was computed as the difference in adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS. Results - 2300 and 1455 pts were included in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses, respectively. Baseline demographics and details of therapy are summarised in Table 1. Except for a predominance of males, pts ≤60 years and pts with ECOG 0-1 in the HD-MTX vs no HD-MTX groups, the demographics and treatments were well balanced. At a median follow up of 5.9 years (range 0.0-19.1) and 5.5 years from diagnosis (range 0.0-18.7), 201/2300 and 84/1455 pts experienced CNS events in the all-pts and CR-pts analyses respectively. For all-pts(n=2300), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 2052(89.2%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.8%. 410 pts (17.8%) received HD-MTX (265 HD-MTX alone, 145 in combination with intrathecal methotrexate (IT-MTX);435 received IT-MTX alone;1455 received neither. There were 32/410 and 169/1890 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 8.8 and 6.7 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 70% (95% CI, 65-76%) and 55% (95% CI 53-57%) in HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. There was no difference in the adjusted 5-year risk of SCNS between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups (8.4% vs 9.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, p=0.100) (Figure 1). For CR-pts(n=1455), CNS-IPI was 4-6 in 1267(87.0%), with R-CHOP-like therapy given to 93.3%. 284 pts (19.5%) received HD-MTX (170 HD-MTX alone, 114 with IT-MTX);298 received IT-MTX alone;873 received neither. There were 16/284 and 68/1171 SCNS events, with median time from diagnosis to SCNS of 11.0 and 10.3 months in the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups respectively. 5-year OS was 74%(95% CI 67-81%) and 75%(95% CI 72-78%) in the HD-MTX groups and no HD-MTX groups respectively (adjusted HR 1.08, p=0.622). There was no difference in the 5-year risk of CNS relapse between the HD-MTX and no HD-MTX groups 5.0% vs 6.0% (adjusted HR 1.03, p=0.903) (Figure 2). Exploratory analysis of the impact of HD-MTX among the highest risk groups CNS IPI 5 (n=368), CNS-IPI 6 (n=59) and CNS-IPI 6 plus all pts with testicular, renal or adrenal involvement (n=349) did not reveal differences in SCNS rates in HD-MTX treated pts. Additional subgroup analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the largest study of the efficacy of HD-MTX in reducing SCNS events focusing exclusively on high-risk pts. The overall incidence of CNS relapse observed was consistent with previous reports in similar patient cohorts at 9%. The use of HD-MTX did not lower SCNS rates overall or when analysis was confined to CR pts at completion of curative intent therapy to compensate for potential immortal bias associated with HD-MTX therapy. Despite the limitations of the non-randomized and retrospective design, it appears unlikely that HD-MTX is associated with a clinically meaningful reduction in SCNS rates in pts with high risk for SCNS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Conference attendance; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Bobillo: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ekstroem Smedby: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Savage: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Eyre: Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cwynarski: Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Atara: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel to scientific conferences, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Other: travel to scientific conferences. Stewart: Teva: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Bishton: Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Celltrion: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Takeda.: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants . Fox: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Joffe: Epizyme: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Eloranta: Janssen Pharmaceutical NV: Other: NV. Sehn: Genmab: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hawkes: Specialised Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck Sharpe Dohme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squib/Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck KgA: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel and accommodation expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Minson: Novartis: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Dickinson: Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodation, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Gregory: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Ku: Roche: Consultancy; Antegene: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Talaulikar: Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansenn: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding. Maurer: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding. El-Galaly: Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee; ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Cheah: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory and travel expenses, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Ascentage pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; Loxo/Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: advisory.

Key Points• In contrast to other AEs, there is a high risk of recurrent vascular AEs with continuing nilotinib therapy for CML.Although second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) show superiority in achieving deep molecular responses in chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) compared with imatinib, the differing adverse effect (AE) profiles need consideration when deciding the best drug for individual patients. Long-term data from randomized trials of nilotinib demonstrate an increased risk of vascular AEs (VAEs) compared with other TKIs, although the natural history of these events in response to dose modifications or cessation has not been fully characterized. We retrospectively reviewed the incidence of nilotinibassociated AEs in 220 patients with CML-CP at 17 Australian institutions. Overall, AEs of any grade were reported in 95 patients (43%) and prompted nilotinib cessation in 46 (21%).VAEs occurred in 26 patients (12%), with an incidence of 4.1 events per 100 patient-years.Multivariate analysis identified age (P 5 .022) and dyslipidemia (P 5 .007) as independent variables for their development. There was 1 fatal first VAE, whereas the remaining patients either continued nilotinib (14 patients) or stopped it immediately (11 patients). Recurrent VAEs were associated with ongoing therapy in 7 of 14 who continued (with 2 fatal VAEs) vs 1 of 11 who discontinued (P 5 .04). Nineteen of the 23 evaluable patients surviving a VAE ultimately stopped nilotinib, of whom 14 received an alternative TKI. Dose reduction or cessation because of VAEs did not adversely affect maintenance of major molecular response. These findings demonstrate that in contrast to other AEs, VAEs are ideally managed with nilotinib cessation because of the increased risk of additional events with its ongoing use.Nilotinib has a unique adverse effect (AE) profile, including both hematological and nonhematological AEs. 2 Five-year follow-up of phase 3 data documented grade 3 to 4 AEs of any kind in 61% and 72% of

The ability of cytotoxic lymphocytes (CL) to eliminate virus-infected or cancerous target cells through the granule exocytosis death pathway is critical to immune homeostasis. Congenital loss of CL function due to bi-allelic mutations in PRF1, UNC13D, STX11, or STXBP2 leads to a potentially fatal immune dysregulation, familial haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (FHL). This occurs due to the failure of CLs to release functional pore-forming protein perforin and, therefore, inability to kill the target cell. Bi-allelic mutations in partner proteins STXBP2 or STX11 impair CL cytotoxicity due to failed docking/fusion of cytotoxic secretory granules with the plasma membrane. One unique feature of STXBP2- and STX11-deficient patient CLs is that their short-term in vitro treatment with a low concentration of IL-2 partially or completely restores natural killer (NK) cell degranulation and cytotoxicity, suggesting the existence of a secondary, yet unknown, pathway for secretory granule exocytosis. In the current report, we studied NK and T-cell function in an individual with late presentation of FHL due to hypomorphic bi-allelic mutations in STXBP2. Intriguingly, in addition to the expected alterations in the STXBP2 and STX11 proteins, we also observed a concomitant significant reduction in the expression of homologous STXBP1 protein and its partner STX1, which had never been implicated in CL function. Further analysis of human NK and T cells demonstrated a functional role for the STXBP1/STX1 axis in NK and CD8+ T-cell cytotoxicity, where it appears to be responsible for as much as 50% of their cytotoxic activity. This discovery suggests a unique and previously unappreciated interplay between STXBP/Munc proteins regulating the same essential granule exocytosis pathway.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract