Central nervous system (CNS) relapse carries a poor prognosis in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Integrating biomarkers into the CNS–International Prognostic Index (CNS-IPI) risk model may improve identification of patients at high risk for developing secondary CNS disease. CNS relapse was analyzed in 1418 DLBCL patients treated with obinutuzumab or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone chemotherapy in the phase 3 GOYA study. Cell of origin (COO) was assessed using gene-expression profiling. BCL2 and MYC protein expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry. The impact of CNS-IPI, COO, and BCL2/MYC dual-expression status on CNS relapse was assessed using a multivariate Cox regression model (data available in n = 1418, n = 933, and n = 688, respectively). High CNS-IPI score (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-12.3; P = .02) and activated B-cell‒like (ABC) (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.1-12.9; P = .0004) or unclassified COO subtypes (HR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.5-11.7; P = .006) were independently associated with CNS relapse. BCL2/MYC dual-expression status did not impact CNS relapse risk. Three risk subgroups were identified based on the presence of high CNS-IPI score and/or ABC/unclassified COO (CNS-IPI-C model): low risk (no risk factors, n = 450 [48.2%]), intermediate risk (1 factor, n = 408 [43.7%]), and high risk (both factors, n = 75 [8.0%]). Two-year CNS relapse rates were 0.5%, 4.4%, and 15.2% in the respective risk subgroups. Combining high CNS-IPI and ABC/unclassified COO improved CNS relapse prediction and identified a patient subgroup at high risk for developing CNS relapse. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01287741.

Risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation was assessed in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients with resolved HBV infection (hepatitis B surface antigen negative, hepatitis B core antibody positive) who received obinutuzumab- or rituximab-containing immunochemotherapy in the phase 3 GOYA and GALLIUM studies. HBV DNA monitoring was undertaken monthly to 1 year after the last dose of study drug. In case of HBV reactivation (confirmed, HBV DNA ≥29 IU/mL), immunochemotherapy was withheld and nucleos(t)ide analog treatment (preemptive NAT) started. Immunochemotherapy was restarted if HBV DNA became undetectable or reactivation was not confirmed, and discontinued if HBV DNA exceeded 100 IU/mL on NAT. Prophylactic NAT was allowed by investigator discretion. Among 326 patients with resolved HBV infection, 27 (8.2%) had HBV reactivation, occurring a median of 125 days (interquartile range, 85-331 days) after the first dose. In 232 patients without prophylactic NAT, 25 (10.8%) had HBV reactivation; all received preemptive NAT. Ninety-four patients received prophylactic NAT; 2 (2.1%) had HBV reactivation. No patients developed HBV-related hepatitis. On multivariate Cox analysis, detectable HBV DNA at baseline was strongly associated with an increased risk of reactivation (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 18.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.04-54.93; P < .0001). Prophylactic NAT was strongly associated with a reduced risk (adjusted HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.41; P = .0018). HBV DNA monitoring–guided preemptive NAT was effective in preventing HBV-related hepatitis during anti–CD20-containing immunochemotherapy in B-cell NHL patients with resolved HBV infection. Antiviral prophylaxis was also effective and may be appropriate for high-risk patients. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01287741 (GOYA) and NCT01332968 (GALLIUM).

Background: Rituximab (R) plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) is the current standard therapy for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Obinutuzumab (G), a glycoengineered, type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has shown activity and an acceptable safety profile when combined with CHOP (G-CHOP) in patients with advanced DLBCL. We present the final analysis results of the Phase III GOYA study (NCT01287741), which compared the efficacy and safety of G-CHOP versus R-CHOP in patients with previously untreated DLBCL. Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with previously untreated advanced DLBCL were randomly assigned to receive eight 21-day cycles of R or G, plus six or eight cycles of CHOP. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival, other time-to-event endpoints, and safety; investigator-assessed PFS by cell of origin subgroup was an exploratory endpoint. Results: A total of 1418 patients were randomized, with 1414 included in this final analysis (G-CHOP, N = 704; R-CHOP, N = 710). Five-year PFS rates were 63.8% and 62.6% for G-CHOP and R-CHOP, respectively (stratified hazard ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.12; p = 0.48). The results of the secondary efficacy endpoints did not show a benefit of G-CHOP over R-CHOP. In the exploratory analysis, a trend towards benefit with G-CHOP over R-CHOP was apparent in the patients with germinal center B cell DLBCL. The safety profile of G-CHOP was as expected, and no new safety signals were observed. More grade 3-5 (75.1% vs 65.8%), serious (44.4% vs 38.4%), and fatal (6.1% vs 4.4%) adverse events (AEs) were observed in the G-CHOP arm compared with the R-CHOP arm, respectively, with the most common fatal AEs being infections. A higher incidence of late-onset neutropenia occurred in the G-CHOP arm (8.7%) versus the R-CHOP arm (4.9%).

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Preterm infants are exposed to inadequately managed painful procedures during their NICU stay, which can lead to altered pain responses. Nonpharmacologic approaches are established for the treatment of single painful procedures, but evidence for their effectiveness across time is lacking. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS:Oral sucrose with or without the added technique of facilitated tucking has a pain-relieving effect even in extremely premature infants undergoing repeated pain exposures; facilitated tucking alone seems to be less effective for repeated pain exposures over time.abstract OBJECTIVES: To test the comparative effectiveness of 2 nonpharmacologic pain-relieving interventions administered alone or in combination across time for repeated heel sticks in preterm infants. METHODS:A multicenter randomized controlled trial in 3 NICUs in Switzerland compared the effectiveness of oral sucrose, facilitated tucking (FT), and a combination of both interventions in preterm infants between 24 and 32 weeks of gestation. Data were collected during the first 14 days of their NICU stay. Three phases (baseline, heel stick, recovery) of 5 heel stick procedures were videotaped for each infant. Four independent experienced nurses blinded to the heel stick phase rated 1055 video sequences presented in random order by using the Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates, a validated pain tool.RESULTS: Seventy-one infants were included in the study. Interrater reliability was high for the total Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates score (Cronbach' s a: 0.90-0.95). FT alone was significantly less effective in relieving repeated procedural pain (P , .002) than sucrose (0.2 mL/kg). FT in combination with sucrose seemed to have added value in the recovery phase with lower pain scores (P = .003) compared with both the single-treatment groups. There were no significant differences in pain responses across gestational ages.CONCLUSIONS: Sucrose with and without FT had pain-relieving effects even in preterm infants of ,32 weeks of gestation having repeated pain exposures. These interventions remained effective during repeated heel sticks across time. FT was not as effective and cannot be recommended as a nonpharmacologic pain relief intervention for repeated pain exposure.

Introduction: Up to 30% of patients (pts) aged ≥75 years do not receive standard chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as first-line (1L) treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) due to concerns about frailty and comorbidities. Poor outcomes are commonly reported for elderly/unfit pts with 1L DLBCL who receive no treatment, reduced-dose R-CHOP or other therapies such as R-CVP and R-bendamustine (Morrison, et al. J Geriatr Oncol 2020); less toxic, efficacious alternatives to full-dose CIT are needed. Mosunetuzumab (Mosun) is a full-length, fully humanized IgG1 CD20/CD3 bispecific antibody that redirects T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells. Single-agent Mosun has shown promising efficacy (including durable complete responses [CRs]) and tolerable safety in relapsed/refractory DLBCL pts in an ongoing Phase I study (GO29781; NCT02500407; Bartlett, et al. ASCO 2019, Schuster, et al. ASH 2019). Here we present early clinical data with Mosun as 1L therapy for elderly/unfit pts with DLBCL. Methods: GO40554 (NCT03677154) is a Phase I/II, open-label, multicenter study. We report data from Cohort B, designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary efficacy of Mosun in pts with 1L DLBCL who are unable to tolerate full-dose CIT. Two safety evaluation cohorts were planned to receive Mosun at 13.5mg and 30mg, followed by an expansion phase. No safety concerns emerged following evaluation of the two safety cohorts. Eligible pts were aged ≥80 years or 60-79 years with impairment in ≥1 activity of daily living (ADL) or instrumental ADL, or with impairment in cardiac, renal or liver function precluding the use of full-dose CIT. After optional pre-phase treatment with prednisone with or without vincristine, pts received Mosun intravenously with step-up dosing on Day (D) 1, 8 and 15 of Cycle (C) 1, followed by a fixed dose on D1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. Interim response assessment (IRA) occurred after C4 and primary response assessment (PRA) occurred after C8, with an option to continue up to maximum 17 cycles in case of partial remission (PR) following PRA. Results: As of May 27, 2020, 19 pts in Cohort B had received Mosun (1mg [C1 D1]/2mg [C1 D8]/13.5mg [C1 D15 onwards], n=8; 1/2/30mg, n=11). Eight pts were enrolled in the 13.5mg safety evaluation cohort and 11 enrolled in the 30mg safety cohort and expansion (7+4 respectively). Median age was 84 (range: 67-100) years, 14 (74%) pts were women, 10 (53%) had Ann Arbor stage III-IV and 17 (90%) had an IPI score ≥2. Median Mosun cycles received was 6 (range: 2-9; one pt in PR continued treatment). Among 19 pts, 16 (84%) had ≥1 adverse event (AE), 13 (68%) had ≥1 AE related to Mosun and 7 (37%) experienced a Grade (Gr) 3-4 AE, of which 4 were related to Mosun. No fatal AEs were observed. The most common (>10%) treatment-emergent AEs were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; n=9, 47%), rash (n=4, 21%), neutropenia, nausea, decreased appetite, dry mouth, fatigue, pain and muscle spasms (all n=2, 11%). All CRS events were Gr 1 by ASTCT consensus criteria (Lee, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2019); no pts experienced hypotension, hypoxia or required tocilizumab or steroid treatment. No severe (Gr ≥3) neurologic AEs were observed. Gr 2 (ICAN) neurotoxicity was observed in one (5%) pt on C1D2 with symptoms of inability to answer questions, drowsiness, weakness and somnolence, combined with Gr 1 CRS (fever and tachycardia). The event resolved after 2 days and was considered related to Mosun. Eight (42%) pts discontinued Mosun early due to progressive disease (PD) between C2-C6. No pts discontinued Mosun due to an AE. Among all treated pts, the overall response rate was 58% (11/19) and CR rate was 42% (8/19). At Mosun dose 13.5mg, 3/8 pts (38%) achieved a CR, 2 (25%) had a PR and 3 (38%) had PD at the PRA. At Mosun dose 30mg, response was available at IRA: 5/11 pts (45.5%) achieved a CR, 1 (9%) had a PR and 5 (45.5%) had PD. Of the 8 pts with PD (from both dosing cohorts), 5 have received salvage therapy post progression. Figure 1 shows a durable response of almost a year for the first responder. Correlative studies of T-cell response by flow cytometry and cytokine expression, and PK analyses are ongoing and will be provided. Conclusions: Early clinical data indicate that single-agent Mosun confers notable efficacy and remarkable tolerability for previously untreated elderly/unfit DLBCL pts. Mosun is a promising chemotherapy-free regimen for patients who otherwise have limited options. Disclosures Olszewski: Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Avigdor:Takeda, Gilead, Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen, BMS: Research Funding. Babu:Amgen: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Fort Wayne Medical Oncology & Hematology: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Lilly: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Research Funding; Lutheran Hospital: Other; Bayer: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Argenx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Levi:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Abadi:Abbvie Inc: Research Funding; Roche, Gilead, Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Holmes:Texas Oncology PA: Current Employment; Gilead/Kite, Celgene/Juno, Rigel, Karyopharm, Janssen, Dova: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite, Novartis, Autolus, Celgene/Juno/bluebird, Genentech, Inc., Rigel, Janssen, Unum, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Incyte, Verastem: Research Funding; Kite, Karyopharm, Seattle Genetics, Rigel, Dova: Speakers Bureau. McKinney:UNUM, Molecular Templates, Incyte, Beigene, Denovo Biopharma, Pharmacyclics, Nordic Nanovector, BMS, Genentech, Inc., Celgene: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead, Seattle Genetics, Molecular Templates, BTG, Pharmacyclics, Verastem, Genentech, Inc., Celgene: Consultancy. McCord:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment. Xie:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment. Chen:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bristol-Myer Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sarouei:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qayum:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment. O'Hear:Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sellam:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current Employment. Eradat:UCLA Medical Center, David Geffen school of Medicine at UCLA: Current Employment; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca, Atara, Kite, Juno, Acerta, BeiGene, Celgene: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Mosunetuzumab (RG7828; CD20-TDB) is a full-length, fully humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) bispecific antibody targeting both CD3 (on the surface of T cells) and CD20 (on the surface of B cells). Mosunetuzumab redirects T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells. Mosunetuzumab is an investigational agent.