No abstract

Prophylaxis is commonly used to prevent central nervous system (CNS) relapse in diffuse large B cell lymphoma, with no clear standard of care. We retrospectively evaluated 1162 adult patients across 21 US academic centers with DLBCL or similar histologies who received single-route CNS prophylaxis as part of frontline therapy between 2013-2019. Prophylaxis was administered intrathecally (IT) in 894 (77%) and using systemic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in 236 (20%); 32 patients (3%) switched route due to toxicity and were assessed separately. By CNS-International Prognostic Index (IPI), 18% were considered low-risk, 51% moderate, and 30% high. Double-hit lymphoma (DHL) was confirmed in 243 of 866 evaluable patients (21%). Sixty-four patients (5.7 %) had CNS relapse, after median 7.1 months from diagnosis, including 15 of 64 (23%) within the first 6 months. There was no significant difference in CNS relapse between IT and HD-MTX recipients (5.4 vs 6.8%, p=0.4), including after propensity score matching to account for differences between respective recipient groups. Weighting by CNS-IPI, expected versus observed CNS relapse rates were nearly identical (5.8 vs 5.7%). Testicular involvement was associated with high risk of CNS relapse (11.3%) despite most having lower CNS-IPI scores. DHL did not significantly predict for CNS relapse after single-route prophylaxis, including with adjustment for treatment regimen and other factors. This large study of CNS prophylaxis recipients with DLBCL found no significant difference in CNS relapse rates between routes of administration. Relapse rates among high-risk subgroups remain elevated and reconsideration of prophylaxis strategies in DLBCL is of critical need.

We present a case of increased FDG uptake in the lymph nodes after COVID-19 vaccine administration. Restaging PET/CT scan of a 70-year-old woman with a history of multiple relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma showed muscle activity in the left upper arm laterally, which is in the deep musculature of the left deltoid muscle. There was also increased activity in several normal-sized left axillary nodes as well. On further review of the patient’s history, she had received her second shot of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine approximately 2 days before the restaging PET/CT scan.

Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) can be curative for patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Based on studies suggesting that anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) can sensitize patients to subsequent chemotherapy, we hypothesized that anti-PD-1 therapy before ASCT would result in acceptable outcomes among high-risk patients who progressed on or responded insufficiently to ≥1 salvage regimen, including chemorefractory patients who are traditionally considered poor ASCT candidates. We retrospectively identified 78 HL patients who underwent ASCT after receiving an anti-PD-1 mAb (alone or in combination) as third-line or later therapy across 22 centers. Chemorefractory disease was common, including 42 patients (54%) refractory to ≥2 consecutive systemic therapies immediately before anti-PD-1 treatment. Fifty-eight (74%) patients underwent ASCT after anti-PD-1 treatment, while 20 patients (26%) received additional therapy after PD-1 blockade and before ASCT. Patients received a median of 4 systemic therapies (range, 3-7) before ASCT, and 31 patients (41%) had a positive pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET) result. After a median post-ASCT follow-up of 19.6 months, the 18-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 81% (95% CI, 69-89) and 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87-99), respectively. Favorable outcomes were observed for patients who were refractory to 2 consecutive therapies immediately before PD-1 blockade (18-month PFS, 78%), had a positive pre-ASCT PET (18-month PFS, 75%), or received ≥4 systemic therapies before ASCT (18-month PFS, 73%), while PD-1 nonresponders had inferior outcomes (18-month PFS, 51%). In this high-risk cohort, ASCT after anti-PD-1 therapy was associated with excellent outcomes, even among heavily pretreated, previously chemorefractory patients.

No abstract

B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and leukaemias comprise ~3.5% of all cancer diagnoses in the United States and consist of a heterogeneous group of malignancies. Historically, the backbone of treatment has been cytotoxic chemotherapy, but in recent decades, targeted therapies have been incorporated into earlier line settings. The B-cell receptor (BCR) signalling pathway is a key driver of B-cell malignancies (Figure 1) and agents disrupting this pathway have changed the landscape of management in both the front-line and relapsed/refractory (R/R) settings. A key target is the Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK), a component of early BCR signalling pathway. In normal B cells, BTK activation, reflected by its phosphorylation, triggers downstream events and ultimately, the activation of nuclear factor kappa B (NFκB) pathways enabling increased B-cell survival, proliferation, differentiation into plasma cells and subsequent antibody production 1,2 (Figure 1). In this review, we will discuss the use of BTK inhibitors (BTKi) in B-cell malignancies and cover the mechanisms of resistance. These understandings not only help improve care and survival of patients treated with BTKi, but also help direct BCR-targeted therapeutic strategies for future clinical trial design.The first in class BTKi is ibrutinib, an orally available small molecular inhibitor of the kinase. At the molecular level, the drug binds covalently to the cysteine 481 at the ATP binding site of BTK (Figure 2) to inhibit its activity and downstream signalling cascade. 3,4 At the cellular level, the consequence of BCR inhibition is primarily cell proliferation deceleration rather than direct cell killing. 5,6 Aside from cell proliferation, ibrutinib has demonstrated inhibitory effects

Introduction Relapses involving the central nervous system (CNSrel) occur in ~5% of patients (pts) with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the rituximab era (Ghose et al, Clin LML 2015) with rates exceeding 10% in high risk groups (Villa et al, Ann Onc 2010; Schmitz et al, JCO 2016). CNSrel are generally thought to occur in the first 4-6 months from diagnosis. Prophylaxis (PPx) administration, route, and frequency are not standardized, and the impact of PPx on CNSrel risk is incompletely understood. Methods We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of pts with aggressive NHL (excluding Burkitt's) without known CNS involvement (inv) who received single-route CNS PPx with during front-line (FL) anthracycline-based therapy (tx) from 2013-2019 across 19 US academic institutions. Recipients of chemotherapy for prior CLL or indolent NHL were ineligible. Method, frequency, and outcomes of CNS PPx administration were evaluated, with significance assessed by various statistical methods via two-tailed P<0.05. Results 1030 patients were identified who met eligibility criteria. Clinical features included median age 61 years (yrs; range 16-86), 40.9% female, ECOG PS 0-1 82.8%, elevated LDH 65.3%, >1 extranodal (EN) site 42.3%, stage 3/4 disease 79.2%. NHL histologies included diffuse large B cell (DLBCL; 75.2%), high grade B cell (16.3%), transformed follicular lymphoma (5.6%) and 3% other; among pts with DLBCL, 46.4% had germinal center (GCB) subtype and 40.5% had non-GCB. 26.2% (n=210) of evaluable pts had double-hit lymphoma (DHL). Among pts with known HIV status, 7.2% (n=65) were HIV-positive. 85.7% had EN inv; common sites included bone (35.4%), liver (13.7%), gastrointestinal (12.7%), lung (11.8%), and marrow (11.5%). FL regimens included RCHOP (45.9%), REPOCH (46.5% total; 79.1% with dose-adjustment), 7.6% other. PPx was given intravenously (IV) in 20% of pts vs 77% intrathecally (IT), over a median 2.9 vs 4.1 doses respectively; see Table 1 for factors associated with PPx route. PPx was generally well-tolerated, with 10.7% PPx-related toxicity reported; see Table 2. CNSrel after FL tx was 5.3% overall without significant difference by PPx route (7% IV vs 5% IT, p=0.178). This lack of difference between PPx routes was observed in all subgroup analyses performed, including by: age, stage, histology, number of EN sites, individual EN site inv, elevated LDH, CNS-IPI, DHL status, HIV status, FL regimen, number of PPx doses. There was no significant difference in anatomic site(s) of CNSrel by PPx route. CNSrel occurred bimodally: 24% by end of FL tx vs 76% delayed (average 2.3 yrs, range 0.4-5.2 yrs). Rates of CNSrel were significantly higher with CNS-IPI high vs moderate risk (8.3 vs 4.1%, p=0.03; Figure 1), elevated LDH (6.9 vs 2.6%, p=0.007) and multiple inv EN sites (7.5% for 2+ vs 4% for 0-1, p=0.01); each additional EN site further increased risk (p=0.03 for trend; Figure 2). Increased CNSrel was noted in pts with testis (13.7 vs 5%, p=0.004) and liver inv (11.1 vs 4.6%, p=0.002) vs those without inv at respective sites. No significant difference was noted at other EN sites, including renal/adrenal (4.8 vs 5.6%, p=0.71), marrow (8.9 vs 5.1%, p=0.09), or lung (8.6 vs 5.1%, p=0.12). All EN site-CNSrel correlations were unchanged when accounting for PPx route. With median follow-up of 2.3 yrs, median PFS and OS for the overall group have not been reached; 2-yr PFS and OS were 70 and 85% respectively. PFS and OS were each predicted by CNS-IPI (p<0.0001) and maintained significance when separated by PPx route. 196 deaths were reported, including 122 disease-related and 34 tx-related (TRM). There was no significant difference in TRM by PPx route (1.9% IV vs 3.6% IT, p=0.24). Death due to progression was more common following IT PPx (13.3% vs 7.9% IV; HR 1.72, p=0.04), driven primarily by DH status (adjusted PPx HR: 1.54, p=0.11). In those with CNSrel, subsequent relapse and/or death was common (n=41, 74.5%) regardless of initial PPx route or salvage tx. Median survival after CNSrel diagnosis was poor (7.1 months, range 1 day-5.3 yrs) and was significantly inferior to those with non-CNSrel (HR 1.488, p=0.03). Conclusion Use of single-route ppx demonstrated similar CNSrel vs established outcomes for this population in the rituximab era, with no difference by PPx route. CNSrel remains a rare but devastating complication, with greater risk even after single-route PPx in those with higher EN burden and inv of key EN sites. Disclosures Kahl: Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy. Spinner:Notable Labs: Honoraria. Advani:Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy. Voorhees:AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Grover:Genentech: Research Funding; Tessa: Consultancy. Huntington:Genentech: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; DTRM: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy. Spurgeon:Beigene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; VelosBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cardinal Health: Honoraria; Verastem: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Olszewski:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Landsburg:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Triphase: Research Funding. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Caimi:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; ADC Therapeutics: Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Other: Advisory Board; Bayer: Other: Advisory Board; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Karmali:Takeda: Research Funding; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stephens:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Verastem: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Arqule: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; MingSight: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy. Smith:Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Khan:Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Cohen:Genentech, BMS, Novartis, LAM, BioInvent, LRF, ASH, Astra Zeneca, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Adicet, Astra Zeneca, Genentech, Aptitude Health, Cellectar, Kite/Gilead, Loxo: Consultancy. Portell:Bayer: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding.

No abstract