Search

Daphné Denis,1 Nathalie Beneton,1 Kamel Laribi,2 Hervé Maillard1 1Dermatology Department, Centre Hospitalier Le Mans, Le Mans, France; 2Haematology Department, Centre Hospitalier Le Mans, Le Mans, France Abstract: Mycosis fungoides (MF) is a low-grade cutaneous lymphoma accounting for more than half of primary cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCLs). Due to the rarity of CTCL, randomized studies are lacking, and treatment is based mainly on the recent published European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines. Basically, early-stage MF is treated with skin-directed treatments, whereas advanced-stage MF requires more aggressive therapies. Among the skin-directed therapies, nitrogen mustard has been used for more than 50 years. A gel formulation was developed recently, showing a slight decrease in efficacy, counterbalanced by better tolerance (essentially due to a decrease in delayed hypersensitivity reactions). This review aims to summarize the current management of MF and the role of chlormethine gel in the treatment of the disease. Keywords: mycosis fungoides, nitrogen mustard, mechlorethamine, chlormethine, gel

Summary: Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have a higher risk of developing other malignancies (OMs) compared to the general population. However, the impact of CLL-related risk factors and CLL-directed treatment is still unclear and represents the focus of this work. Methods: We conducted a retrospective international multicenter study to assess the incidence of OMs and detect potential risk factors in 19,705 patients with CLL, small lymphocytic lymphoma, or high-count CLL-like monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis, diagnosed between 2000 and 2016. Data collection took place between October 2020 and March 2022. Findings: In 129,254 years of follow-up after CLL diagnosis, 3513 OMs were diagnosed (27.2 OMs/1000 person-years). The most common hematological OMs were Richter transformation, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Non-melanoma skin (NMSC) and prostate cancers were the most common solid tumors (STs).The only predictor for MDS and AML development was treatment with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide with/without rituximab (FC ± R) (OR = 3.7; 95% CI = 2.79–4.91; p

Venetoclax-azacitidine is the standard of treatment for unfit acute myeloid leukemia patients. In the VIALE-A study, treatment was given until progression but there are no data on its optimal duration for responding patients who do not tolerate indefinite therapy. We retrospectively analyzed the outcome of patients who discontinued venetoclax or venetoclax-azacitidine due to poor tolerance. Sixty-two newly diagnosed (ND) AML patients and 22 patients with morphological relapse or refractory AML were included. In the ND cohort (n = 62), 28 patients stopped venetoclax and azacitidine and 34 patients continued azacitidine monotherapy. With a median follow-up of 23 months (IQR, 20-32), median overall survival and treatment-free survival were 44 (IQR, 16-NR) and 16 (IQR, 8-27) months, respectively. Patients who stopped both treatments and those who continued azacitidine monotherapy had the same outcomes. Negative minimal residual disease was associated with a 2-year treatment-free survival of 80%. In the RR cohort (n = 22), median overall survival and treatment-free survival were 19 (IQR, 17-31) and 10 (IQR, 5-NR) months, respectively. Prior number of venetoclax-azacitidine cycles and IDH mutations were associated with increased overall survival. The only factor significantly impacting treatment-free survival was the number of prior cycles. This study suggests that patients who discontinued treatment in remission have favorable outcomes supporting the rationale for prospective controlled trials., (© 2024 The Author(s). American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Competing Interests: Thomas Chatzikonstantinou received honoraria from AbbVie. Lydia Scarfò received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Lilly, Janssen, Octapharma. Gloria Iacoboni received honoraria and travel support from Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Autolus, Miltenyi, and AstraZeneca. Rosa Collado received support for attending meetings from Janssen‐Cilag and S.A. Sara Galimberti received honoraria support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Jazz, Novartis, and Incyte, honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from Jazz, AstraZeneca, and Roche. Romain Guieze received honoraria, consulting fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, Beigene, Roche, Janssen, and AstraZeneca. Eleftheria Hatzimichael received honoraria from AbbVie, Janssen‐Cilag, AstraZeneca, and Roche. Yair Herishanu received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Roche, AstraZeneca, Medion, and Lilly. José‐Ángel Hernández‐Rivas received honoraria as a consultant from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and BeiGene and support for attending meetings from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene. Ozren Jaksic received honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, and support for attending meetings from Johnson and Johnson, and AbbVie. Kamel Laribi received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beigene, Takeda, and Novartis. Maya Koren‐Michowitz received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, and Gad Medical LTD. and support for attending meetings from Novartis. Arnon P. Kater received advisory board fees and research money from Janssen, AbbVie, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Roche/Genentech, and support for attending meetings from Janssen and AbbVie. Ioannis Kotsianidis received honoraria and consulting fees from AbbVie and Janssen. Ivana Milosevic received honoraria from AbbVie, Roche, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, Roche, and Takeda. Almudena Navarro‐Bailón received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Janssen, and Beigene. Jacopo Olivieri received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Gianluigi Reda received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Beigene, and is currently employed by AstraZeneca. Gian M. Rigolin received honoraria for participation in speaker's bureau from AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Beigene, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from Janssen. Mattia Schipani received honoraria and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and Janssen‐Cilag and owns shares of stock in AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Gilead, and GSK. Tereza Shokralla and Stephan Stilgenbauer reports research funding from, consultancy or advisory role for, honoraria from, speakers' bureau participation for, and travel support from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann‐La Roche, Incyte, Infinity, Janssen, Novartis, and Sunesis. Eric Tse received support for attending meetings from Takeda. Theodoros Vassilakopoulos received honoraria from Takeda, Roche, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Gilead, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, Integris, and Servier, and support for attending meetings from Takeda, Roche, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, and Winmedica. Candida Vitale received honoraria from AbbVie, consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Janssen. Renata Walewska received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Beigene, support for attending meetings from Janssen, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca, and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beigene, and SecuraBio. Lucrecia Yañez received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Jazz, MSD, and Pfizer, support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, and Pfizer, and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Jazz, Janssen, Beigene, and Celgene. Francesc Bosch received consulting fees, honoraria, and payment for expert testimony from AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Mundipharma, Celgene/BMS, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Beigene, Gilead and TG Therapeutics, Advantage Allogene, Lava Therapeutics, and Enterome. Stephen Mulligan received advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche, and BeiGene. Maria Angelopoulou received consulting fees from AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Genesis, Gilead, and Amgen and honoraria from AbbVie, Takeda, Roche, Genesis, Gilead, and Novartis. Fatih Demirkan received support for attending meetings from Janssen and AbbVie. Tomas Papajík received honoraria and advisory board fees from AbbVie, Janssen‐Cilag, and AstraZeneca, and support for attending meetings from AstraZeneca. Marta Coscia received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Constantine Tam received honoraria from AbbVie, Beigene, Janssen, and LOXO. Antonio Cuneo received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen, and Lilly. Gianluca Gaidano received honoraria from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Hikma, Incyte, Janssen, and Lilly. Niki Stavroyianni received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, and support for attending meetings from Janssen and AstraZeneca. Lukas Smolej received consulting fees, honoraria, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen and advisory board fees from AbbVie and AstraZeneca. Martin Spacek received honoraria and consulting and advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Michael Doubek received research support and honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Eugene Nikitin received honoraria from AbbVie. Kostas Stamatopoulos received research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche; honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, and Janssen. Paolo Ghia received research support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen and honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Galapagos, Genmab, Janssen, Loxo Oncology @Lilly, MSD, Roche, and is an Editor of HemaSphere. Georgios Karakatsoulis, Eva Minga, Dimitra Chamou, Jana Kotaskova, Christos Demosthenous, Elisa Albi, Miguel Alcoceba, Salem Al‐Shemari, Thérèse Aurran‐Schleinitz, Francesca Bacchiarri, Sofia Chatzileontiadou, Zadie Davis, Marcos Daniel de Deus Santos, Maria Dimou, Elena Dmitrieva, David Donaldson, Gimena Dos Santos, Barbara Dreta, Maria Efstathopoulou, Shaimaa El‐Ashwah, Alicia Enrico, Andrzej Frygier, Andrea Galitzia, Eva Gimeno, Valerio Guarente, Sean Harrop, Elżbieta Kalicińska, Volkan Karakus, Bonnie Kho, Maria Kislova, Εliana Konstantinou, Zuzana Kubova, Jorge Labrador, Deepesh Lad, Luca Laurenti, Thomas Longval, Alberto Lopez‐Garcia, Juan Marquet, Stanislava Maslejova, Carlota Mayor‐Bastida, Biljana Mihaljevic, Fatima Miras, Riccardo Moia, Marta Morawska, Uttam K. Nath, Irina Panovska‐Stavridis, Maria Papaioannou, Cheyenne Pierie, Anna Puiggros, Rosa Ruchlemer, Annett Schiwitza, Yandong Shen, Tereza Shokralla, Martin Simkovic, Svetlana Smirnova, Dina S. A. Soliman, Tamar Tadmor, Kristina Tomic, Andrea Visentin, George Vrachiolias, Vojin Vukovic, Zhenshu Xu, Munci Yagci, Mohamed Yassin, Jana Zuchnicka, David Oscier, Alessandro Gozzetti, Panagiotis Panagiotidis, Blanca Espinet, Paolo Sportoletti, Gerassimos A. Pangalis, Viola M. Popov, Bella Biderman, Roberta Murru, Rainer Claus, Livio Trentin, Darko Antic, Olga B. Kalashnikova, Mark Catherwood, Sarka Pospisilova, and Anastasia Chatzidimitriou have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Richter transformation (RT) is an aggressive lymphoma occurring in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Here we investigated the anti-CD3/anti-CD19 T-cell-engager blinatumomab after R-CHOP (i.e. rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in patients with untreated RT of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma histology (NCT03931642). In this multicentre phase 2 study, patients without complete response (CR) after two cycles of R-CHOP were eligible to receive an 8-week blinatumomab induction via continuous vein infusion with stepwise dosing until 112 μg/day. The primary endpoint was the CR rate after blinatumomab induction and secondary endpoint included safety, response duration, progression-free and overall survival. Thirty-nine patients started the first cycle of R-CHOP, 25 of whom received blinatumomab. After blinatumomab induction, five (20%) patients achieved CR, four (16%) achieved partial response, and six (24%) were stable. Considering the entire strategy, the overall response rate in the full-analysis-set was 46% (n = 18), with CR in 14 (36%) patients. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of all grades in the blinatumomab-safety-set included fever (36%), anaemia (24%), and lymphopaenia (24%). Cytokine release syndrome (grade 1/2) was observed in 16% and neurotoxicity in 20% of patients. Blinatumomab demonstrated encouraging anti-tumour activity (the trial met its primary endpoint) and acceptable toxicity in patients with RT., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

CD38-targeting immunotherapy is approved in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) that are transplant ineligible (TI) and is considered the best standard of care (SOC). To improve current SOC, we evaluated the added value of weekly bortezomib (V) to isatuximab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaRd versus Isa-VRd). This Intergroupe Francophone of Myeloma phase 3 study randomized 270 patients with NDMM that were TI, aged 65-79 years, to IsaRd versus Isa-VRd arms. The primary endpoint was a minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate at 10 -5 by next-generation sequencing at 18 months from randomization. Key secondary endpoints included response rates, MRD assessment rates, survival and safety. The 18-month MRD negativity rates at 10 -5 were reported in 35 patients (26%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19-34) in IsaRd versus 71 (53%, 95% CI 44-61) in Isa-VRd (odds ratio for MRD negativity 3.16, 95% CI 1.89-5.28, P < 0.0001). The MRD benefit was consistent across subgroups at 10 -5 and 10 -6 , and was already observed at month 12. The proportion of patients with complete response or better at 18 months was higher with Isa-VRd (58% versus 33%; P < 0.0001), as was the proportion of MRD negativity and complete response or better (37% versus 17%; P = 0.0003). At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, no difference was observed for survival times (immature data). The addition of weekly bortezomib did not significantly affect the relative dose intensity of IsaRd. Isa-VRd significantly increased MRD endpoints, including the 18-month negativity rate at 10 -5 , the primary endpoint, compared with IsaRd. This study proposes Isa-VRd as a new SOC for patients with NDMM that are TI. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04751877 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The real-life retrospective observational study CARMYN aimed at investigating the long-term efficacy and safety of carfilzomib in combination with dexamethasone and lenalidomide (KRd, 159 patients). These patients (62% in first and 38% in second relapse, median age 62 yo) were treated between 02/2014 and 02/2017. Most had been pre-exposed to bortezomib (98.2%) and to an IMID (75.4%). At the time of collection, 90% had permanently discontinued carfilzomib. Data collection was conducted from January to July 2021 in 27 participating sites, after a median of 39 months follow-up. For patients treated with KRd, an overall response rate of 78.4% translated in a median progression free survival (PFS) of 24.0 months (95% CI 18.8-27.6) and a median overall survival (OS) of 51.1 months (95% CI 41.3-not reached). Results were poorer but difficult to interpret in the small cohort of Kd recipients. The study is one of the longest real-life studies of carfilzomib treatment in patients in first or second relapse. CARMYN confirmed the real-life long-term efficacy of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone with results similar to those of clinical trials. The KRd regimen is thus an option to consider for late relapses in the current context of MM management., Competing Interests: KL received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Iqone, Janssen, Novartis and Takeda. XL is a consultant and received honoraria from Amgen, Merck, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Oncopeptide, Takeda, Roche, Novartis, AbbVie, Sanofi, Gilead, Pfizer, Harpoon Therapeutic, Regeneron and Iteos. CT received adboards and honoraria from AMGEN. RLC received honoraria from Abbvie, Gilead, Takeda and Janssen.DC received honoraria from Roche. AP received honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi & Takeda. The other authors declare no financial interests., (© 2023 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have a higher risk of developing other malignancies (OMs) compared to the general population. However, the impact of CLL-related risk factors and CLL-directed treatment is still unclear and represents the focus of this work., Methods: We conducted a retrospective international multicenter study to assess the incidence of OMs and detect potential risk factors in 19,705 patients with CLL, small lymphocytic lymphoma, or high-count CLL-like monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis, diagnosed between 2000 and 2016. Data collection took place between October 2020 and March 2022., Findings: In 129,254 years of follow-up after CLL diagnosis, 3513 OMs were diagnosed (27.2 OMs/1000 person-years). The most common hematological OMs were Richter transformation, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Non-melanoma skin (NMSC) and prostate cancers were the most common solid tumors (STs).The only predictor for MDS and AML development was treatment with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide with/without rituximab (FC ± R) (OR = 3.7; 95% CI = 2.79-4.91; p < 0.001). STs were more frequent in males and patients with unmutated immunoglobulin heavy variable genes (OR = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.49-2.11; p < 0.001/OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.6-2.24; p < 0.001).CLL-directed treatment was associated with non-melanoma skin and prostate cancers (OR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.36-2.41; p < 0.001/OR = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.12-3.97; p = 0.021). In contrast, breast cancers were more frequent in untreated patients (OR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.08-0.33; p < 0.001).Patients with CLL and an OM had inferior overall survival (OS) than those without. AML and MDS conferred the worst OS (p < 0.001)., Interpretation: OMs in CLL impact on OS. Treatment for CLL increased the risk for AML/MDS, prostate cancer, and NMSC. FCR was associated with increased risk for AML/MDS., Funding: AbbVie, and EU/EFPIAInnovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking HARMONY grant n° 116026., Competing Interests: TC received honoraria from AbbVie. LS received consulting fees from AbbVie, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Janssen, honoraria from Janssen and Octapharma, support for attending meetings from BeiGene and Janssen and advisory board fees from Merck. SMu received advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche and BeiGene. JAHR received honoraria as a consultant from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and BeiGene and support for attending meetings from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene. LI received honoraria from AbbVie, Roche, and Janssen-Cilag. APK received advisory board fees and research money from Janssen, AbbVie, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, support for attending meetings from Janssen and AbbVie. M-DL received travel expenses from Janssen and AbbVie. GMR received honoraria for participation to speaker's bureau from AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Beigene, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from Janssen. JVT received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, and Janssen, honoraria for scientific talks from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Lilly, and Roche, travel support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Roche, and Lilly, and advisory boards fees for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene. GI received honoraria from Novartis, BMS, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, and Miltenyi, support for attending meetings from Kite/Gilead, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie and advisory board fees from Kite/Gilead, Novartis, BMS, and Autolus. FBi received support for attending meetings from AbbVie. RCo received support for attending meetings from Janssen-Cilag and S.A. SG received honoraria support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Jazz, Novartis, and Incyte, honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from Jazz, AstraZeneca, and Roche. RGS received support for attending meetings from AbbVie and S.L.U. RG received honoraria, consulting fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, Beigene, Roche, Janssen, AstraZeneca. YH received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Roche, AstraZeneca, Medion, and Lilly. OJ received honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, honoraria from Johnson and Johnson, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, and support for attending meetings from Johnson and Johnson, and AbbVie. LK received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beigene, Takeda, and Novartis. MKM received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, and Gad Medical LTD and support for attending meetings from Novartis. IKo received honoraria and consulting fees from AbbVie and Janssen. IM received honoraria from AbbVie, Roche, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, and Janssen, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, Roche, and Takeda. ANB received honoraria, advisory board fees and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Janssen, and Beigene. JO received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. GR received consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Beigene, and is currently employed by AstraZeneca. TP received honoraria and advisory board fees from AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, and AstraZeneca and support for attending meeting from AstraZeneca. MS received honoraria and support for attending meeting from AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and Janssen-Cilag and owns shares of stock in AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Merck, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Gilead, and GSK. MSp received honoraria and consulting and advisory board fees, and support for attending meeting from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. ET received support for attending meetings from Takeda. TV received honoraria from Takeda, Roche, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Gilead, Sandoz, AstraZeneca, Integris, and Servier and support for attending meetings from Takeda, Roche, Genesis Pharma, Merck, Pfizer, and Winmedica. CV received honoraria from AbbVie, consulting fees from AstraZeneca and support for attending meeting from AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Janssen. RW received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Beigene, support for attending meetings from Janssen, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Beigene, and SecuraBio. EWS received honoraria from AbbVie, Roche, and Janssen-Cilag and support for attending meetings from AbbVie. LY received honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, Janssen, Jazz, MSD, and Pfizer, support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, and Pfizer, and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Jazz, Janssen, Beigene, and Celgene. MAn received consulting fees from AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Genesis, Gilead, and Amgen and honoraria from AbbVie, Takeda, Roche, Genesis, Gilead, and Novartis. MC received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. ACu received honoraria, advisory board fees, and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen, and Lilly. FD support for attending meetings from Janssen and AbbVie. GG received honoraria, and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen and advisory board fees from Lilly. EN received honoraria from AbbVie. LSm received consulting fees, honoraria and support for attending meetings from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen and advisory board fees from AbbVie and AstraZeneca. NS received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Lilly, and support for attending meetings from Janssen and AstraZeneca. CT received honoraria from AbbVie, Beigene, Janssen, and LOXO. FB received consulting fees, honoraria and payment for expert testimony from AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Mundipharma, Celgene/BMS, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Beigene, Gilead and TG Therapeutics, Advantage Allogene, Lava Therapeutics, and Enterome. MDo received honoraria and advisory board fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca and Janssen, advisory board fees from Swixx, and support for attending meetings from Janssen. PG received honoraria and consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Lilly/Loxo Oncology, MSD, and Roche; grant support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen. KS received honoraria from Janssen, AbbVie, Lilly and AstraZeneca, consulting fees and support for attending meetings from Janssen and AstraZeneca. GK, EM, DC, JK, CD, MA, SA, TAS, FBa, MB, ACa, AM, AKM, RC, SC, ACh, ZD, MDi, DD, GDS, BD, ME, SEA, AE, AF, AG, EG, IGGM, AGo, AjG, RGu, SH, EH, SJ, EKa, VK, BK, MK, EK, RJK, JL, DL, IL, TL, ALG, JM, LMR, MMa, SM, CMB, BM, FM, RM, MMo, RMu, UKN, ACO, DO, IPS, MP, ZK, PP, CP, AP, LR, RR, MDDS, AS, YS, MSi, SS, DSAS, TT, KT, AV, GV, VV, ZX, MYa, MY, JZ, DA, BB, MCa, RCl, BE, OBK, LL, GP, PPa, VMP, SP, PS, LT, AC, have no conflict of interest to disclose., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) have a poor prognosis. Bendamustine (B) and brentuximab-vedotin (Bv) have shown interesting results in this setting. However, little information is available about their efficacy in combination. This multicenter and retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of BBv in patients with noncutaneous R/R PTCL among 21 LYSA centers in France and Belgium. The primary objective was the overall response rate. A total of 82 patients with R/R PTCL were included. The best overall response rate (ORR) was 68%, with 49% of patients in complete response (CR). In multivariable analysis, only the disease status after the last regimen (relapse vs refractory) was associated with the response with an ORR of 83% vs 57%. Median duration of response was 15.4 months for patients in CR. With a median follow-up of 22 months, the median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8.3 and 26.3 months respectively. Moreover, patients in CR, who underwent an allogeneic transplant, had a better outcome than patients who did not with a median PFS and OS of 19.3 vs 4.8 months and not reached vs 12.4 months, respectively. Fifty-nine percent of patients experienced grade 3/4 adverse events that were mainly hematologic. BBv is highly active in patients with R/R PTCL and should be considered as a one of the best options of immunochemotherapy salvage combination in this setting and particularly as a bridge to allogeneic transplant for eligible patients., (© 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.)

Belantamab mafodotin (BM) is an anti-BCMA antibody-drug conjugate (GSK2857916) that represents an alternative option in multiple myeloma. We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of BM in a real-world setting in patients who benefited from an early access program. We conducted an observational, retrospective, multicenter study. Eligibility criteria were treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in monotherapy in adult patients who have received at least three lines of therapy previously, including at least one immunomodulatory agent (IMiD), a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, and whose disease progressed during the last treatment period. The primary endpoint of the study is to assess the overall survival (OS). Between November 2019 and December 2020, 106 patients were treated with BM; 97 were eligible for the efficacy evaluation and 104 for safety. The median age was 66 (range, 37-82) years. High-risk cytogenetics were identified in 40.9% of patients. Fifty-five (56.7%) patients were triple-class refractory and 11 (11.3%) were penta-class refractory. The median number of prior lines of treatment was five (range, 3-12). The median number of BM cycles administered was three (range, 1-22). The overall response rate at best response was 38.1% (37/97). The median OS was 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.9-15.3), and median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI: 1.9-4.7). The median duration of response was 9 months (range, 4.65-10.4). Treatment was delayed for 55 (52.9%) patients including 36.5% for treatment-related toxicity. Ophthalmic adverse events, mainly grade ≤2, were the most common toxicity (48%). The occurrence of keratopathy was 37.5%. Overall, our data are concordant with the results from DREAMM-2 in terms of efficacy and safety on a non-biased population.

Introduction: Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) is a hematologic disorder that is an overlap syndrome between myelodysplastic syndromes and myeloproliferative neoplasms, and can be associated with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. This study aimed to describe kidney involvement in patients with CMML, their treatments, and outcomes., Methods: We conducted a French and American multicenter retrospective study in 15 centers, identifying patients with CMML with acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and urine abnormalities., Results: Sixteen patients (males, n  = 14; median age 76.5 years [71.9-83]) developed a kidney disease 6 months [1.6-25.6] after the diagnosis of CMML. At the time of kidney disease diagnosis, median urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio was 2 g/g [1.25-3.4], and median serum creatinine was 2.26 mg/dl [1.46-2.68]. Fourteen patients (87.5%) underwent a kidney biopsy, and the 2 main pathological findings were lysozyme nephropathy (56%) and renal infiltration by the CMML (37.5%). Ten patients received a new treatment following the CMML-associated kidney injury. Among patients with monitored kidney function, and after a median follow-up of 15 months [9.9-34.9], 4 patients had CKD stage 3, 4 had CKD stage 4, 1 had an end-stage kidney disease. In our patient series, 2 patients evolved to an acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and 5 died. Compared with 116 CMML controls, patients who had a kidney involvement had a higher monocyte count ( P  < 0.001), had more CMML-1 ( P  = 0.005), were more susceptible to develop an AML ( P  = 0.02), and were more eligible to receive a specific hematologic treatment, with hydroxyurea, or hypomethylating agents ( P  < 0.001), but no survival difference was seen between the 2 groups ( P  = 0.6978)., Conclusion: In this cohort of patients with CMML with a kidney injury, the 2 most frequent renal complications were lysozyme-induced nephropathy and renal infiltration by the CMML. Kidney involvement should be closely monitored in patients with CMML., (© 2023 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

In previously untreated, medically fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), research is focused on developing fixed-duration strategies to improve long-term outcomes while sparing patients from serious toxicities. The ICLL-07 trial evaluated a fixed-duration (15-month) immunochemotherapy approach in which after obinutuzumab-ibrutinib induction for 9 months, patients (n = 10) in complete remission (CR) with bone marrow (BM) measurable residual disease (MRD) <0.01% continued only ibrutinib 420 mg/day for 6 additional months (I arm), whereas the majority (n = 115) received up to 4 cycles of fludarabine/cyclophosphamide-obinutuzumab 1000 mg alongside the ibrutinib (I-FCG arm). Primary analysis at month 16 showed that 84 of 135 (62.2%) patients enrolled achieved CR with a BM MRD <0.01%. Here, we report follow-up at median 63 months. Peripheral blood (PB) MRD was assessed 6 monthly beyond the end of treatment using a highly sensitive (10-6) flow cytometry technique. In the I-FCG arm, the PB MRD <0.01% rate (low-level positive <0.01% or undetectable with limit of detection ≤10-4) in evaluable patients was still 92.5% (74/80) at month 40 and 80.6% (50/62) at month 64. No differences in the PB MRD status were apparent per to the IGHV mutational status. In the overall population, 4-year progression-free and overall survival rates were 95.5% and 96.2%, respectively. Twelve deaths occurred overall. Fourteen serious adverse events occurred beyond the end of treatment. Thus, our fixed-duration immunochemotherapy approach produced deep and sustained PB MRD responses, high survival rates, and low long-term toxicity. A randomized trial is needed to compare our immunochemotherapy approach with a chemotherapy-free strategy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02666898., (© 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.)

Background: Recently, the combination of venetoclax plus a hypomethylating agent (HMA; azacitidine ordecitabine) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) showed promise in Phase III trials in previously untreated AML. In France at the time of this study, venetoclax was not yet approved for AML and there were therefore no formal usage recommendations. Here we report the first study in a French cohort that assessed venetoclax in combination with existing treatments for AML under real-life conditions., Method: This retrospective, real-life study collected data on venetoclax use and management in a French cohort with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy., Result: Of 118 patients, 81 were in second line/beyond (71.6% also hypomethylating agent [HMA]; 23.5% lowdose cytarabine [LDAC]) and 37 in first line. For venetoclax initiation, 57.3% underwent ramp up and 74.6% were hospitalized. Median venetoclax duration was 2.5 months (range 0.03-16.2). With all treatment lines and regimens, most common grade 3/4 adverse events were hematologic (overall 96.4% of patients) and infections (57.1%). Dosage adjustments for drug interactions and safety varied between centers. In second-line/beyond, median progression-free survival was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-12.8) with venetoclax-HMA and 3.4 months (1.3-8.9) with venetoclax-LDAC; overall response rate was 51.9% and 41.2%, respectively. Thus, we showed that venetoclax-based treatment yields promising findings in patients with AML, but to address treatment complexity, practice harmonization is needed., (© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Available tools to measure fatigue and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in cancer patients are often difficult to use in clinical practice. The fatigue visual analogue scale (VAS) provides a simple method to assess fatigue. This study evaluated the correlation between HRQoL and fatigue perceived by cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy., Methods: This was a non-interventional prospective study of adult cancer patients in France presenting with chemotherapy-induced anaemia (CIA) treated with epoetin alfa (Sandoz). Data were collected using an electronic case report form at study inclusion (T0), after 2-3 chemotherapy cycles (T1) and after 4-6 cycles (T2)., Results: The study included 982 patients from September 2015 to October 2017. Overall, there was a negative correlation between fatigue VAS and HRQoL. The overall haemoglobin (Hb) change between T0 and T2 was +17.8 % (± 18.1 %). Fatigue assessed by both patients and physicians showed a clinically significant improvement during the study. Global HRQoL also increased., Conclusion: Treatment of CIA with epoetin alfa (Sandoz) improved Hb levels, fatigue, and HRQoL, with a correlation observed between fatigue VAS score and HRQoL. Fatigue VAS could act as a simple alternative to more complex methods to measure HRQoL; however, further analyses are required to confirm this association., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JD serves on a scientific advisory board for Sandoz. NB, KL, and LS have nothing to declare. AA has received fees for expertise from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Pfizer; personal fees from BMS, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and travel expenses from Novartis, Roche, and AstraZeneca. SH and EN are employees of Sandoz. LZ serves on scientific advisory boards for Sandoz, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Seagen, and Vifor. SC serves on scientific advisory boards for Sandoz, Biogaran, Janssen, AbbVie, Takeda, Accord Healthcare, and Roche., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Monomorphic epitheliotropic intestinal T-cell lymphoma (MEITL) is a rare aggressive T-cell lymphoma most reported in Asia. We performed a comprehensive clinical, pathological and genomic study of 71 European MEITL patients (36 males, 35 females, median age 67 years). The majority presented with gastrointestinal involvement and had emergency surgery, and 40% had stage IV disease. The tumors were morphologically classified into two groups: typical (58%) and atypical (i.e., non-monomorphic or with necrosis, angiotropism or starry-sky pattern) (42%), sharing a homogeneous immunophenotypic profile (CD3+ [98%] CD4- [94%] CD5- [97%] CD7+ [97%] CD8+ [90%] CD56+ [86%] CD103+ [80%] cytotoxic marker+ [98%]) with more frequent expression of TCRgd (50%) than TCRab (32%). MYC expression (30% of cases) partly reflecting MYC gene locus alterations, correlated with non-monomorphic cytology. Almost all cases (97%) harbored deleterious mutation(s) and/or deletion of the SETD2 gene and 90% had defective H3K36 trimethylation. Other frequently mutated genes were STAT5B (57%), JAK3 (50%), TP53 (35%), JAK1 (12.5%), BCOR and ATM (11%). Both TP53 mutations and MYC expression correlated with atypical morphology. The median overall survival (OS) of 63 patients (43/63 only received chemotherapy after initial surgery) was 7.8 months. Multivariate analysis found a strong negative impact on outcome of MYC expression, TP53 mutation, STAT5B mutation and poor performance status while aberrant B-cell marker expression (20% of cases) correlated with better survival. In conclusion, MEITL is an aggressive disease with resistance to conventional therapy, predominantly characterized by driver gene alterations deregulating histone methylation and JAK/STAT signaling and encompasses genetic and morphologic variants associated with very high clinical risk.

The rituximab biosimilar CT-P10 is approved for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Previous studies have demonstrated clinical similarity between CT-P10 and reference rituximab. However, real-world data relating to treatment in patients with DLBCL with rituximab biosimilars are limited. This study collected real-world data relating to the effectiveness and safety of CT-P10 treatment from the medical records of 389 patients with DLBCL (24 centers, five European countries). For the primary outcome (clinical effectiveness), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and best response (BR) were assessed. The percentage (95% confidence interval [95% CI]) of patients alive at 12-, 18-, and 30 months postindex (initiation of CT-P10) was 86% (82.4%-89.4%), 81% (76.9%-84.9%), and 76% (71.2%-80.1%), respectively. The PFS rate (percent, [95% CI]) at 12-, 18-, and 30 months postindex was 78% (74.2%-82.5%), 72% (67.9%-76.9%), and 67% (61.9%-71.7%), respectively. Median OS/PFS was not reached. For 82% ( n = 312) of patients, the BR to CT-P10 was a complete response. Adverse events were consistent with known effects of chemotherapy. This international, multicenter study provides real-world data on the safety and effectiveness profile of CT-P10 for DLBCL treatment and supports the adoption of CT-P10 for the treatment of DLBCL., Competing Interests: MB has received research funding from Takeda, Gilead, Roche, Abbvie; Travel/acc/expenses = Roche, Takeda, Gilead, Celltrion, Honararia Tevapharma, Roche, Celltrion; Advisory board = Beigene; Trial Management Group = Roche. GS has received in the last 12 months financial compensations for participating in advisory boards or consulting from: Abbvie, Bayer, Beigene, BMS/Celgene, Epizyme, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Incyte, Janssen, Kite/Gilead, Loxo, Milteniy, Morphosys, Novartis, Rapt, Regeneron and Takeda. Shareholder: Owkin. PLZ has received personal fees for consulting from Verastem, EUSA Pharma, MSD and Novartis; personal fees for participating in a speaker's bureau from Verastem, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen‐Cilag, BMS, Servier, MSG, TG Therapeutics, Takeda, Roche, EUSA Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Incyte and Beigene; and personal fees for participating in advisory boards from Verastem, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen‐Cilag, BMS, Servier, Sandoz, MSG, TG Therapeutics, Takeda, Roche, EUSA Pharma, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, ADC Therapeutics, Incyte and Beigene. SM has received educational grants to attend educational meetings, educational lecturing and attendance of pharmaceutical advisory boards for Novartis, Abbvie and AstraZeneca in the last year. KL has received research grants from Celltrion. Outside this work, KL has received research grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Takeda, Roche, Amgen, and Sandoz as well as personal fees from AbbVie, Novartis, Sandoz, Celgene, Jansen, and Amgen. SKK and YNL are employees of Celltrion Healthcare. CG, WK, MBo, DT, BS, JH, AB, JJB, and MW have no conflict of interest to disclose., (© 2022 The Authors. eJHaem published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Treatment results for patients with newly diagnosed FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3)-mutated (FLT3mut+) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy are disappointing. This multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial randomized (2:1) untreated adults with FLT3mut+ AML ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy to receive gilteritinib (120 mg/d orally) and azacitidine (GIL + AZA) or azacitidine (AZA) alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). At the interim analysis (August 26, 2020), a total of 123 patients were randomized to treatment (GIL + AZA, n = 74; AZA, n = 49). Subsequent AML therapy, including FLT3 inhibitors, was received by 20.3% (GIL + AZA) and 44.9% (AZA) of patients. Median OS was 9.82 (GIL + AZA) and 8.87 (AZA) months (hazard ratio, 0.916; 95% CI, 0.529-1.585; P = .753). The study was closed based on the protocol-specified boundary for futility. Median event-free survival was 0.03 month in both arms. Event-free survival defined by using composite complete remission (CRc) was 4.53 months for GIL + AZA and 0.03 month for AZA (hazard ratio, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.433-1.087; P = .156). CRc rates were 58.1% (GIL + AZA) and 26.5% (AZA) (difference, 31.4%; 95% CI, 13.1-49.7; P < .001). Adverse event (AE) rates were similar for GIL + AZA (100%) and AZA (95.7%); grade ≥3 AEs were 95.9% and 89.4%, respectively. Common AEs with GIL + AZA included pyrexia (47.9%) and diarrhea (38.4%). Gilteritinib steady-state trough concentrations did not differ between GIL + AZA and gilteritinib. GIL + AZA resulted in significantly higher CRc rates, although similar OS compared with AZA. Results support the safety/tolerability and clinical activity of upfront therapy with GIL + AZA in older/unfit patients with FLT3mut+ AML. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02752035., (© 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.)

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are uncommon in children/young adults. Here, we present data on unselected patients diagnosed before 25 years of age included from 38 centers in 15 countries. Sequential patients were included. We identified 444 patients, with median follow-up 9.7 years (0-47.8). Forty-nine (11.1%) had a history of thrombosis at diagnosis, 49 new thrombotic events were recorded (1.16% patient per year [pt/y]), perihepatic vein thromboses were most frequent (47.6% venous events), and logistic regression identified JAK2V617F mutation (P = .016) and hyperviscosity symptoms (visual disturbances, dizziness, vertigo, headache) as risk factors (P = .040). New hemorrhagic events occurred in 44 patients (9.9%, 1.04% pt/y). Disease transformation occurred in 48 patients (10.9%, 1.13% pt/y), usually to myelofibrosis (7.5%) with splenomegaly as a novel risk factor for transformation in essential thrombocythemia (ET) (P= .000) in logistical regression. Eight deaths (1.8%) were recorded, 3 after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Concerning conventional risk scores: International Prognostic Score for Essential Thrombocythemia-Thrombosis and new International Prognostic Score for Essential Thrombocythemia-Thrombosis differentiated ET patients in terms of thrombotic risk. Both scores identified high-risk patients with the same median thrombosis-free survival of 28.5 years. No contemporary scores were able to predict survival for young ET or polycythemia vera patients. Our data represents the largest real-world study of MPN patients age < 25 years at diagnosis. Rates of thrombotic events and transformation were higher than expected compared with the previous literature. Our study provides new and reliable information as a basis for prospective studies, trials, and development of harmonized international guidelines for the specific management of young patients with MPN., (© 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.)

Immunocompromised individuals such as patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are at risk of impaired immune responses to vaccination. The objective of our study was to evaluate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibody responses in patients with CLL after the first, second, and third doses of the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines and after a single dose for patients with confirmed previous COVID-19. In all, 530 patients were included in the study. Patients received 2 doses at a 4-week interval and a third dose if they were seronegative after the second dose. Response rate was 27% after dose 1 and 52% after dose 2. Post-dose 2 treatment-naïve patients had the highest response rate (72%) followed by patients previously treated by chemoimmunotherapy (60%). Among patients receiving therapy, those receiving Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor alone (22%) or in combination with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies or venetoclax (0%) had the poorer response rate whereas patients who received venetoclax monotherapy achieved a significantly higher response rate (52%). A multivariable analysis identified age older than 65 years, ongoing CLL treatment, and gamma globulin ≤6 g/L as independent predictors of the absence of seroconversion. Post-dose 2 seronegative patients had a global response rate of 35% after dose 3. This study provides an argument for the use of a third dose and for prophylactic SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing monoclonal antibodies., (© 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.)