Search

International audience; Prolonged Covid-19 is an emerging issue for patients with lymphoma or immune deficiency. We aimed to examine prolonged length of in-hospital stay (LOS) due to Covid-19 among patients with lymphoma and assess its determinants and outcomes. Adult patients with lymphoma admitted for Covid-19 to 16 French hospitals in March and April, 2020 were included. Length of in-hospital stay was analyzed as a competitor vs death. The study included 111 patients. The median age was 65 years (range, 19–92). Ninety-four patients (85%) had B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Within the 12 months prior to hospitalization for Covid-19, 79 patients (71%) were treated for their lymphoma. Among them, 63 (57%) received an anti-CD20 therapy. Fourteen patients (12%) had relapsed/refractory disease. The median LOS was 14 days (range, 1–235). After a median follow-up of 191 days (3–260), the 6-month overall survival was 69%. In multivariable analyses, recent administration of anti-CD20 therapy was associated with prolonged LOS (subdistribution hazard ratio 2.26, 95% confidence interval 1.42–3.6, p < 0.001) and higher risk of death (hazard ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.04–4.52, p = 0.039). An age ≥ 70 years and relapsed/refractory lymphoma were also associated with prolonged LOS and decreased overall survival. In conclusion, an age ≥ 70 years, a relapsed/refractory lymphoma and recent administration of anti-CD20 therapy are risk factors for prolonged LOS and death for lymphoma patients hospitalized for Covid-19. These findings may contribute to guide the management of lymphoma during the pandemic, support evaluating specific therapeutic approaches, and raise questions on the efficacy and timing of vaccination of this particular population.

HIV testing is recommended at time of cancer diagnosis, HBV and HCV screening because of the risk of reactivation with certain anticancer drugs.This is a cross-sectional study. The objectives were to assess the screening practices in cancer patients and the satisfaction of professionals in the event of use of the CancerHIV network. A questionnaire drafted by the CancerHIV expert and the OncoPaca-Corse Regional Cancer Network (RCN) was distributed in the region at the end of 2018 (part 1: V1) before being extended to the national level via the CancerHIV network (part 2: V2). Participation reached 160 and 130 respondents (V1 and V2, respectively). At the initial cancer assessment, 23% of respondents declared that they systematically screened for HIV at V1 (V2: 17%), 25% for HBV (V2: 20%) and 24% for HCV (V2: 19%). Before immunotherapy, the rates were 54% for HIV in V1 (V2: 52%), 57% for HBV (V2: 60%) and 55% for HCV (V2: 57%). Among the respondents, satisfaction when requesting a regional or national remedy was high (almost 100%). Screening for HIV, HBV and HCV allows supervised prescription of immunosuppressive or cytotoxic treatment to a potentially immunosuppressed patient. This study, resulting of an original collaboration between a RCN and a national expert network, underlines the lack of screening at the 2 examined stages of patient care, and the need for raising practitioners' awareness to recommendations., Le dépistage de l’infection par le VIH est recommandé lors du bilan initial de tout cancer, celui de l’hépatite B et C en raison d’un risque de réactivation avec certains anticancéreux. Il s’agit d’une étude descriptive transversale. Les objectifs étaient d’évaluer les pratiques de dépistage chez des patients atteints de cancer et la satisfaction des professionnels en cas de recours au réseau CancerVIH. Un questionnaire élaboré par l’expert CancerVIH et le Réseau Régional de Cancérologie (RRC) OncoPaca-Corse a été diffusé fin 2018 en région (volet 1 : V1) avant une extension au niveau national via le réseau CancerVIH (volet 2 : V2). La participation a atteint 160 et 130 répondants (V1 et V2, respectivement). Au bilan initial de cancer, 23 % des répondants déclaraient dépister systématiquement le VIH au V1 (V2 : 17 %), 25 % le VHB (V2 : 20 %) et 24 % le VHC (V2 :19 %). Avant immunothérapie, les chiffres étaient de 54 % pour le VIH dans le V1 (V2 : 52 %), 57 % pour le VHB (V2 : 60 %) et 55 % pour le VHC (V2 : 57 %). Parmi les répondants, la satisfaction en cas de sollicitation du recours régional ou national était élevée (près de 100 %). Le dépistage du VIH, VHB et VHC permet la prescription encadrée d’un traitement immunosuppresseur ou cytotoxique à un patient potentiellement immunodéprimé. Cette enquête, fruit d’une collaboration originale entre RRC et réseau expert national, souligne l’insuffisance du dépistage aux 2 étapes de la prise en charge étudiées et la nécessité de sensibiliser les professionnels aux recommandations existantes.

Aim: Evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health utility impact of single-agent selinexor in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients & methods: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) - Lymphoma and EuroQoL five-dimensions five-levels data collected in the single-arm Phase IIb trial SADAL (NCT02227251) were analyzed with mixed-effects models. Results: Treatment responders maintained higher FACT - Lymphoma (p = 3 adverse events and serious adverse events were not associated with clinically meaningful negative QoL impacts.

Systemic immunoglobulin light-chain (AL) amyloidosis is characterized by deposition of amyloid fibrils of light chains produced by clonal CD38+ plasma cells. Daratumumab, a human CD38-targeting antibody, may improve outcomes for this disease.We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis to receive six cycles of bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone either alone (control group) or with subcutaneous daratumumab followed by single-agent daratumumab every 4 weeks for up to 24 cycles (daratumumab group). The primary end point was a hematologic complete response.A total of 388 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 11.4 months. The percentage of patients who had a hematologic complete response was significantly higher in the daratumumab group than in the control group (53.3% vs. 18.1%) (relative risk ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1 to 4.1; P0.001). Survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression favored the daratumumab group (hazard ratio for major organ deterioration, hematologic progression, or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93; P = 0.02). At 6 months, more cardiac and renal responses occurred in the daratumumab group than in the control group (41.5% vs. 22.2% and 53.0% vs. 23.9%, respectively). The four most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were lymphopenia (13.0% in the daratumumab group and 10.1% in the control group), pneumonia (7.8% and 4.3%, respectively), cardiac failure (6.2% and 4.8%), and diarrhea (5.7% and 3.7%). Systemic administration-related reactions to daratumumab occurred in 7.3% of the patients. A total of 56 patients died (27 in the daratumumab group and 29 in the control group), most due to amyloidosis-related cardiomyopathy.Among patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis, the addition of daratumumab to bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone was associated with higher frequencies of hematologic complete response and survival free from major organ deterioration or hematologic progression. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; ANDROMEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03201965.).

International audience

BACKGROUND: Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive cancer with a median overall survival of less than 6 months. We aimed to assess the response to single-agent selinexor, an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export, in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had no therapeutic options of potential clinical benefit. METHODS: SADAL was a multicentre, multinational, open-label, phase 2b study done in 59 sites in 19 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with pathologically confirmed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, who had received two to five lines of previous therapies, and progressed after or were not candidates for autologous stem-cell transplantation were enrolled. Germinal centre B-cell or non-germinal centre B-cell tumour subtype and double or triple expressor status were determined by immunohistochemistry and double or triple hit status was determined by cytogenetics. Patients received 60 mg selinexor orally on days 1 and 3 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The study was initially designed to evaluate both 60 mg and 100 mg twice-weekly doses of selinexor; however, the 100 mg dose was discontinued in the protocol (version 7.0) on March 29, 2017, when an improved therapeutic window was observed at 60 mg. Primary outcome was overall response rate. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in all patients who received 60 mg selinexor under protocol version 6.0, or enrolled under protocol versions 7.0 or higher and received at least one dose of selinexor. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02227251 (active but not enrolling). FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2015, and Nov 2, 2019, 267 patients were randomly assigned, with 175 allocated to the 60 mg group and 92 to the discontinued 100 mg group. 48 patients assigned to the 60 mg group were excluded due to enrolment before version 6.0 of the protocol; the remaining 127 patients received selinexor 60 mg and were included in analyses of primary outcome and safety. The overall response rate was 28% (36/127; 95% CI 20·7-37·0); 15 (12%) achieved a complete response and 21 (17%) a partial response. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (n=58), neutropenia (n=31), anaemia (n=28), fatigue (n=14), hyponatraemia (n=10), and nausea (n=8). The most common serious adverse events were pyrexia (n=9), pneumonia (n=6), and sepsis (n=6). There were no deaths judged as related to treatment with selinexor. INTERPRETATION: Single-drug oral selinexor induced durable responses and had a manageable adverse events profile in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who received at least two lines of previous chemoimmunotherapy. Selinexor could be considered a new oral, non-cytotoxic treatment option in this setting. FUNDING: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.

Baron et al report excellent responses to temozolomide in 21 patients (19 relapsed/refractory) with primary vitreoretinal lymphoma. Treatment is well tolerated, even in elderly patients.

Selinexor is an oral, small molecule inhibitor of the nuclear export protein exportin 1 with demonstrated activity in hematologic and solid malignancies. Side effects associated with selinexor include nausea, vomiting, fatigue, diarrhea, decreased appetite, weight loss, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and hyponatremia. We reviewed 437 patients with multiple myeloma treated with selinexor and assessed the kinetics of adverse events and impact of supportive care measures. Selinexor reduced both platelets and neutrophils over the first cycle of treatment and reached a nadir between 28 and 42 days. Platelet transfusions and thrombopoietin receptor agonists were effective at treating thrombocytopenia, and granulocyte colony stimulating factors were effective at resolving neutropenia. The onset of gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) was most common during the first 1–2 weeks of treatment. Nausea could be mitigated with 5-HT3 antagonists and either neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists, olanzapine, or cannbainoids. Loperamide and bismuth subsalicylate ameliorated diarrhea. The primary constitutional side effects of fatigue and decreased appetite could be managed with methylphenidate, megestrol, cannabinoids or olanzapine, respectively. Hyponatremia was highly responsive to sodium replacement. Selinexor has well-established adverse effects that mainly occur within the first 8 weeks of treatment, are reversible, and respond to supportive care.

The phase 2b, open-label, multicenter SADAL study evaluated single agent oral selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound, in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) after >= 2 lines of systemic therapy. Similar activity was observed in GCB- and non-GCB DLBCL with a trend to higher response rates in DLBCL transformed from follicular lymphoma. Lower response rates were observed in double expressor DLBCL; higher response rates were observed in patients with baseline hemoglobin >= 10 g/dL and normal levels of C-MYC or BCL-2 expression (51%). Overall, strong single agent activity with selinexor were observed in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL.Background: The SADAL study evaluated oral selinexor in patients with relapsed and/or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) after at least 2 prior lines of systemic therapy. In this post-hoc analysis, we analyzed the outcomes of the SADAL study by DLBCL subtype to determine the effects of DLBCL subtypes on efficacy and tolerability of selinexor. Patients and Methods: Data from 134 patients in SADAL were analyzed by DLBCL subtypes for overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), duration of treatment response, progression-free survival, and adverse events rate. Results: ORR in the entire cohort was 29.1%, and similar in patients with germinal center (GCB) versus non-GCB DLBCL (31.7% vs. 24.2%, P = 0.45); transformed DLBCL showed a trend towards higher ORR than de novo DLBCL: 38.7% vs. 26.2% (P = 0.23). Despite similar prior treatment regimens and baseline characteristics, patients with DLBCL and normal C-MYC/BCL-2 protein expression levels had a significantly higher ORR (46.2% vs.14.8%, P = 0.012) and significantly longer OS (medians 13.7 vs. 5.1 months, hazard ratio 0.43 [95% CI, 0.23-0.77], P = 0.004) as compared with those whose DLBCL had C-MYC and BCL-2 overexpression. Among patients who had normal expression levels of either C-MYC or BCL-2 and baseline hemoglobin levels >= 10g/dL, ORR was 51.5% (n = 47), with median OS of 15.5 months and median PFS of 4.6 months. Similar rates of adverse events were noted in all subgroups. Conclusions: Overall, single agent oral selinexor showed strong responses in patients with limited treatment alternatives regardless of germinal center B-cell type or disease origin. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND The off-line extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) procedure requires photosensitization in an external cell therapy laboratory as per the French regulatory requirement. This regulation results in higher time and costs compared with the on-line alternative performed entirely at the patient's bedside. Recently, full in situ execution of the off-line procedure has been implemented in the Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital Hemobiotherapy Department (Paris, France). This report summarizes the center's experience regarding the organizational and costs impacts of this change compared with the on-line procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS ECP was broken down into stages, and several procedures were monitored prospectively in real-life settings. The total costs associated with both procedures were the sum of the fixed costs and variable costs related to all stages of the procedures, nursing-time costs, property costs, and patient-related production loss costs. RESULTS Eight off-line ECP and fourteen on-line ECP procedures were monitored during five consecutive days. Procedure duration was not different (median 137.5 vs 154.0 minutes, P = .29). Times and costs associated with nursing were higher but offset by lower fixed costs of the off-line ECP. Total direct costs per procedure associated with using the off-line ECP were significantly lower than those of the on-line procedure (459.6 ± 7.1 EUR vs 953.8 ± 6.5 EUR; P = .0002). Similar results were observed when including the costs of patient production loss. CONCLUSIONS As a competitive time procedure, the in situ off-line method proved to be cost-efficient by effectively offering similar patient treatment per year compared with the on-line procedure.

Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL) is a rare type of aggressive lymphoma typically affecting young female patients. The first-line standard of care remains debated. We performed a large multicenter retrospective study in 25 centers in France and Belgium to describe PMBL patient outcomes after first-line treatment in real-life settings. A total of 313 patients were enrolled and received rituximab (R) plus ACVBP (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin, and prednisone) (n = 180) or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) delivered every 14 days (R-CHOP14, n = 76) or 21 days (R-CHOP21, n = 57) and consolidation strategies in modalities that varied according to time and institution, mainly guided by positron emission tomography. Consolidation autologous stem cell transplantation was performed for 46 (25.6%), 24 (31.6%), and 1 (1.8%) patient in the R-ACVBP, R-CHOP14, and R-CHOP21 groups, respectively (P < .001); only 17 (5.4%) patients received mediastinal radiotherapy. The end-of-treatment complete metabolic response rates were 86.3%, 86.8%, and 76.6% (P = .23) in the R-ACVBP, R-CHOP14, and R-CHOP21 groups. The median follow-up was 44 months, and the R-ACVBP, R-CHOP14, and R-CHOP21 three-year progression-free survival probabilities were 89.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.8-94.2), 89.4% (95% CI, 82.7-96.6), and 74.7% (95% CI, 64-87.1) (P = .018). A baseline total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) ≥360 cm3 was associated with a lower progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.05-4.53). Excess febrile neutropenia (24.4% vs 5.3% vs 5.3%; P < .001) and mucositis (22.8% vs 3.9% vs 1.8%; P < .001) were observed with R-ACVBP compared with the R-CHOP regimens. Patients with PMBL treated with dose-dense immunochemotherapy without radiotherapy have excellent outcomes. R-ACVBP acute toxicity was higher than that of R-CHOP14. Our data confirmed the prognostic importance of baseline TMTV.

International audience; Purpose of review. The aim of this study was to highlight the diagnostic and management challenges of primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) through a review of the literature and a European survey on real-life practices for PVRL.Recent findings. The care of PVRL patients is heterogeneous between specialists and countries. Upfront systemic treatment based on highdose methotrexate chemotherapy, with or without local treatment, might reduce or delay the risk of brain relapse. Ibrutinib, lenalidomide with or without rituximab, and temozolomide are effective for patients with relapsed/refractory PVRL and should be tested as first-line treatments.Summary. The prognosis of PVRL remains dismal. No firm conclusion regarding optimal treatment can yet be drawn. The risk of brain relapse remains high. Diagnostic procedures and assessment of therapeutic responses need to be homogenized. Collaboration between specialists involved in PVRL and multicentric prospective therapeutic studies are strongly needed. The recommendations of the French group for primary oculocerebral lymphoma (LOC network) are provided, as a basis for further European collaborative work.

Background Selinexor is an oral, selective nuclear export inhibitor. STORM was a phase 2b, single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial of selinexor with low dose dexamethasone in patients with penta-exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) that met its primary endpoint, with overall response of 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19 to 35%). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM). This study examines impact of selinexor treatment on HRQoL of patients treated in STORM and reports two approaches to calculate minimal clinically important differences for the FACT-MM. Methods FACT-MM data were collected at baseline, on day 1 of each 4-week treatment cycle, and at end of treatment (EOT). Changes from baseline were analyzed for the FACT-MM total score, FACT-trial outcome index (TOI), FACT-General (FACT-G), and the MM-specific domain using mixed-effects regression models. Two approaches for evaluating minimal clinically important differences were explored: the first defined as 10% of the instrument range, and the second based on estimated mean baseline differences between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) scores. Post-hoc difference analysis compared change in scores from baseline to EOT for treatment responders and non-responders. Results Eighty patients were included in the analysis; the mean number of prior therapies was 7.9 (standard deviation [SD] 3.1), and mean duration of myeloma was 7.6 years (SD 3.4). Each exploratory minimal clinically important difference threshold yielded consistent results whereby most patients did not experience HRQoL decline during the first six cycles of treatment (range: 53.9 to 75.7% for the first approach; range: 52.6 to 72.9% for the second). Treatment responders experienced less decline in HRQoL from baseline to EOT than non-responders, which was significant for the FACT-G, but not for other scores. Conclusion The majority of patients did not experience decline in HRQoL based on minimal clinically important differences during early cycles of treatment with selinexor and dexamethasone in the STORM trial. An anchor-based approach utilizing patient-level data (ECOG PS score) to define minimal clinically important differences for the FACT-MM gave consistent results with a distribution-based approach. Trial registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the trial-ID NCT02336815 on January 8, 2015.

International audience; IntroductionPeople living with HIV (PLWHIV) are at a higher risk of cancer compared to the general population. With improved cancer treatments and the increased life expectancy of PLWHIV, the incidence of second cancers is also expected to increase.MethodsWe reviewed the cases of PLWHIV with cancer that have been presented to the CANCERVIH national multidisciplinary board since 2014. We included all cases with a history of cancer, and studied the incidence and types of second cancers.ResultsIn total, 719 cases were reviewed, out of which 94 (13%) had a history of at least one cancer. For the first primary cancers, 46 (49%) were AIDS-defining cancers (ADCs) and 48 (51%) were non-AIDS-defining cancers (NADCs). Kaposi sarcoma (33%) and NHL (15%) occurred most frequently as first cancers. Among the first cancers that were ADCs, 15% of the second cancers were NHL, 11% anal canal cancers, 9% bladder and 9% Hodgkin lymphomas. Among the first cancers that were NADCs, 38% of the second cancers were lung cancers, 8% bladder, 8% head and neck and 8% NHL.DiscussionWith the aging of PLWHIV, the incidence of second and subsequent cancers is expected to increase in this population. Immuno-virological control should be maintained. Increased surveillance, early prevention and screening programs should be offered to all PLWHIV, including those with an undetectable HIV viral load and/or immune restoration.; IntroductionLes personnes vivant avec le VIH (PVVIH) ont un risque plus élevé de cancer que la population générale. Avec l’amélioration des traitements carcinologiques et l’augmentation de l’espérance de vie des PVVIH, l’incidence des seconds cancers devrait augmenter.MéthodesNous avons examiné les dossiers des PVVIH atteintes d’un cancer qui ont été présentés en RCP nationale CANCERVIH depuis 2014. Nous avons inclus tous les cas avec antécédents de cancer, et étudié l’incidence et les types de seconds cancers.RésultatsAu total, 719 dossiers ont été examinés dont 94 (13 %) avaient un antécédent d’au moins un cancer. Pour les premiers cancers primitifs, 46 (49 %) étaient des cancers classant-SIDA (ADCs) et 48 (51 %) des cancers non-classant-SIDA (NADCs). Le sarcome de Kaposi (33 %) et le LNH (15 %) étaient les premiers cancers les plus fréquents. Parmi les premiers cancers qui étaient des ADCs, 15 % des seconds cancers étaient des LNH, 11 % des cancers du canal anal, 9 % de vessie et 9 % des lymphomes de Hodgkin. Parmi les premiers cancers qui étaient des NADCs, 38 % des seconds cancers étaient des cancers du poumon, 8 % de vessie, 8 % de la tête et cou et 8 % des LNH.DiscussionAvec le vieillissement des PVVIH, l’incidence des seconds cancers (et ultérieurs) devrait augmenter dans cette population. Le contrôle immuno-virologique doit être maintenu. Surveillance accrue, prévention précoce et programmes de dépistage devraient être proposés à toutes les PVVIH, même avec une charge virale VIH indétectable et/ou une restauration immunitaire.

EBV-positive and EBV-negative posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLDs) arise in different immunovirological contexts and might have distinct pathophysiologies. To examine this hypothesis, we conducted a multicentric prospective study with 56 EBV-positive and 39 EBV-negative PTLD patients of the K-VIROGREF cohort, recruited at PTLD diagnosis and before treatment (2013-2019), and compared them to PTLD-free Transplant Controls (TC, n = 21). We measured absolute lymphocyte counts (n = 108), analyzed NK- and T cell phenotypes (n = 49 and 94), and performed EBV-specific functional assays (n = 16 and 42) by multiparameter flow cytometry and ELISpot-IFNγ assays (n = 50). EBV-negative PTLD patients, NK cells overexpressed Tim-3; the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was poorer in patients with a CD4 lymphopenia (CD4+

Patients with RR DLBCL who have received ≥ 2 lines of therapy have limited treatment options and an expected overall survival (OS) of < 6 months. The SADAL study evaluated single-agent oral selinexor in patients with RR DLBCL and demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 29.1% with median duration of response (DOR) of 9.3 months. The analyses described here evaluated a number of subpopulations in order to understand how response correlates with survival outcomes in order to identify patients who could most optimally benefit from selinexor treatment. Median age was 67 years; 44.8% of patients were ≥ 70 years of age. The median OS was 9.0 months (95% CI 6.2, 13.7) at a median follow-up of 14.8 months. The median OS was not reached in patients with a CR or PR, while patients who did not respond have a median OS of 4.9 months (p < 0.0001). Patients < 70 years had an OS of 11.1 months compared with 7.8 months in patients ≥ 70 years. Among patients with or without prior ASCT, the median OS was 10.9 and 7.8 months, respectively. Among patients with disease refractory to the most recent DLBCL treatment regimen, the median OS was 7.0 months compared with 11.1 months for disease not refractory to the most recent treatment. In a patient population in which survival is expected to be < 6 months, treatment with single-agent oral selinexor was associated with a median survival of 9 months. Increased median OS observed in patients responding to selinexor was consistent across subgroups regardless of age, prior ASCT therapy, or refractory status. Randomized studies of selinexor in combination with a variety of other anti-DLBCL agents are planned. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02227251) on August 28, 2014. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02227251., SCOPUS: le.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Summary Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have increased incidence of de novo cancers. After having undergone treatment for cancer with curative intent, reducing the overall immunosuppressive load and/or switching to an alternative drug regimen may potentially be of great benefit to avoid cancer recurrence, but should be balanced against the risks of rejection and/or severe adverse events. The TLJ (Transplant Learning Journey) project is an initiative from the European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT). This article reports a systematic literature search undertaken by TLJ Workstream 3 to answer the questions: (1) Should we decrease the overall anti‐rejection therapy in potentially cured post‐kidney transplant cancer (excluding non‐melanoma skin cancer)? (2) Should we switch to mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) in potentially cured post‐kidney transplant cancer (excluding non‐melanoma skin cancer)? The literature search revealed insufficient solid data on which to base recommendations, so this review additionally presents an extensive overview of the indirect evidence on the benefits versus risks of alterations in immunosuppressive medication. We hope this summary will help transplant physicians advise KTRs on how best to continue with anti‐rejection therapy after receiving cancer treatment with curative intent, and aid shared decision‐making, ensuring that patient preferences are taken into account., TLJ Workstream 3 systematic literature search and analysis of available indirect evidence to provide help with shared decision‐making on how to continue with life‐time anti‐rejection therapy in kidney transplant recipients that have received cancer treatment with curative intent.

Diagnosis of lymphoma leptomeningeal dissemination is challenging and relies on a wide array of methods. So far, no consensus biological guidelines are available. This increases the chance of intra- and interpractice variations, despite the shared concern to perform the minimum amount of tests while preserving clinically relevant results.We evaluated a training cohort of 371 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from patients with putative lymphomatous central nervous system (CNS) localization using conventional cytology (CC), flow cytometry (FCM), molecular clonality assesment by PCR and cytokine quantification (CQ). This led us to propose a biological algorithm, which was then verified on a validation cohort of 197 samples. The samples were classified according to the clinical context and the results of each technique were compared. Using all four techniques was not useful for exclusion diagnosis of CNS lymphoma (CNSL), but they proved complementary for cases with suspected CNSL. This was particularly true for CQ in primary CNSL. Overall, diagnosis can be obtained with a two-step approach. The first step comprises CC and FCM, as results are available quickly and FCM is a sensitive method. Both PCR and CQ can be postponed and performed in a second step, depending on the results from the first step and the clinical context.The proposed algorithm missed none of the CNSL samples of the validation cohort. Moreover, applying this algorithm would have spared 30% of PCR tests and 20% of CQ over a one-year period, without compromising clinical management.

Background Primary central nervous system lymphomas (PCNSLs) are mainly diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCLs) of the non-germinal center B-cell (non-GCB) subtype. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of rituximab plus lenalidomide (R2) in DLBCL–PCNSL. Patients and methods Patients with refractory/relapsed (R/R) DLBCL–PCNSL or primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) were included in this prospective phase II study. The induction treatment consisted of eight 28-day cycles of R2 (rituximab 375/m2 i.v. D1; lenalidomide 20mg/day, D1-21 for cycle 1; and 25mg/day, D1-21 for the subsequent cycles); in responding patients, the induction treatment was followed by a maintenance phase comprising 12 28-day cycles of lenalidomide alone (10mg/day, D1-21). The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR) at the end of induction (P0=10%; P1=30%). Results Fifty patients were included. Forty-five patients (PCNSL, N=34; PVRL, N=11) were assessable for response. The ORR at the end of induction was 35.6% (95% CI 21.9–51.2) in assessable patients and 32.0% (95% CI 21.9–51.2) in the intent-to-treat analysis, including 13 complete responses (CR)/unconfirmed CR (uCR; 29%) and 3 partial responses (PR; 7%). The best responses were 18 CR/uCR (40%) and 12 PR (27%) during the induction phase. The maintenance phase was started and completed by 18 and 5 patients, respectively. With a median follow-up of 19.2months (range 1.5–31), the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 7.8months (95% CI 3.9–11.3) and 17.7months (95% CI 12.9 to not reached), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed. The peripheral baseline CD4/CD8 ratio impacted PFS [median PFS=9.5months (95% CI, 8.1–14.8] for CD4/CD8≥1.6; median PFS=2.8months, [95% CI, 1.1–7.8) for CD4/CD8 Conclusions The R2 regimen showed significant activity in R/R PCNSL and PVRL patients. These results support assessments of the efficacy of R2 combined with methotrexate-based chemotherapy as a first-line treatment of PCNSL. Clinical trials number NCT01956695.

PURPOSE To determine the efficacy and toxicity of chemoimmunotherapy followed by either whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or intensive chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) as a first-line treatment of primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL). PATIENTS AND METHODS Immunocompetent patients (18 to 60 years of age) with untreated PCNSL were randomly assigned to receive WBRT or ASCT as consolidation treatment after induction chemotherapy consisting of two cycles of R-MBVP (rituximab 375 mg/m2 day (D) 1, methotrexate 3 g/m2 D1; D15, VP16 100 mg/m2 D2, BCNU 100 mg/m2 D3, prednisone 60 mg/m2/d D1-D5) followed by two cycles of R-AraC (rituximab 375 mg/m2 D1, cytarabine 3 g/m2/D, D1, and D2). Intensive chemotherapy consisted of thiotepa (250 mg/m2/d D9; D8; D7), busulfan (8 mg/kg D6 through D4), and cyclophosphamide (60 mg/kg/d D3; D2). WBRT delivered 40 Gy (2 Gy/fraction). The primary end point was 2-year progression-free survival. Cognitive outcome was the main secondary end point. Analysis was intention to treat in a noncomparative phase II trial. RESULTS Between October 2008 and February 2014, 140 patients were recruited from 23 French centers. Both WBRT and ASCT met the predetermined threshold (among the first 38 patients in each group, at least 24 patients were alive and disease free at 2 years). The 2-year progression-free survival rates were 63% (95% CI, 49% to 81%) and 87% (95% CI, 77% to 98%) in the WBRT and ASCT arms, respectively. Toxicity deaths were recorded in one and five patients after WBRT and ASCT, respectively. Cognitive impairment was observed after WBRT, whereas cognitive functions were preserved or improved after ASCT. CONCLUSION WBRT and ASCT are effective consolidation treatments for patients with PCNSL who are 60 years of age and younger. The efficacy end points tended to favor the ASCT arm. The specific risk of each procedure should be considered.

International audience; The treatment of primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) remains controversial regarding the use of local, systemic, or combined treatments. The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy and toxicity of intravenous high-dose methotrexate (IV HD-MTX) based systemic therapy in a uniformly treated population of PVRL patients. From a nationwide French database, we retrospectively selected 59 patients (median age: 70 years, median Karnofsky Performance Status: 90%) with isolated PVRL at diagnosis who received first-line treatment with HD-MTX between 2011-2018. 8/59 patients also received a local treatment. No deaths or premature discontinuations of MTX due to toxicity were reported. A complete response was obtained in 40/57 patients after chemotherapy. Before treatment, IL-10 was elevated in the aqueous humor (AH) or in the vitreous in 89% of patients. After treatment, AH IL-10 was undetectable in 87% of patients with a CR/uCR/PR and detectable in 92% of patients with PD/SD. After a median follow-up of 61 months, 41/59 (69%) patients had relapsed, including 29 isolated ocular relapses as the first relapse and a total of 22 brain relapses. The median overall survival, progression-free survival, ocular-free survival and brain-free survival were 75, 18, 29 and 73 months, respectively. IV HD-MTX based systemic therapy as a first-line treatment for isolated PVRL is feasible, with acceptable toxicity, even in an elderly population. This strategy seems efficient to prevent brain relapse with prolonged overall survival. However, the ocular relapse rate remains high. New approaches are needed to improve local control of this disease, and ocular assessment could be completed by monitoring AH IL-10.

Increasing attention has focused on the prevention of EBV disease and PTLD. A variety of potential approaches to the prevention of EBV disease and PTLD have been studied including chemoprophylaxis using antiviral therapies, immunoprophylaxis (including adoptive immunotherapy), and viral load monitoring to inform preemptive strategies. Although some centers have endorsed the use of the antiviral agents acyclovir and ganciclovir for the prevention of EBV/PTLD, there is little data to support and strong arguments against this practice. Currently, universal chemoprophylaxis as a preventive strategy is not recommended. At present, the use of serial monitoring of the EBV viral load as a stimulus to reduce immunosuppression is the recommended approach for solid organ transplant recipients. The use of adoptive immunotherapy or treatment with rituximab has been established as effective preemptive strategies for stem cell transplant recipients (covered in Chap. 18) but not for organ transplant recipients. Future research should evaluate these strategies in the organ transplant population.

Introduction To describe the reasons for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and to evaluate the outcomes and prognostic factors of patients with primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) admitted to the ICU. Patients and methods Retrospective observational cohort study of 101 PCNSL patients admitted to 3 ICUs over a two-decade period. Results Acute respiratory failure, mainly secondary to aspiration pneumonia and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, was the leading reason for ICU admission (33%). Aspiration pneumonia was more common in patients with brainstem tumor (67% vs. 0%, p

Background Cancer patients may be at higher risk for severe coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19); however, the outcome of Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma (PCNSL) patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has not been described yet. Methods We conducted a retrospective study within the Lymphomes Oculo-Cérébraux national network (LOC) to assess the clinical characteristics and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in PCNSL patients (positive real-time polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swab or evocative lung computed tomography scan). We compared clinical characteristics between patients with severe (death and/or intensive care unit admission) and mild disease. Results Between March and May 2020, 13 PCNSL patients were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 11 (85%) of whom were undergoing chemotherapy at the time of infection. The mortality rate was 23% (3/13), and two additional patients (15%) required mechanical ventilation. Two patients (15%) had no COVID-19 symptoms. History of diabetes mellitus was more common in severe patients (3/5 vs 0/8, p = 0.03). Two patients recovered from COVID-19 after mechanical ventilation during more than two weeks and resumed chemotherapy. In all, chemotherapy was resumed after COVID-19 recovery in nine patients (69%) after a median delay of 16 days (range 3–32), none of whom developed unusual chemotherapy complication nor SARS-Cov2 reactivation. Conclusion This preliminary analysis suggests that, while being at higher risk be for severe illness, PCNSL patients with COVID-19 might be treated maximally especially if they achieved oncological response at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Chemotherapy might be resumed without prolonged delay in PCNSL patients with COVID-19. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00415-020-10311-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Depuis la révolution de l’immunothérapie utilisant les inhibiteurs de points de contrôle immunitaire dans la prise en charge de nombreux cancers, les oncologues font face à de nouveaux types de toxicités dites immuno-induites. La compréhension de leurs mécanismes et la mise en place de recommandations claires sont les clés de leur prise en charge. La gravité potentielle de ces toxicités et la très nette amélioration du pronostic apportée par ces traitements pour les patients porteurs de cancers métastatiques rend le rôle du réanimateur primordial. Le but de cette mise au point est d’effectuer une synthèse des toxicités immuno-induites pouvant conduire les patients en cours de traitement par inhibiteur de points de contrôle immunitaireen réanimation et ainsi de proposer des recommandations dans leur prise en charge afin d’aider le réanimateur dans sa démarche diagnostique et thérapeutique. L’imbrication de toxicités immuno-induites pouvant toucher plusieurs organes de façon concomitante, impose une prise en charge pluridisciplinaire regroupant oncologue, spécialiste d’organes et réanimateur. La mise en place de réunion de concertation pluridisciplinaire dédiée à ce type de toxicités permet ce regroupement, de même que le développement d’une expertise commune au sein d’un centre, la création de protocoles de soins et de recherche dédiés à la compréhension et la prise en charge de ces toxicités, et ce afin d’optimiser la gestion de ces patients.

We report the case of a man with a primary diagnosis of Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia. He secondarily presented a diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) located in the nasal fossae, which relapsed later in the eye. The diagnosis of these two malignancies is based on a multidisciplinary biological approach using new sensitive and specific techniques. These techniques revealed that the two diseases harbor different B cell clones, indicating a distinct origin. This observation highlights the importance of targeted biological techniques for the diagnosis of these two rare hemopathies. It also shows that it is possible to prove the independent nature of the two tumor clones, thus allowing optimized therapeutic management.

Background: Patients with lymphoma are immunocompromised because of the disease per se and its treatments. We aimed to describe the characteristics of patients with lymphoma hospitalized for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to analyze pre-Covid-19 determinants of mortality. Methods: This retrospective multicentric cohort study used the Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information database to identify all adult patients with lymphoma, hospitalized for Covid-19 in March and April 2020, in 12 hospitals of three French regions with pandemic outbreaks. The characteristics of lymphoma and Covid-19 were collected from medical charts. Findings: Eighty-nine patients were included. The median age was 67 years (range, 19–92), 66% were male and 72% had a comorbidity. Most patients had B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (86%) and had received a lymphoma treatment within one year (70%). With a median follow-up of 33 days from admission, 30-day overall survival was 71%, (95% confidence interval, 62–81%). In multivariable analysis, having an age ≥ 70 years (hazard ratio 2·87, 1·20–6·85, p = 0·02) and relapsed/refractory lymphoma (hazard ratio 2·54, 1·14–5·66, p = 0·02) were associated with mortality. Recent bendamustine treatment (n = 9) was also pejorative (hazard ratio 3·20, 1·33–7·72, p = 0·01), but was strongly associated with relapsed/refractory lymphoma. Remarkably, 30-day overall survival for patients

International audience; Background: For nonneoplastic neurological diseases, no recommendation exists regarding the place or appropriate timing of brain biopsy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of brain biopsies from patients with neurological diseases of unknown etiology.Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018. We analyzed 1847 brain-biopsied patients, including 178 biopsies indicated for neurological diseases of unknown etiology. Specific histological and final diagnosis rates, positive diagnosis-associated factors, complication rate and complication-associated factors were assessed.Results: Specific histological diagnosis and final diagnosis rates were 71.3% and 83.1%, respectively, leading to therapeutic management change(s) for 75.3% of patients. Brain- biopsy-related mortality and permanent neurological morbidity occurred in 1.1% and 0.6% of the patients, respectively. The multivariable logistic-regression model retained (odds ratio [95% CI] only immunodepression (2.2 [1.1-4.7]; P=.04) as being independently associated with specific histological diagnosis, while supratentorial biopsy-targeted lesions (4.1 [1.1-15.2]; P=.04) were independently associated with a final diagnosis. Biopsies obtained from comatose patients were less contributive to the diagnosis (0.2 [0.05-0.7]; P=.01). Prebiopsy platelet count

Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare disease with different therapeutic implications than systemic lymphoma. In this study, we evaluated whole-body 18FDG-PET/CT for pre-chemotherapy imaging of suspected PCNSL. One hundred and thirty consecutive immunocompetent patients were retrospectively included. The results of initial 18FDG-PET/CT, contrast-enhanced CT (CeCT) and bone marrow biopsy (BMB) when available were compared to a gold standard based on pathological diagnosis or follow-up. CNS lesion pathology showed large B-cell lymphoma in 95% of patients, including 11 patients with primary vitro-retinal lymphoma. Ten patients (8%) where ultimately diagnosed with systemic lymphoma involvement, including five pathologically confirmed cases, all of which were detected by 18FDG-PET/CT. 18FDG-PET/CT showed incidental systemic findings unrelated to lymphoma in 14% of patients. An SUVmax threshold of nine enabled good discrimination between systemic lymphoma and other lesions (sensitivity 92% and specificity 89%). CeCT and BMB performed in 108 and 77 patients respectively revealed systemic lesions in only three patients. 18FDG-PET/CT detected concomitant occult systemic involvement in a non-negligible proportion of suspected PCNSL cases (8%). In this setting its sensitivity is higher than that of CeCT. All of our patients ultimately diagnosed with concomitant systemic involvement had positive 18FDG-PET/CT. We believe it constitutes a safe one-stop shop evaluation for the systemic pre-treatment imaging of suspected PCNSL.

Amino acid PET, including F-FDOPA, is recommended for initial characterization, delineation of tumor extent, and follow-up of gliomas because of its high diagnostic performances. F-FDOPA accumulates inside tumor cells via the L-type amino acid transporter 1 (LAT1) whose expression is increased in gliomas. We report here a case of a histopathologically proven brain amyloidoma that was first addressed for a suspected glioma. Congo red staining showed scattered extracellular deposits of amyloid and immunohistochemistry-highlighted LAT1 expression, explaining the high F-FDOPA uptake found in this lesion. This case indicates that differential diagnosis of the F-FDOPA uptake in brain lesions should include amyloidoma.

Background: Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma (RR DLBCL) is an aggressive cancer with a median survival of less than 6 months. The SADAL trial aims to assess the response to the oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) selinexor in patients with RR DLBCL who have no therapeutic options of demonstrated clinical benefit. Methods: SADAL was a multicenter, open-label Phase 2b study conducted at 59 sites globally. Patients 18 years with previously treated, pathologically confirmed de novo DLBCL, or DLBCL transformed from previously diagnosed indolent lymphoma, and having received at least two prior therapies were enrolled. Germinal center B-cell (GCB) or non-GCB tumor subtype and double/triple expressor status were determined by immunohistochemistry and double/triple hit status was determined by cytogenetic assays. Patients received 60 mg selinexor orally on days 1 and 3 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was overall response rate (ORR) by central radiologic review. A modified intent-to-treat population was used for all efficacy endpoints. Findings: 127 patients were enrolled from October 21, 2015 through November 2, 2019. The ORR was 28.3% (95% CI: 20.7%, 37.0%), including complete response in 15 (11.8%) and partial response in 21 (16.5%) patients. Median overall survival (OS) was 9.1 months (95% CI: 6.6, 15.1) with longer OS observed in responding patients. Responses were observed across different subgroups regardless of age, gender, prior therapy, DLBCL subtype, refractory status or prior ASCT therapy. Adverse events were generally reversible and managed with dose modifications and/or standard supportive care. Interpretation: In both GCB- and non-GCB DLBCL subtypes, single agent oral selinexor induced durable responses which were associated with longer survival. Selinexor may be a new oral, non-cytotoxic treatment option for patients with RR DLBCL after two lines of chemo-immunotherapy. Trial Registration: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02227251. Funding Statement: This study (NCT02227251) was funded by Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc, Newton, Massachusetts, USA, which provided all study materials. Declaration of Interests: NK reports research support from Verastem, Gilead, Celgene, and Roche, as well as honoraria from Gilead, Janssen, and Karyopharm. FC reports personal fees from Takeda, Gilead, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. MC reports personal fees from Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Karyopharm, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, and Servier outside the submitted work. GF reports personal fees from Karyopharm and Roche, outside the submitted work. AG reports personal fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca, personal fees and board membership from Cota and Kite/Gilead, personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Acerta, and research funding from Constellation, Bayer, CALBG, Genentech, Hoffman-La Roche, MD Anderson, Morphosys, Pharmacyclics, and the University of Nebraska, outside the submitted work. OC reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from Takeda, BMS, Amgen, Janssen, Abbvie, grants and personal fees from Gilead, and personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work. BH reports grants and personal fees from Karyopharm, outside the submitted work. UJ reports personal fees from Karyopharm, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Amgen, Miltenyi, and BMS, outside the submitted work. JMS reports honoraria from Roche, Janssen, Gilead, Celgene, Novartis outside the submitted work. MS reports personal fees from Karyopharm during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Amgen, Abbvie, Gilead, Takeda, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Astellas, Verastem, Merck, Novartis, Genentech, and Seattle Genetics, outside the submitted work. TPV reports honoraria from WinMedica, Astellas, and Gilead, honoraria, advisory board membership and research support from Takeda, honoraria and advisory board membership from Roche, Bristol, Genesis, and Novartis, advisory board membership at Janssen, honoraria and research support from Merck and Amgen, and research support from Pfizer and Karyopharm. AJ reports personal fees from Karyopharm Therapeutics during the conduct of the study. YL reports personal fees from Karyopharm Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. HC, YL, XM, KC, DM, HW, JS, JRS, SS, and MK are employees of Karyopharm. AJ is a consultant for Karyopharm. MK and SS are stockholders of Karyopharm. SS holds patents (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents (PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) on hydrazide-containing nuclear transport modulators and uses. All other authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: The institutional review board or independent ethics committee at each study center approved the protocol, and the study was performed in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Objective To describe the characteristics of patients suffering from secondary immunodeficiencies (SID) associated with hematological malignancies (HM), who started immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT), physicians' expectations regarding IgRT, and IgRT modalities. Methods Non-interventional, prospective French cross-sectional study. Results The analysis included 231 patients (66 ± 12 years old) suffering from multiple myeloma (MM) (N = 64), chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL) (N = 84), aggressive non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma (aNHL) (N = 32), indolent NHL (N = 39), acute leukemia (N = 6), and Hodgkin disease (N = 6). Of the HM, 47% were currently treated, 42% were relapsing or refractory, 23% of patients had received an autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, and 1% had received an allograft. Serum immunoglobulin trough levels in 195 individuals were less than 5 g/L in 68.7% of cases. Most patients had a history of recurrent infections. Immunoglobulin dose was about 400 mg/kg/mo. Half of patients started with subcutaneous infusion. When starting IgRT, physicians mainly expected to prevent severe and moderate infections. They also anticipated improvement in quality of life and survival which is beyond evidence-based medicine. Conclusion NHL is a frequent condition motivating IgRT besides well-recognized indications. Physicians mainly based the decision of starting IgRT on hypogammaglobulinemia and recurrence of infections but, irrespective of current recommendations, were also prepared to start IgRT prophylactically even in the absence of a history of infections.

Introduction While systemic post-transplant lymphoproliferations (PTLDs) have a good prognosis, with a median survival of more than 6 years, PTLD of the central nervous system (CNS-PTLD) have a very poor prognosis with a CR rate of 38% and overall survival (OS) of 43% at 3 years. The main prognostic criterion being the response to the first line (Evens AM et al. Am J Transpl 2013), we hypothesized that the majority of treatment failures were due to the absence or underuse of the major drug in CNS NHL treatment, namely methotrexate (Mtx), due to the high rate of renal failure in transplanted patients. Patients and methods Since April 2017, CNS-PTLD treated at Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital, Paris, France, have been systematically treated with a combination of methotrexate on day 1, Cytarabine on days 2 and 3, every 15 days for 6 cures. Cytarabine is given at 2g/m 2/d when the creatinine clearance (cc) is > 50ml/min, 1g/m 2/d below. The dose of Mtx of the first treatment is 100 mg/m 2 in case of dialysis or cc 65 years, 3000mg/m 2 in other cases. The dose of Mtx during the following treatments depends on the dosage of Mtx at 24h: below 1 microM the following dose is increased, above 5 microM it is reduced otherwise it remains the same. The results are compared to those of CNS-PTLDs treated in the same unit before April 2017 Results Of the 182 PTLDs treated since 1990 at Pitie-Salpetriere hospital, 49 are CNS-PTLD, including 16 processed with the new algorithm. The median age is 58 years, 9 patients have kidney or kidney-pancreas transplants, 2 heart, 1 lung and 3 liver, all are EBV positive diffuse large B cell CNS-PTLDs. The diagnosis is made in median 88 months after the transplantation. The cc at the diagnosis is in median of 50 ml / min. Of these 16 patients, only 2 had a cc> 60 ml/min, and only two were able to receive 3000 mg/m 2 of Mtx. The other patients received between 100 and 1000 mg/m 2 at the first treatment, 6 had an increased dose during the next cycles following the algorithm. No worsening of renal function or overdose of Mtx have been rated. Of the 16 patients 14 achieved complete remission (93%), 1 a PR, 1 died of progression after the first cycle, 1 relapsed within 3 months and 1 after 1 year of CR. Median overall survival (OS) is not achieved (448 days +). In comparison, of the 33 CNS-PTLDs treated before April 2017, 10 obtained a CR (30%), 6 a PR and the median OS is 211 days, for the 9 CNS-PTLDs treated without Mtx, only one obtained a CR, 1 a PR and their OS is only 180 days (p=0.016) cf figure Conclusion Contrary to general belief, methotrexate can be used regardless of the renal function by adapting its dose to the cc then to the dosages at H24. This new simple algorithm increased the CR rate from 30% to more than 90% and improve OS. In case of confirmation on further series, this new attitude should revolutionize the management of CNS-PTLDs ... but also other CNS-NHLs in case of renal failure Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Leblond: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lilly: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Roche: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction: Central nervous system (CNS) relapse in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is uncommon but is associated with poor outcomes. In selected high risk patients (pts), high dose methotrexate (HDMTX) is often used as CNS prophylaxis with frontline (1L) DLBCL therapy despite uncertain efficacy, optimum dose and timing of delivery. A recent UK study (Wilson et al 2020) showed that intercalated HDMTX (i-HDMTX) was associated with increased toxicity and R-CHOP delays compared to end of treatment (EOT) delivery. Although hypothesis generating, the study size was insufficient to determine whether EOT was non-inferior in terms of CNS relapse risk. Methods: We conducted an international, multicentre retrospective analysis of consecutive DLBCL or high grade BCL pts between 2007-20 from 47 centers in Europe, Australia and N. America. Pts were included if they received R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like 1L therapy with curative intent as well as HDMTX CNS prophylaxis (≥1 cycle). Concurrent intrathecal (IT) prophylaxis was permitted. Pts with known CNS involvement at baseline and those treated with more intensive protocols (e.g. R-DA-EPOCH) were excluded. i-HDMTX was defined as any pt receiving a HD-MTX cycle before the final R-CHOP cycle. CNS relapse events were excluded if occurring after first systemic lymphoma relapse/progression. Time to event endpoints were measured from diagnosis to first event or censor and analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Time to CNS relapse was analysed using competing risk Fine and Gray method (for death and non-synchronous systemic relapse). To mitigate for possible immortality bias in the EOT arm, a landmark analysis for pts alive and free from progression at 6 months was conducted. We aimed to exclude a 5% difference in 2-year (y) CNS relapse rates. Results: 1,384 pts were analysed. 750 received i-HDMTX and 634 received EOT HDMTX. Key baseline characteristics are summarised in Table 1. Median follow up was 37.9 months. 44.2% had high CNS IPI (4-6) with no significant difference between i-HDMTX and EOT groups (45.1% vs 43.1%, p=0.087). ≥2 cycles of HDMTX were used in 86.6% with no difference between groups (85.6% vs 87.9%, p=0.22). Concurrent IT prophylaxis use was higher for EOT pts (55.6% vs 38.1% p 78 CNS relapses (42 i-HDMTX, 36 EOT) were observed: parenchymal in 41 (53%), parenchymal and leptomeningeal in 16 (21%) and isolated leptomeningeal in 21 (27%). There was no significant difference in 2y CNS relapse rates between i-HDMTX and EOT in all pts: 5.2% vs 3.9%, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.58-1.47), p=0.74, 2y difference -0.2% (-2.0-2.5) or landmark analysis: 2.8% vs 4.1%, HR: 0.93 (0.56-1.55), p=0.79, 2y difference: -0.3% (-1.8-2.2%) (Fig 1a/b). Exploratory analyses focusing on pts with isolated CNS relapse (n=57) demonstrated similar results (2y rates 3.6% vs 3.0%, p=0.99). On multivariable analysis (MVA) of risk factors for CNS relapse, renal/adrenal involvement was the only variable associated with increased CNS relapse risk (adjusted HR 1.74 (1.03-2.92), p=0.038). Notably, IT prophylaxis was not associated with reduction in CNS relapse. In 600 high CNS IPI (4-6) pts, there was no difference in CNS relapse risk between i-HD-MTX and EOT (3y rates 9.4% vs 8.6%, HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.52-1.62)). In a composite high risk group including CNS IPI 4-6 and/or any of the following: ≥3 extranodal sites, renal, adrenal, testicular or breast involvement (n=885) there was no difference in 3y CNS relapse rates between groups (i-HDMTX 7.6% vs EOT 7.4%, HR 0.94 (0.58-1.53)). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the i-HDMTX and EOT groups were as follows: 3y PFS 70.7% vs 76.7% (p=0.098), 3y OS 79.9% vs 87.0% (p=0.0016). However, there were no PFS/OS differences between groups on landmark analysis (n=1259) (Fig 1c). On analysis of pts experiencing ≥1 R-CHOP delay of ≥7 days, use of i-HDMTX was the only factor on MVA associated with increased delays (p Discussion: We found no evidence that EOT delivery increases CNS relapse risk when compared to i-HDMTX in this large analysis of pts treated with 1L R-CHOP. Delays to R-CHOP cycles were increased with i-HDMTX. Findings in a high risk subgroup were unchanged and rates of CNS relapse in this HDMTX treated group were similar to published comparable high risk cohorts receiving infrequent CNS prophylaxis. Where HDMTX prophylaxis is used, delivery could be deferred until R-CHOP completion. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Wilson: Takeda: Other: Conference fees; Janssen: Other: Conference fees; Abbvie: Honoraria. Eyre: Janssen: Honoraria; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria, Other: Travel support for conferences, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel to conferences; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy; Beigene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ahearne: Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Schorb: Roche: Research Funding; Riemser Pharma GmbH: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ku: Antegene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Genor Biopharma: Consultancy. Narkhede: Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genmab: Other: Medical writing support, Research Funding; TG Therapeautics: Research Funding. Lewis: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties; Novartis: Patents & Royalties; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Øvlisen: Abbvie: Other: Travel expenses. Santarsiere: Janssen: Honoraria. Shah: Abbvie, Janssen and Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roulin: Janssen: Other: Travel and meetings. Manos: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Travel and meetings. Hamad: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Lopez-Garcia: Roche: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Travel and accommodation grants; Janssen: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants; Celgene: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Fresenius: Other: Speaker Honoraria; Novonordisk: Other: Speaker Honoraria. El-Galaly: ROCHE Ltd: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Abbvie: Other: Speakers fee. Cheah: 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; 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. Ferreri: Gilead, Novartis, Juno, PletixaPharm, Roche, Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, Beigene, Pharmacyclics, Hutchison Medipharma, Amgen, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer: Research Funding. Fox: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: speaker fees. Cwynarski: Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: 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. McKay: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; KITE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Beigene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Tabelecleucel is an investigational, off-the-shelf, allogeneic Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-specific T-cell immunotherapy being studied in patients (pts) with serious EBV-driven diseases, including post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (EBV + PTLD). The median overall survival (OS) after treatment failure of rituximab is short at ~1.7 months in EBV + PTLD following hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) (Socié EBMT 2020) and ~3 months in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with EBV + PTLD whose disease relapsed after rituximab and who did not respond to or did not receive chemotherapy (CT) (Zimmerman EHA 2019). These poor outcomes demonstrate an urgent unmet need for effective therapies in this ultra-rare serious disease. Promising outcomes have previously been demonstrated (Prockop JCI 2020). Additionally, we have shown clinical benefit with a >60% objective response rate (ORR) and >80% estimated 2-year OS rates (Prockop EBMT 2021, Prockop ATC 2021) in pts with EBV + PTLD, irrespective of pts achieving a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to tabelecleucel. Safety data have been assessed in >150 pts with EBV + PTLD treated with tabelecleucel with tumor flare reaction (TFR) as the only identified risk. Here, for the first time, we report interim efficacy and safety results from the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial ALLELE (NCT03394365) - a multicenter, open-label study of tabelecleucel after failure of rituximab ± CT in pts with EBV + PTLD following SOT or HCT. Methods: ALLELE is evaluating the clinical benefit of tabelecleucel in two cohorts: (1) pts with EBV + PTLD following SOT after failure of rituximab ± CT (n=33), and (2) pts with EBV + PTLD following HCT after failure of rituximab monotherapy (n=33). Tabelecleucel is administered at a dose of 2 x 10 6 cells/kg on days 1, 8, and 15, followed by observation through each cycle lasting 35 days. Response per clinical and radiographic assessment (by PET/CT) is evaluated by the investigator and by independent review using Lugano Classification with LYRIC modification. Key efficacy endpoints include ORR, duration of response (DOR), time to response (TTR), and OS. After treatment is completed or discontinued, pts are assessed every 3 months up to 24 months, and every 6 months thereafter for survival status up to 5 years. Results: As of May 2021, 38 pts (24 SOT, 14 HCT) were evaluable for response assessment by independent oncologic response adjudication (IORA) and had the opportunity for 6 months follow-up (Table 1). SOT and HCT pts received a median (range) of 2.0 (1-6) and 3.0 (1-5) cycles of tabelecleucel, respectively. ORR was 50% (19/38, 95% CI: 33.4, 66.6) in the overall population, 50.0% (12/24, 95% CI: 29.1, 70.9) in SOT, and 50.0% (7/14, 95% CI: 23.0, 77.0) in HCT, with a best overall response of CR (n=5, SOT; n=5, HCT) or PR (n=7, SOT; n=2, HCT; Table 2). Overall, median TTR was 1.1 months (0.7-4.7), 11 of 19 responders had a DOR lasting >6 months, and median DOR was not reached (Table 2). Median OS was 18.4 (95% CI: 6.9, NE) months overall, 16.4 (95% CI: 3.5, NE) months for SOT, and not yet reached for HCT. 1-year survival rate was 61.1% (95% CI: 42.9, 75.0) overall, 57.4% (95% CI: 35.2, 74.5) for SOT, and 66.8% (95% CI: 32.4, 86.6) for HCT. Those who responded had a longer survival compared to the non-responders, with a median OS of NE (95% CI: 16.4, NE) and 1-year survival rate of 89.2% (95% CI: 63.1, 97.2). Non-responders had a median OS of 5.7 (95% CI: 1.8, 12.1) months and 1-year survival rate of 32.4% (95% CI: 12.1, 54.9) (Table 3). Serious treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported in 62.5% of SOT and 57.1% of HCT pts. Fatal TEAEs were reported in 16.7% of SOT and 7.1% of HCT pts; none of the fatal TEAEs were related to study treatment. Tabelecleucel was well-tolerated with no reports of TFR and no confirmed evidence for graft vs host disease, organ rejection, infusion reactions, or cytokine release syndrome in relation to tabelecleucel in these treatment refractory and immunocompromised pts. Conclusions: Tabelecleucel phase 3 interim data are reported here for the first time and show clinically meaningful outcomes and promising ORR and OS in a pt population with no approved treatment options and otherwise poor survival. Tabelecleucel, an allogeneic cell therapy, was well tolerated without evidence of safety concerns typically observed with autologous chimeric antigen receptor cell therapies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Prockop: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Other: S Prockop receives support for the conduct of sponsored clinical trials through MSK from Atara Biotherapeutics, Jasper and AlloVir. , Patents & Royalties: S Prockop is a co-inventor on intellectual property (IP) licensed to Atara. S Prockop has waived rights to this IP to MSK and has no personal financial interests in Atara. MSK has financial interests in Atara and IP interests relevant to this abstract. ; Atara Biotherapeutics: Other: support for the conduct of sponsored trials and Inventor; Jasper: Other: support for the conduct of sponsored trials; AlloVir: Other: support for the conduct of sponsored trials; Neovii: Consultancy; ADMA Biologics: Consultancy; MSK: Other: Inventor. Mahadeo: Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy. Beitinjaneh: Kite/Gilead: Other: Ad Board Event Attendee. Choquet: Sanofi, Celegene, Roche, Abbvie, Sandoz, Janssen, Takeda: Consultancy. Stiff: Cellectar: Research Funding; CRISPR: Consultancy; Gamida-Cell, Atara, Amgen, Incyte, Takeda, Macrogenetics, Eisai: Research Funding. Reshef: Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Dahiya: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Parmar: Atara Biotherapeutics: Current Employment. Ye: Atara Biotherapeutics: Current Employment. Gamelin: Atara Biotherapeutics: Current Employment. Dinavahi: Atara Biotherapeutics: Current Employment.

Background . Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cells are a major therapeutic advance in the management of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma (R/R aggressive BCL) with reported overall response rates between 40% and 83% in the pivotal trials (ZUMA1, JULIET, TRANSCEND) as well as in the real-life cohorts with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel, Yescarta) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel, Kymriah). However, a significant number of pts will experience progression or relapse after infusion with an estimated 24-month progression-free survival (PFS) of between 33% and 42%. DESCAR-T is a nationwide registry that aims to collect real-life data for all pts treated with commercialized CAR T-cells in France. It represents a unique opportunity to investigate the outcome of pts who relapse after CAR T-cell therapy. Patients and Methods . In all, 680 pts with R/R aggressive BCL were registered in DESCAR-T from August 2018 and 550 were infused at the time of the present analysis (April 12, 2021) with either axi-cel (n=350) or tisa-cel, n=200). All pts gave informed informed consent before DESCAR-T registration. Progression and relapse after CAR T-cells were defined based on the Cheson 2014 response assessment criteria. Results . With a median follow-up (F-up) of 7.9 months, 238 pts (43.3%) out of 550 treated pts relapsed, after axi-cel in 136 pts (F-up = 9.0 months [5.1 - 9.7]) and after tisa-cel in 102 pts (F-up = 7.8 months [5.9 - 10.4]). Histological subtypes were DLBCL (n 178, 74.8%), PMBL (n=11, 4.6%), HGBCL (n= 3, 1.3%), transformed follicular lymphoma (tr FL) (n=31, 13%), or other histologies (FL n=2, PCNSL n=1, tr MZL n=3, unclassifiable hodgkin/DLBCL n=9). At time of registration, median age was 62 years (range 18;77), 43.6% were aged >65 yrs, and 67.2% were male; 184 (79.7%) presented with advanced disease (stage III or IV), and 13 (5.9%) with low age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI), 82 (37.1%) with low-intermediate aaIPI, 110 (49.8%) with high-intermediate aaIPI, and 16 (7.2%) with high aaIPI. At time of CAR T-cell infusion, 36 (18.9%) pts presented with ECOG PS >=2 and 72 (38.9%) with an elevated LDH level. The median number of lines prior to CAR T-cell infusion was 3 (range 2-9), including 48 (20.1%) transplant (46 auto-HSCT and 2 allo-HSCT). Median time between order and infusion was 50 days (IQR 43; 59). Bridging therapy was administered to 87.8% of the pts, with a high-dose regimen including combined immunochemotherapy for 84.5% of the pts. Failure after CAR T-cells occurred after a median time of 2.71 months (range 0.2; 21.5), 54 (22.7%) being during the first month after infusion (< M1) and 156 (65.5%) during the first-three months after infusion ( Conclusion . This study is the first analysis reporting the outcome of patients with R/R aggressive BCL relapsing after anti-CD19 CAR T-cells. These results demonstrate the poor outcome of these pts and identifies the need for further innovative treatment strategies. Figure1. Overall survival from the CAR T-cell infusion in patients with R/R LBCL relapsing after CAR T-cells. (A) overall population. (B) according to the interval between CAR T-infusion and relapse (< 1 month and > 1 month) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Di Blasi: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bachy: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Daiishi: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Cartron: Roche, Celgene-BMS: Consultancy; Danofi, Gilead, Novartis, Jansen, Roche, Celgene-BMS, Abbvie, Takeda: Honoraria. Le Bras: Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite Gilead: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Research Funding. Feugier: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Casasnovas: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mohty: Amgen: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria. Sesques: Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria. Morschhauser: Servier: Consultancy; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Purpose Chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment delays and interruptions and can have fatal consequences. Current guidelines provide recommendations on granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for prevention of FN, but guidance is unclear regarding use of short- vs long-acting G-CSF (e.g., filgrastim vs pegfilgrastim/lipegfilgrastim, respectively). An international panel of experts convened to develop guidance on appropriate use of pegfilgrastim for prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN. Methods Guidance recommendations were developed following a literature review, survey, evaluation of current practice, and an expert meeting. Consensus was established using an anonymous Delphi-based approach. Results Guidance recommendations for prevention of treatment-associated FN were as follows: for treatment with curative intent, maintenance of dose intensity using G-CSF to prevent dose delays/reduction should be standard of care; for treatment-associated FN risk ≥ 20%, short-acting G-CSF/pegfilgrastim should be given from cycle 1 onwards; and for treatment-associated FN risk

International audience; In this retrospective multicentre study, we investigated the outcomes of elderly primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) patients (greater than or equal to65 years) who underwent high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT) at 11 centres between 2003 and 2016. End points included remission, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related mortality. We identified 52 patients (median age 68.5 years, median Karnofsky Performance Status before HDT-ASCT 80%) who all underwent thiotepa-based HDT-ASCT. Fifteen patients (28.8%) received HDT-ASCT as first-line treatment and 37 (71.2%) received it as second or subsequent line. Remission status before HDT-ASCT was: CR 34.6%, PR 51.9%, stable disease 3.8% and progressive disease 9.6%. Following completion of HDT-ASCT, 36 patients (69.2%) achieved CR (21.2% first-line setting and 48.1% second or subsequent line setting) and 9 (17.3%) PR (5.8% first-line setting and 11.5% second or subsequent line setting). With a median follow-up of 22 months after HDT-ASCT, median PFS and OS were reached after 51.1 and 122.3 months, respectively. The 2-year PFS and OS rates were 62.0% and 70.8%, respectively. We observed two HDT-ASCT-associated deaths (3.8%). In selected elderly PCNSL patients, HDT-ASCT, using thiotepa-based conditioning regimes, is feasible and effective. Further prospective and comparative studies are warranted to further evaluate the role of HDT-ASCT in elderly PCNSL patients.

Primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) is chemosensitive to high-dose methotrexate-based chemotherapy. However, responses in the elderly are short-lasting and outcome is poor. Given that radiotherapy and intensive chemotherapy expose elderly to severe toxicities, alternative consolidation approaches need to be evaluated. In this multicenter study, we retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with newly-diagnosed PCNSL, aged >60, treated with a (R)-MPV-AAA regimen. The regimen consisted of three 28-day cycles of methotrexate (3.5 g/m2 D1, D15), procarbazine, vincristine, followed by three 28-day cycles of cytarabine consolidation (3 g/m2 D1-2). Addition of rituximab (375 mg/m2 D1) was optional. The results were compared with the historical MPV-A regimen. Ninety patients received the (R)-MPV-AAA regimen with (n = 39) or without (n = 51) rituximab. Median age was 68 and median KPS 60. 55% of patients achieved a complete response, 8% a partial response and 37% progressed. The median PFS was 10 months, the median OS 28.1 months. Toxicity was mainly hematological, with 54 and 51% of grade III-IV neutropenia and thrombopenia. The response rate was higher in patients receiving rituximab (77 vs. 53%; p = 0.03), whereas no difference was observed in terms of PFS or OS. When comparing the results to the historical MPV-A, there was no difference in terms of response rate, PFS or OS, but a higher rate of hematotoxicity. This study suggests that extending cytarabine consolidation after methotrexate-based chemotherapy does not improve the MPV-A efficacy but increases toxicity in the elderly. The addition of rituximab may improve the response rate, but its impact on final outcome remains unclear.

Summary Following the introduction of highly active antiretroviral treatments (HAART), patients infected with HIV have experienced significant survival improvement. Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic, three types of cancer constitute a diagnosis of AIDS (defined as AIDS malignancies) in HIV-positive patients: Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and, since 1993, cervical cancer. However, in the late 1990s, population-based cohort studies revealed higher rates of certain other cancers (defined as non-AIDS related malignancies). This chapter discusses the incidence, aetiology, screening, pathology, diagnosis, and follow-up of these HIV-related neoplasms. Hodgkin lymphoma, anal carcinoma, lung carcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma, are the most common non-AIDS-defining malignancies (ADMs). Lung cancer is the only frequent cancer in HIV-infected patients not known to be associated with viral infection. Anal cancer is emerging as an important cause of mortality among people with a longer duration of HIV infection. Keywords: AIDS-defining malignancies; anal carcinoma; cervical cancer; HIV-related neoplasms; Hodgkin lymphoma; Kaposi sarcoma; lung cancer; non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Introduction: Selinexor is a first-in-class Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) that blocks XPO1, forcing the nuclear retention and re-activation of tumor suppressor proteins including p53, p73, FOXO, I□B and Rb. The phase 2b SADAL study included 134 patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL with single agent oral selinexor twice weekly. The overall response rate (ORR) was 29.1%, median duration of response (DOR) was 9.3 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 9 months. Based on these data, selinexor was recently approved by the US FDA for the treatment of relapsed or refractory DLBCL, de novo or transformed from follicular lymphoma. Patients with DLBCL tend to be older (over the age of 65) and have a number of comorbidities, which limits the use of aggressive and multi-agent combination therapies. We performed post-hoc analyses of the SADAL study to determine the effects of age on the efficacy and safety of selinexor in this population. Methods: The SADAL study is multi-center, open-label Phase 2b study that enrolled patients with DLBCL previously treated with 2-5 lines of therapy. Patients may have progressed post-stem cell therapy (SCT) or were not candidates for SCT. In this study, 60 mg of selinexor was administered twice weekly until disease progression. The primary endpoint was ORR, and other endpoints included DOR, OS, and safety assessments. For the current analysis, outcomes were assessed in patients Results: Of the 134 patients enrolled in the study, 52 (39%) were 65 (3.8% vs. 11.0%). Conclusions: Patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL who were ≥65 years had a similar clinical benefit to those Disclosures Schuster: Amgen, Abbvie, Gilead, Takeda, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Astellas, Verastem, Merck, Novartis, Takeda, Genentech,, Seattle Genetics: Other: Personal Fees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Canales:Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; iQone: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Westin:Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; 47: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zijlstra:Roche: Research Funding. Follows:Karyopharm, Roche, Abbvie, Astrazeneca, Janssen, BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Karmali:Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kalakonda:Verastem, Gilead, Celgene, Roche: Research Funding; Gilead, Janssen, Karyopharm: Honoraria. Goy:Constellation: Research Funding; Regional Cancer Care Associates/OMI: Current Employment; COTA: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: leadership role; Infinity: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; PracticeUpdate Oncology: Consultancy; MD Anderson: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Xcenda: Consultancy; Infinity Verastem: Research Funding; RCCA/OMI: Current Employment; Morphosys: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Hackensack UMC and University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria, Other: leadership role, Research Funding; CALBG: Research Funding. Casasnovas:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accomodations, expenses, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Thieblemont:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Hospira: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Incyte: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support. Cavallo:Gilead: Other: Speaker Fee; Takeda, Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hill:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Tilly:BMS: Honoraria. Jaeger:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CDR Life AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria. Gurion:JC Health CARE: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medison: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Caimi:Celgene Corp: Other: Incyte Corporation - Ownership - Pharmacyclics, Inc. - Ownership - Celgene Corp. - Other, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Teneobio: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; I-MAB: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding. Davies:Roche: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES; Roche, Celgene, Kite Pharma, Acerta, Karyopharma, Regeneron, Incyte: Consultancy; Roche, Acerta Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, ADC Therapeutics, Gilead: Research Funding; Celegene, Roche, Kite Pharma, Celegene: Honoraria. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Collins:Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses , Speakers Bureau; Taekda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Salles:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Debiopharm: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Epizyme: Consultancy; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other; Autolus: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events. Ma:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Corona:Karyopharm: Current Employment. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm: Current Employment. Joshi:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Consultancy. Chamoun:Karyopharm: Current Employment. Wang:Curis: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Karyopharm: Current Employment. Shah:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham:Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: AcSé Pembrolizumab is a Phase 2, open-label, single-arm, multi-cohort, multicentric study investigating the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with advanced rare cancers (NCT03012620). Here, we report the first results of Pembrolizumab in the cohort of Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma (PCNSL). Methods: Main inclusion criteria were: relapsed or refractory PCNSL after one or several lines of treatment including high dose Methotrexate based chemotherapy, pathologically confirmed diffuse large B cell lymphoma, age>18, HIV negative, concurrent steroid medication at a dose no greater than prednisone 20 mg/day or equivalent. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg IV as a 30-minute infusion on Day 1 of every 21-day cycles for a maximum of 2 years. The primary endpoint was the confirmed objective response rate according to IPCG at 84 day after the start of treatment. Secondary endpoints included best response (ORR), duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Analysis used all enrolled patients. Results: 50 patients suffering from PCNSL, including 9 primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) were included from July, 2017 to October, 2019. Median age was 72 years (range: 43 to 83), Median PS (ECOG) was 1 (range 0-1). The median number of cycles was 4 (range 1-35). At 84 days from start of treatment, 6 patients responded (4 CR+2PR). Overall, 3 patients whose response was not assessed were considered as failures, and the rates of ORR (CR+PR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) were 26% (13/50, 8 CR + 5 PR), 10% (5/50), 58% (29/50), respectively. ORR was 29% (12/41) and 11% (1/9) in primary cerebral lymphoma and PVRL respectively. After a median follow-up of 6.7 months (range 0.2-27.4), median PFS was 2.6 months, with 6-month PFS of 29.8% and 6-month OS of 60.4%. In responders, median duration of response was estimated at 10 months (95%CI, 2.7 to 12.5). Grade III and IV toxicities related to the drug were observed in 4 patients (8%) and one patient (2%) respectively. No related toxic death was reported. Conclusion: Pembrolizumab shows moderate activity in relapsed/ refractory PCNSL with acceptable toxicity, supporting further studies evaluating its use in combination therapies. Disclosures Hoang-Xuan: BTG: Consultancy, Research Funding. Houot:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Schmitt:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, Janssen: Honoraria. Ahle:Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Biogene: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Bories:Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Houillier:BTG: Consultancy.