Search

Central nervous system (CNS) relapse of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare phenomenon with dismal prognosis, where no standard therapy exists. Since the covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is effective in relapsed/refractory MCL and penetrates the blood–brain barrier (BBB), on behalf of Fondazione Italiana Linfomi and European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network we performed a multicenter retrospective international study to investigate the outcomes of patients treated with ibrutinib or chemoimmunotherapy. In this observational study, we recruited patients with MCL with CNS involvement at relapse who received CNS-directed therapy between 2000 and 2019. The primary objective was to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients treated with ibrutinib or BBB crossing chemotherapy. A propensity score based on a multivariable binary regression model was applied to balance treatment cohorts. Eighty-eight patients were included. The median age at study entry was 65 years (range, 39-87), 76% were males, and the median time from lymphoma diagnosis to CNS relapse was 16 months (range, 1-122). Patients were treated with ibrutinib (n = 29, ibrutinib cohort), BBB crossing chemotherapy (ie, high-dose methotrexate ± cytarabine; n = 29, BBB cohort), or miscellaneous treatments (n = 30, other therapy cohort). Both median OS (16.8 vs 4.4 months; P = .007) and median progression-free survival (PFS) (13.1 vs 3.0 months; P = .009) were superior in the ibrutinib cohort compared with the BBB cohort. Multivariable Cox regression model revealed that ibrutinib therapeutic choice was the strongest independent favorable predictive factor for both OS (hazard ratio [HR], 6.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-21.3; P < .001) and PFS (HR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.7-12.5; P = .002), followed by CNS progression of disease (POD) >24 months from first MCL diagnosis (HR for death, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.3; P = .026; HR for death or progression, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1-4.6; P = .023). The addition of intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy to systemic CNS-directed therapy was not associated with superior OS (P = .502) as the morphological variant (classical vs others, P = .118). Ibrutinib was associated with superior survival compared with BBB-penetrating chemotherapy in patients with CNS relapse of MCL and should be considered as a therapeutic option.

Supplementary Table 2. Outcome comparison in patients recruited to the IRIS, German CML IV and SCREEN studies

Figure S5. OS from relapse (A) and 2nd PFS (B) in patients with ER18 vs. late relapse (LR)

Supplementary Appendix: • SUPPLEMENTARY METHODS. iFISH; ER24 analysis; clinical endpoints; statistical analysis; • SUPPLEMENTARY RESULTS. ER24 analysis; DS-ERMM score - additional analyses; outcome after relapse in the ER18 analysis; • TABLE S1A. Treatment regimens in the source studies; • TABLE S1B. Eligibility criteria for clinical trials; • TABLE S2. Patient characteristics in the overall population and stratified according to the ER24 outcome as training set and validation set; • TABLE S3. Univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) analyses of the baseline features to predict ER24; LIST OF SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE FILES.

Figure 5. Nomograms predicting eight-year FFS probabilities according to BCR-ABL/GUSIS expression at diagnosis and the Sokal (panel A) or Hasford (panel B) prognostic scores were generated by stratifying patients for these variables and then using a modified Cox proportional hazard model. Differences observed between the various patient subgroups were statistically significant (p

Figure 2. Comparison of BCR-ABL/ABL levels at diagnosis in patients achieving an OR or failing IM. Patients were stratified according to their IM response scored following the 2013 ELN criteria (optimal vs failure). BCR-ABL transcripts - using ABL as a reference gene - were determined for each group and depicted as boxplots delimited by the 25th (lower) and 75th (upper) percentile. Horizontal lines above and below each boxplot indicate the 5th and 95th percentile, respectively. Thick lines in each boxplot represent median BCR-ABL/ABL in each patient group. Patients failing IM displayed significantly higher BCR-ABL transcripts at diagnosis (p

Figure 1. Eight-year estimates, in an intention-to-treat analysis, for OS (solid line) and TFS (dashed line) in 272 CML patients receiving IM 400 mg/daily as first line therapy. At 60 months, OS was 93%, while TFS was 97.5%. Vertical lines indicate censored patients.

Purpose: The approval of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for the first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has generated an unmet need for baseline molecular parameters associated with inadequate imatinib responses.Experimental Design: We correlated BCR–ABL/GUSIS and BCR–ABL/ABL transcripts at diagnosis with the outcome—defined by the 2013 European LeukemiaNet recommendations—of 272 patients newly diagnosed with CML receiving imatinib 400 mg/daily. Applying receiver-operating characteristic curves, we defined BCR–ABL/GUSIS and BCR–ABL/ABL levels associated with lower probabilities of optimal response, failure-free (FFS), event-free (EFS), transformation-free (TFS), and overall survival (OS).Results: With a median follow-up of 60 months, 65.4% of patients achieved an optimal response (OR), 5.6% were classified as “warnings,” 22.4% failed imatinib, and 6.6% switched to a different TKI because of drug intolerance. We recorded 19 deaths (6.9%), seven (2.5%) attributable to disease progression. We found that higher BCR–ABL/GUSIS levels at diagnosis were associated with inferior rates of OR (P < 0.001), FFS (P < 0.001), and EFS (P < 0.001). Elevated BCR–ABL/GUSIS levels were also associated with lower rates of TFS (P = 0.029) but not with OS (P = 0.132). Similarly, high BCR–ABL/ABL levels at diagnosis were associated with inferior rates of OR (P = 0.03), FFS (P = 0.001), and EFS (P = 0.005), but not with TFS (P = 0.167) or OS (P = 0.052). However, in internal validation experiments, GUS outperformed ABL in samples collected at diagnosis as the latter produced 80% misclassification rates.Conclusions: Our data suggest that high BCR–ABL transcripts at diagnosis measured using GUS as a reference gene identify patients with CML unlikely to benefit from standard-dose imatinib. Clin Cancer Res; 23(23); 7189–98. ©2017 AACR.

Figure 4. Evolution of BCR-ABL/ABL transcripts in CML patients displaying high (A) or low (B) BCR-ABL/GUSIS levels at diagnosis according to the FFS threshold indicated in Table 1. Asterisks in the upper graph indicate confirmed transcript values in two separate samples collected one month apart.

Supplementary Table 1. Patient Characteristics (N = 272)

Purpose:Despite the improvement of therapeutic regimens, several patients with multiple myeloma (MM) still experience early relapse (ER). This subset of patients currently represents an unmet medical need.Experimental Design:We pooled data from seven European multicenter phase II/III clinical trials enrolling 2,190 patients with newly diagnosed MM from 2003 to 2017. Baseline patient evaluation included 14 clinically relevant features. Patients with complete data (n = 1,218) were split into training (n = 844) and validation sets (n = 374). In the training set, a univariate analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model on ER within 18 months (ER18) were made. The most accurate model was selected on the validation set. We also developed a dynamic version of the score by including response to treatment.Results:The Simplified Early Relapse in Multiple Myeloma (S-ERMM) score was modeled on six features weighted by a score: 5 points for high lactate dehydrogenase or t(4;14); 3 for del17p, abnormal albumin, or bone marrow plasma cells >60%; and 2 for λ free light chain. The S-ERMM identified three patient groups with different risks of ER18: Intermediate (Int) versus Low (OR = 2.39, P < 0.001) and High versus Low (OR = 5.59, P < 0.001). S-ERMM High/Int patients had significantly shorter overall survival (High vs. Low: HR = 3.24, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.86, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival-2 (High vs. Low: HR = 2.89, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.76, P < 0.001) than S-ERMM Low. The Dynamic S-ERMM (DS-ERMM) modulated the prognostic power of the S-ERMM.Conclusions:On the basis of simple, widely available baseline features, the S-ERMM and DS-ERMM properly identified patients with different risks of ER and survival outcomes.

Supplementary Table 3. ROC curves correlating BCR-ABL/ABL levels at diagnosis with 8-year estimates of OS, TFS, FFS, EFS and Optimal Response

The GIMEMA phase II LLC1518 VERITAS trial investigated the efficacy and safety of frontline, fixed-duration venetoclax and rituximab (VenR) combination in young (≤65 years) and fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and unmutated IGHV and/or TP53 disruption. Treatment consisted of the Ven ramp-up, six-monthly courses of the VenR combination, followed by six monthly courses of Ven single agent. A centralized assessment of measurable minimal residual disease (MRD) was performed on the peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) by ASO-PCR at the end of treatment (EOT) and during the follow-up. The primary endpoint was the complete remission (CR) rate at the EOT. Seventy-five patients were enrolled; the median age was 54 years (range 38-65), 96% had unmutated IGHV, 9 (12%) had TP53 disruption, and 4% were IGHV mutated with TP53 disruption. The overall response rate (ORR) at the EOT was 94.7%, with a CR rate of 76%. An undetectable (u) MRD was recorded in 69.3% of patients in the PB and 58.7% in the BM. The 12-month MRD-free survival in the 52 patients with uMRD in the PB at the EOT was 73.1%. After a median follow-up of 20.8 months, no disease progressions were observed. Three patients have died, two due to Covid-19 and 1 to tumor lysis syndrome. The first report of the VERITAS study shows that frontline VenR was associated with a high rate of CRs and durable responses with uMRD in young patients with CLL and unfavorable genetic characteristics.

PURPOSE We compared 2 years of rituximab maintenance (RM) with a response-adapted postinduction approach in patients with follicular lymphoma who responded to induction immunochemotherapy. METHODS We randomly assigned treatment-naïve, advanced-stage, high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma patients to receive standard RM or a response-adapted postinduction approach on the basis of metabolic response and molecular assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD). The experimental arm used three types of postinduction therapies: for complete metabolic response (CMR) and MRD-negative patients, observation; for CMR and MRD-positive (end of induction or follow-up) patients, four doses of rituximab (one per week, maximum three courses) until MRD-negative; and for non-CMR patients, one dose of ibritumomab tiuxetan followed by standard RM. The study was designed as noninferiority trial with progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary end point. RESULTS Overall, 807 patients were randomly assigned. After a median follow-up of 53 months (range, 1-92 months), patients in the standard arm had a significantly better PFS than those in the experimental arm (3-year PFS 86% v 72%; P < .001). The better PFS of the standard versus experimental arm was confirmed in all the study subgroups except non-CMR patients (n = 65; P = .274). The 3-year overall survival was 98% (95% CI, 96 to 99) and 97% (95% CI, 95 to 99) in the reference and experimental arms, respectively ( P = .238). CONCLUSION A metabolic and molecular response-adapted therapy as assessed in the FOLL12 study was associated with significantly inferior PFS compared with 2-year RM. The better efficacy of standard RM was confirmed in the subgroup analysis and particularly for patients achieving both CMR and MRD-negative.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to understand the potential use of single agents and drug combinations in multiple myeloma (MM) across treatment lines in the years 2021 and 2023. Methods: The method used was Delphi Panel Method survey, administered to European Myeloma Network (EMN) Italy Working Group centres. Future treatments were identified assessing all available web-based information sources, including therapies (single drugs or combinations) with strong evidence of efficacy, likely to be on the Italian market in 2021 and 2023. Participants were asked to report on the likelihood of prescription for MM therapies, across treatment lines. Results: Across the 15 centres taking part in the survey, about 890 patients per year are forecasted to receive a new diagnosis of MM. In 2021, the Panel forecasted 66% of 1L-TE (transplant eligible) patients will be treated with bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (VTD) and 32% of patients with daratumumab-bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone (DVTd), with a substantial decrease of VTD (15%) and a marked increase of DVTd (81%) forecasted for 2023. The 2L and 3L R(lenalidomide)-based combination treatments are expected to drop and will likely be substituted by a steep increase in P(pomalidomide)-based regimes (from 7% to 23%). On the contrary, in 3L treatment, all combination therapies (with the exception of IsaPd – isatuximab-pomalidomide-dexamethasone) are expected to lose market share in favour of the most recent new therapies. Conclusions: Expert Panel agrees that many different new drugs and combinations will be used in MM, with different mechanisms of action, both at diagnosis and in subsequent phases of the disease, with a corresponding decline of the drugs currently used.

The primary aim of this study was to describe the use of primary anti-infective prophylaxis (AP) in common clinical practice in patients affected by immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) and treated with RTX. Population studied consisted of patients affected by ITP (age ≥ 18 years) who had received at least one dose of RTX from January 2008 to June 2018. Five Italian haematology centres participated in the current study. Data were retrospectively collected: demographic data (age, gender), concomitant comorbidities and previous therapies for ITP, characteristics of AP, the occurrence of infections and their management. The ITP cohort consisted of 67 patients sub-grouped into two categories according to the administration of AP: (1) treated with AP (N= 34; 51%) and (2) not treated with AP (N=33, 49%). AP consisted of combined trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) and acyclovir (AC) in half of patients. TPM/SMX as a single agent was adopted in 32% patients and one patient received only AC. Overall, infections were experienced in 15% of patients during follow-up with a similar proportion in the 2 groups (treated and not treated) of patients (14.7% vs 15%). Clinical course of infections was however, less severe in patients treated with AP, where all infections were grade 2 and did not require hospitalization. In neither group of patients was reported Pneumocystis pneumonia. In conclusion, despite the absence of clear evidence, our analysis shows that AP in patients with ITP receiving RTX is frequently adopted, even if in the absence of well-defined criteria. Prophylaxis administration is quite consistent within the same haematological Center; thus, it seems related to clinicians' experience.

Simple Summary This prospective, multicenter study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a front-line treatment with the ibrutinib and rituximab combination in 146 unfit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We observed an OR, CR, and 48-month PFS rates of 87%, 22.6%, and 77%, respectively. Responses with undetectable MRD were observed in 6.2% of all patients and 27% of CR patients. TP53 disruption and B-symptoms revealed a significant and independent impact on PFS. The 48-month cumulative treatment discontinuation rate due to adverse events in this patient population was 29.1%. It was significantly higher in male patients, in patients aged ≥70 years, and in those managed at centers that enrolled less than five patients. In conclusion, the ibrutinib and rituximab combination was an effective front-line treatment for unfit patients with CLL. However, a high rate of treatment discontinuations due to adverse events was observed in this unfit population. Abstract The GIMEMA group investigated the efficacy, safety, and rates of discontinuations of the ibrutinib and rituximab regimen in previously untreated and unfit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Treatment consisted of ibrutinib, 420 mg daily, and until disease progression, and rituximab (375 mg/sqm, given weekly on week 1–4 of month 1 and day 1 of months 2–6). This study included 146 patients with a median age of 73 years, with IGHV unmutated in 56.9% and TP53 disrupted in 22.2%. The OR, CR, and 48-month PFS rates were 87%, 22.6%, and 77%, respectively. Responses with undetectable MRD were observed in 6.2% of all patients and 27% of CR patients. TP53 disruption (HR 2.47; p = 0.03) and B-symptoms (HR 2.91; p = 0.02) showed a significant and independent impact on PFS. The 48-month cumulative rates of treatment discontinuations due to disease progression (DP) or adverse events (AEs) were 5.6% and 29.1%, respectively. AEs leading more frequently to treatment discontinuation were atrial fibrillation in 8% of patients, infections in 8%, and non-skin cancers in 6%. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were higher in male patients (HR: 0.46; p = 0.05), patients aged ≥70 years (HR 5.43, p = 0.0017), and were managed at centers that enrolled

Patients with indolent conjunctival lymphomas exhibit good prognosis, with exceptional cases of dissemination, and are suitable candidates for intralesional therapies. We report the first prospective phase 2 trial using intralesional rituximab supplemented with autologous serum in adults with relapsed/refractory indolent CD20+ lymphoma of the conjunctiva (NCT01514344). Patients received 4 weekly intralesional injections of rituximab, followed by 6 monthly injections; 500 μL of autologous serum was added to rituximab in patients with lymphoma unresponsive to weekly doses. Safety, activity, and antitumor effect of autologous serum were investigated. Twenty patients with mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT)–type lymphoma were enrolled. Tolerability was excellent, with only 3 mild local reactions. After weekly injections, 11 patients achieved tumor regression, 8 had stable disease, and 1 experienced progressive disease; 9 patients received autologous serum, with response improvement in 4 cases (3 complete responses, 1 partial response). At the end of treatment, 12 patients achieved a complete remission, and 1 achieved a partial response, with an overall response rate of 65% (95% confidence interval, 45-85). At a median follow-up of 42 months (range, 10-78), 12 patients remain relapse free, with 5-year progression-free survival and time-to-next-treatment rates of 59% ± 11% and 69% ± 11%, respectively. Three patients with local relapse were retreated with intralesional rituximab and serum; 2 achieved a complete response that lasted 25+ and 38+ months. Thus, intralesional rituximab is a safe and active therapy in patients with relapsed conjunctival MALT lymphoma. The addition of autologous serum improves response in some cases. Retreatment of local relapses can result in a second durable remission.

G-CSF administration after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been shown to expedite neutrophil recovery. Several studies comparing filgrastim and pegfilgrastim in the post-ASCT setting concluded that the two are at least equally effective. Lipegfilgrastim (LIP) is a new long-acting, once-per-cycle G-CSF. This multicentric, prospective study aimed to describe the use of LIP in multiple myeloma patients receiving high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and compare LIP with historic controls of patients who received short-acting agent (filgrastim [FIL]). Overall, 125 patients with a median age of 60 years received G-CSF after ASCT (80 patients LIP on day 1 post-ASCT and 45 patients FIL on day 5 post-ASCT). The median duration of grade 4 neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC]

Background. The PI3Kδ inhibitor idelalisib given in combination with rituximab in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (R/R CLL) has been associated with an objective response in 81% of cases with a median PFS of 20.3 months in a phase-3 clinical trial (Sharman et al, JCO 2019). Because the efficacy of new drugs reported in clinical trials may not translate into similar results in the day-to-day practice, we performed an observational retrospective-prospective study on the efficacy and safety of idelalisib and rituximab (IR) in R/R CLL patients treated outside of clinical trials in Italian centers belonging to the GIMEMA group. Methods. R/R CLL patients treated with IR outside of clinical trials between July 2014 and May 2017 were enrolled. Treatment was initiated at symptomatic progression; treatment response and disease progression were assessed according to the NCI criteria. The data were extracted from the medical files and entered into case record forms (CRF) by each treating physician. Computerized and manual consistency checks were performed by the GIMEMA data center on newly entered forms and queries were issued in case of inconsistencies. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), the percentage of patients on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, overall survival (OS) and response to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment. Results. 149 R/R CLL patients from 35 Italian centers were included in the study. The baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. At a median follow-up of 39.4 months, the median PFS was 22.9 months (95% CI 20.5-28.8). In univariate analysis, a shorter PFS was associated with ≥3 lines of therapy (p=0.0175) (Fig. 1a). The ORR (CR + PR) was 72.5%. Age ≤70 yrs (p=0.037) and a PS grade 3 during RI treatment were neutropenia (35% of cases), gastrointestinal disorders (17%), infections (17%) and transaminitis (6%). Conclusions. The results hereby observed show that the efficacy of IR in a cohort in a real-life RR/CLL with a long follow-up is superimposable to those reported in the pivotal clinical trial, suggesting that the patient population who received IR in the day-to-day clinical practice mirrored that enrolled in the trial. Advanced clinical stage and 3 or more previous lines of therapy were associated with shorter PFS and OS. Interestingly, PFS and objective measures of efficacy such as the proportion of patients still on treatment at 12, 24 and 36 months, as well as OS, were not influenced by the TP53 status. Furthermore, the majority of patents responded to the subsequent anti-leukemic treatment and relatively durable responses were observed in patients who discontinued IR due to toxicity. Disclosures Rigolin: Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Visentin:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Coscia:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Farina:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gaidano:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Murru:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Varettoni:Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses. Sportoletti:Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Laurenti:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Marasca:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Marchetti:Takeda: Other: Sponsored meetings; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Sponsored meetings; Pfeizer: Other: Sponsored meetings. Mauro:Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octopharma: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Molica:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Pane:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis pharma SAS: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: Travel Expenses; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gozzetti:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Galieni:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Krampera:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trentin:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Montillo:AbbVie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Foà:Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

Fixed-duration treatment with venetoclax (Ven), a highly selective Bcl-2 inhibitor combined with an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, showed high efficacy inducing high rates of deep responses with undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD) in patients with previously treated and untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The efficacy and safety of the Ven and rituximab (VenR) combination have been investigated in a multicenter, prospective study of the GIMEMA group that included young patients with previously untreated CLL (LLC 1518, VERITAS, NCT03455517). The primary endpoint of this study was the CR rate assessed according to the iwCLL criteria. Inclusion criteria were: treatment requirement per iwCLL criteria, age ≤65 years, cumulative Illness rating scale score ≤6, creatinine clearance ≥30 mL/min, and an unfavorable biologic profile with IGHV unmutated and or TP53 disruption. Treatment consisted of the Ven dose ramp-up (from 20 to 400 mg daily, during 5-weeks) followed by Ven 400 mg daily, combined with R for six 28-day courses (375 mg/m2, course 1; 500 mg/m2, courses 2-6). Patients continued with Ven single agent, 400 mg daily, until month 13. Tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis measures included hydration, allopurinol, or rasburicase. All patients received PneumocystisJirovecii prophylaxis. G-CSF was given in patients with recurrent and severe granulocytopenia. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the CTCAE criteria v.5, TLS events were classified according to Howard's criteria. Response was assessed at months 7 and 15 and included clinical examination, PB evaluation, BM aspirate, BM biopsy, and CT scan. MRD was checked centrally in the PB and BM by a 6/4-color flow-cytometry assay with a sensitivity of at least 10-4 according to the internationally standardized European Research Initiative on CLL. Quantitative MRD results assessed by flow-cytometry were categorized as uMRD (uMRD4; Between October 2018 and May 2020, 77 patients with CLL were included in this study. Two patients were off study before the start of treatment (withdrawal of consent, 1; Covid-19 infection, 1) and were not included in the analysis. The median age was 53.5 years (range 38-65). Binet stage B/C was present in 84% of patients, increased beta-2 microglobulin in 41%. Seventy-one (96%) of patients were IGHV unmutated, while 3 (4%) were IGHV mutated and showed TP53 mutation (Table 1). At the data cutoff of June 30, 2020, 65 (87%) patients completed the ramp-up phase. The planned 400 mg dose of Ven was reached within 5 weeks in 78.5% of patients. Response was assessed in 34 patients at the end of the VenR combination therapy. A response was achieved by 32 (94%) patients. Responses included 20 (59%) CRs, 1 CRi (3%) and 11 (32%) PRs due to residual enlarged nodes (median maximum size, 1.9 cm). Treatment failure due to toxicity was recorded in 2 (6%) patients. Overall, a response with uMRD4 by flow-cytometry in the PB was observed in 26 (76.5%) cases, and in the PB and BM, in 17 (50.0%). The rates of patients with CR and uMRD4 by flow-cytometry in the PB, and both in the PB and BM, were 44%, and 35%, respectively (Table 2). No detectable disease by PCR, both in the PB and BM, was observed in 4 (12%) patients. With a median follow-up of 4.5 months from the start of therapy, no patient has progressed or died. Fifty-three percent of patients were hospitalized during the first seven days of the Ven ramp-up phase. A transient laboratory TLS was observed in 3 patients. Treatment was discontinued after the first dose of Ven in 1 patient with evidence of laboratory TLS associated with severe neurologic toxicity due to the concomitant administration of fentanyl. Selected grade ≥3 AEs included neutropenia in 10 patients (ramp-up phase, 5) and neutropenic fever in 4. Grade ≥3 infection was recorded in 3 patients and was the reason for treatment discontinuation in 1 who developed COVID-19 pneumonia. In conclusion, the preliminary results of this study demonstrate the high efficacy of the front-line VenR combination, which resulted in a high proportion of CRs and responses with uMRD4 in young patients with CLL and an unfavorable biologic profile. Disclosures Mauro: Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octopharma: Consultancy. Reda:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Trentin:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coscia:Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sportoletti:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Laurenti:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gaidano:Astrazeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sunesys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marasca:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Murru:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rigolin:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Scarfo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marchetti:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levato:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Galieni:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Liberati:Verastem: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Molica:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Visentin:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vitale:Janssen: Honoraria. Del Giudice:Janssen: Other: grant for meeting participation; Tolero: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Other: grant for meeting partecipation; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cuneo:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Foà:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Early-stage follicular lymphoma (FL) is usually managed with involved field radiotherapy (IFRT), allowing a complete and long lasting eradication of the disease only in 40-50% of patients (pts). The aim of this multicenter phase II prospective study was to evaluate the role of MRD in identifying pts unlikely to be cured by IFRT, for whom an immunotherapy consolidation could improve outcome. Methods: 110 pts with stage I/II FL were enrolled and treated with 24 Gy IFRT. Peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) samples were centralized to the FIL (Fondazione Italiani Linfomi) MRD Network of EuroMRD-certified laboratories. In BCL2/IGH+ pts at baseline by both nested PCR (NEST) and RQ-PCR (RQ) in BM a/o PB, MRD was analyzed after IFRT and every 6 months over a 3-year period. Pts with MRD+ by both NEST and RQ in BM a/o PB after IFRT or who became MRD+ during the follow-up were treated with 8 weekly doses of the anti-CD20 MoAb ofatumumab (OFA). The primary objective of the study was to define the efficacy of immunotherapy in obtaining a negative MRD. Results: Of the 106 evaluable pts, 50 were males. Median age was 55 y (29-83). The FLIPI score was 0 in 59% of pts, 1 in 35%, 2 in 6%. 68% of pts had inguinal site involvement. At baseline, 30% of pts had a BCL2/IGH rearrangement (30 MBR, 1 MBR and mcr, 1 mcr) in BM a/ o PB;the concordance between compartments was 90%. All but one pt achieved a clinical response after IFRT;one additional pt died soon after IFRT of unrelated causes. MRD evaluation after IFRT revealed the persistence of BCL2/IGH+ cells in PB a/o BM in 60% of pts. MRD + pts, either after IFRT (n = 18) or in case of conversion to MRD+ during the follow-up (n = 6), received OFA, obtaining a conversion to MRD-in 22/24 pts (91.7%-CI 73.0-99.0), significantly superior to the expected 50% (Fig). After a median F-U of 38 m, 17 pts who achieved a MRD-with OFA are still negative;5 converted to MRD+ (2 received OFA retreatment, achieving a second MRD-;2 pts were not re-treated due to Sars-Cov2 pandemic;1 relapsed). A clinical relapse or progression was observed in 23 pts: 18 (24.6%) among the 73 “no marker” pts and 5 (15.6%) among the 32 BCL2/IGH+ at baseline (p = 0.3), with no significant difference in PFS (p = 0.25). Two early relapses were observed among the 12 pts who became MRD-after IFRT and 3 among the 24 treated at least once with OFA (1 MRD+, 1 MRD-, 1 converted from MRD-to MRD+). Only 1 Pt relapsed while MRD-after OFA. Conclusions: MRD data indicate that RT alone is often insufficient to eradicate the disease, inducing a MRD-only in 40% of pts, notably long-lasting only in half of them. The primary objective of this study-MRD conversion after immunotherapy-was largely achieved. The strategy of an immunotherapy consolidation after IFRT in MRD+ pts allowed increasing molecular responses. However, this strategy is applicable only to 30% of enrolled pts. A clinical advantage of the MRD driven treatment strategy is suggested although not significan.

The standard management for relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). This strategy allows almost 50% of patients to be cured. Post-ASCT maintenance treatment with brentuximab vedotin (BV) confers improved progression-free survival (PFS) to cHL patients at high risk of relapse. We investigated the outcome of 105 cHL patients receiving post-ASCT BV maintenance in the real-life setting of 23 Italian hematology centers. This population included naïve patients and those previously exposed to BV. Median follow-up was 20 months. Patients presented a median of two lines of treatment pre-ASCT, with 51% receiving BV. Twenty-nine percent of patients had at least two high-risk factors (refractory disease, complete response [CR] less than 12 months, extranodal disease at relapse), while 16% presented none. At PET-CT, a Deauville score (DS) of 1-3 was reported in 75% and 78% of pre- and post-ASCT evaluations, respectively. Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs), mainly peripheral neuropathy, were observed in 16% of patients. Three-year PFS and overall survival (OS) were 62% and 86%, respectively. According to BV exposure, 3-year PFS and OS were 54% and 71%, respectively, for naïve and 77% and 96%, respectively, for previously exposed patients. Refractory disease (hazard ratio [HR] 4.46; p = 0.003) and post-ASCT DS 4-5 (HR 3.14; p = 0.005) were the only two factors significantly associated with PFS reduction in multivariable analysis. Post-ASCT BV maintenance is an effective, safe treatment option for cHL naïve patients and those previously exposed to BV.

Summary Minimal residual disease (MRD) determined by classic polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods is a powerful outcome predictor in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Nevertheless, some technical pitfalls can reduce the rate of of molecular markers. Therefore, we applied the EuroClonality‐NGS IGH (next‐generation sequencing immunoglobulin heavy chain) method (previously published in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) to 20 MCL patients enrolled in an Italian phase III trial sponsored by Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. Results from this preliminary investigation show that EuroClonality‐NGS IGH method is feasible in the MCL context, detecting a molecular IGH target in 19/20 investigated cases, allowing MRD monitoring also in those patients lacking a molecular marker for classical screening approaches.

Purpose: Despite the improvement of therapeutic regimens, several patients with multiple myeloma (MM) still experience early relapse (ER). This subset of patients currently represents an unmet medical need. Experimental Design: We pooled data from seven European multicenter phase II/III clinical trials enrolling 2,190 patients with newly diagnosed MM from 2003 to 2017. Baseline patient evaluation included 14 clinically relevant features. Patients with complete data (n = 1,218) were split into training (n = 844) and validation sets (n = 374). In the training set, a univariate analysis and a multivariate logistic regression model on ER within 18 months (ER18) were made. The most accurate model was selected on the validation set. We also developed a dynamic version of the score by including response to treatment. Results: The Simplified Early Relapse in Multiple Myeloma (S-ERMM) score was modeled on six features weighted by a score: 5 points for high lactate dehydrogenase or t(4;14); 3 for del17p, abnormal albumin, or bone marrow plasma cells >60%; and 2 for λ free light chain. The S-ERMM identified three patient groups with different risks of ER18: Intermediate (Int) versus Low (OR = 2.39, P < 0.001) and High versus Low (OR = 5.59, P < 0.001). S-ERMM High/Int patients had significantly shorter overall survival (High vs. Low: HR = 3.24, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.86, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival-2 (High vs. Low: HR = 2.89, P < 0.001; Int vs. Low: HR = 1.76, P < 0.001) than S-ERMM Low. The Dynamic S-ERMM (DS-ERMM) modulated the prognostic power of the S-ERMM. Conclusions: On the basis of simple, widely available baseline features, the S-ERMM and DS-ERMM properly identified patients with different risks of ER and survival outcomes.

Objective and methods In order to assess the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin (Bv) in combination with bendamustine (B) in multiple relapsed or refractory (RR) classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), medical records of 47 patients treated with BvB in second relapse or beyond were reviewed. Results The median number of previous treatments was 2 (1-4). Bv was given at 1.8 mg/kg on day 1 and bendamustine at 90 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2 of a 21-day cycle. The median number of BvB cycles was 4 (2-7), and all patients were evaluable for efficacy. The CR and OR rates were 49% and 79%, respectively; 67% of responding patients and 2 in stable disease proceeded to a SCT procedure. After a median follow-up of 19 months (5-47), median PFS was 18 months (95%CI: 23-29), and the 2-year OS was 72%. Significantly longer PFS and OS were observed in patients attaining a major clinical response to treatment and in those who received consolidation with SCT. Fifteen (32%) patients experienced severe (G > 2) toxicity. The main toxicities were neutropenia (23%), gastrointestinal (10%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (11%), and infection (4%). Conclusion Our real-world results suggest that BvB is an effective third-line rescue and bridge-to-transplant regimen for RR-cHL patients.