Search

Abstract CD19‐directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR‐T) therapy has transformed the management of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Initially approved in the third line and beyond setting, CAR‐T is now standard of care (SOC) for second‐line treatment in patients with refractory disease or early relapse (progression within 12 months) following primary chemoimmunotherapy. Despite becoming SOC, most patients do not achieve complete response, and long‐term cure is only observed in approximately 40% of patients. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to better understand the mechanisms of treatment failure and to identify patients that are unlikely to benefit from SOC CAR‐T. The field needs robust biomarkers to predict treatment outcome, as better understanding of prognostic factors and mechanisms of resistance can inform on the design of novel treatment approaches for patients predicted to respond poorly to SOC CAR‐T. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of clinical, molecular, imaging, and cellular features that have been shown to influence outcomes of CAR‐T therapy in patients with R/R LBCL.

Abstract Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies targeting the CD19 antigen have been associated with high and durable response rates in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). CAR-T cell therapies are commonly administered in the inpatient setting due to the average onset of cytokine release syndrome within the first 3 days post infusion, but there has been growing interest in delivering CAR-T cell therapies in the outpatient setting to overcome frequent hospital bed shortages and the high cost of inpatient care. Although this approach could improve access whilst catering to patient preference, it requires a multidisciplinary approach as well as careful patient selection. Herein, Dr. Foley and Dr. Kuruvilla discuss the case of a patient presenting with the ideal profile for CAR-T cell therapy referral whilst also determining the key attributes for eligibility from a clinician’s perspective. Solutions for successful outpatient management include proper education, caregiver support, and early referral to ensure a timely infusion. In conclusion, outpatient administration of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with DLBCLs should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. A vodcast feature is available for this article.

Background: Although metastatic germ cell tumor (GCT) is highly curable with initial cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT), 20–30% of patients relapse. Salvage CT options include conventional (CDCT) and high dose chemotherapy (HDCT), however definitive comparative data remain lacking. We aimed to characterize the contemporary practice patterns of salvage CT across Canada. Methods: We conducted a 30-question online survey for Canadian medical and hematological oncologists with experience in treating GCT, assessing treatment availability, patient selection, and management strategies used for relapsed GCT patients. Results: There were 30 respondents from 18 cancer centers across eight provinces. The most common CDCT regimens used were TIP (64%) and VIP (25%). HDCT was available in 13 centers (70%). The HDCT regimen used included carboplatin and etoposide for two cycles (76% in 7 centers), three cycles (6% in 2 centers), and the TICE protocol (11%, in 2 centers). “Bridging” CDCT was used by 65% of respondents. Post-HDCT treatments considered include surgical resection for residual disease (87.5%), maintenance etoposide (6.3%), and surveillance only (6.3%). Conclusions: HDCT is the most commonly used GCT salvage strategy in Canada. Significant differences exist in the treatment availability, selection, and delivery of HDCT, highlighting the need for standardization of care for patients with relapsed testicular GCT.

Background: Many patients with advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) relapse after first-line chemotherapy. Objective: To examine healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and cost, treatment patterns, progression, and survival of patients with FL and MZL who relapse after first-line treatment, in Ontario, Canada. Methods: A retrospective, administrative data study identified patients with relapsed FL and MZL (1 January 2005–31 December 2018). Patients were followed for up to three years post relapse to assess HCRU, healthcare costs, time to next treatment (TTNT), and overall survival (OS), stratified by first- and second-line treatment. Results: The study identified 285 FL and 68 MZL cases who relapsed after first-line treatment. Average duration of first-line treatment was 12.4 and 13.4 months for FL and MZL patients, respectively. Drug (35.9%) and cancer clinic costs (28.1%) were major contributors to higher costs in year 1. Three-year OS was 83.9% after FL and 74.2% after MZL relapse. No statistically significant differences were observed in TTNT and OS between patients with FL who received R-CHOP/R-CVP/BR in the first line only versus both the first- and second- line. A total of 31% of FL and 34% of MZL patients progressed to third-line treatment within three years of initial relapse. Conclusion: Relapsing and remitting nature of FL and MZL in a subset of patients results in substantial burden to patients and the healthcare system.

Abstract The multicenter, phase Ib CC‐122‐DLBCL‐001 dose‐expansion study (NCT02031419) explored the cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD) agent avadomide (CC‐122) plus rituximab in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients received avadomide 3 mg/day 5 days on/2 days off plus rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 8 of cycle 1, day 1 of cycles 2 through 6, and day 1 of every third subsequent cycle for 2 years. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; preliminary efficacy was a secondary endpoint. A total of 68 patients were enrolled (DLBCL [n = 27], FL [n = 41; 31 lenalidomide‐naïve, 10 lenalidomide‐treated]). Median age was 62 years (range, 33–84 years), and patients had received a median of 3 (range, 1–8) prior regimens. Among patients with DLBCL, 66.7% had primary refractory disease (partial response or less to initial therapy). Among patients with FL, 65.9% were rituximab‐refractory at study entry and 10.0% were lenalidomide‐refractory. The most common any‐grade avadomide‐related adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (63.2%), infections/infestations (23.5%), fatigue (22.1%), and diarrhea (19.1%). The most common grade 3/4 avadomide‐related AEs were neutropenia (55.9%) infections/infestations (8.8%), and febrile neutropenia (7.4%). In patients with DLBCL, overall response rate (ORR) was 40.7% and median duration of response (mDOR) was 8.0 months. In patients with FL, ORR was 80.5% and mDOR was 27.6 months; response rates were similar in lenalidomide‐naïve and ‐treated patients. Avadomide plus rituximab was well tolerated, and preliminary antitumor activity was observed in patients with R/R DLBCL and FL, including subgroups with typically poor outcomes. These results support further investigation of novel CELMoD agents in combination with rituximab in R/R DLBCL and FL.

Abstract Background There are no head-to-head clinical studies comparing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for the treatment of relapsed or refractory aggressive large B-cell lymphomas. Naive, indirect comparisons may be inappropriate, as the study designs and patient populations could differ substantially. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) can reduce many biases associated with indirect comparisons between studies. To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) to tisagenlecleucel, we describe an unanchored MAIC of the pivotal studies TRANSCEND NHL 001 (TRANSCEND; NCT02631044; liso-cel) and JULIET (NCT02445248; tisagenlecleucel). Methods Individual patient data (IPD) from TRANSCEND were available to the authors; for the JULIET pivotal study, summary-level data from the published study were used. To balance the populations between two studies, IPD from TRANSCEND were adjusted to match the marginal distribution (e.g., mean, variance) of clinical factors among patients from JULIET. Results Results from the primary MAIC showed liso-cel had statistically significant greater efficacy than tisagenlecleucel (objective response rate: odds ratio [OR] = 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.63‒4.74; complete response rate: OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.22‒3.30; progression-free survival: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47‒0.91; overall survival: HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47‒0.95). MAIC of safety outcomes showed lower ORs for all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome, and grade ≥ 3 prolonged cytopenia for liso-cel when compared with tisagenlecleucel; there were no statistically significant differences detected for other safety outcomes. Conclusions Overall, this MAIC of two CAR T-cell therapies indicates liso-cel had favorable efficacy and a comparable or better safety profile relative to tisagenlecleucel. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02631044 and NCT02445248.

Abstract There is a need for additional treatment options for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who do not benefit from available therapies. We examined combinations of the cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD) agent avadomide (CC‐122), the selective, ATP‐competitive mammalian target of rapamycin kinase inhibitor CC‐223, and the potent, selective, covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor CC‐292 in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. In the multicenter, phase Ib CC‐122‐DLBCL‐001 study (NCT02031419), the dose‐escalation portion explored combinations of CC‐122, CC‐223, and CC‐292 administered as doublets or triplets with rituximab in patients with chemorefractory DLBCL. Primary endpoints were safety, tolerability, and dose‐limiting toxicities; additional endpoints included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, biomarkers, and preliminary efficacy. As of December 1, 2017, 106 patients were enrolled across four cohorts. The median age was 65 years (range 24–84 years), and patients had a median of 3 (range 1–10) prior to regimens. A total of 101 patients (95.3%) discontinued, most commonly due to disease progression (49.1%). The most common any‐grade adverse events (AEs) across treatment arms were gastrointestinal and hematologic; the most common grade 3/4 AEs were hematologic. CC‐122 was well tolerated, with no unexpected safety concerns. Preliminary efficacy was observed in three of four treatment arms. CC‐122 plus rituximab was considered suitable for dose expansion, whereas CC‐223 and CC‐292 combinations were associated with enhanced toxicity and/or insufficient improvement in responses. CC‐122 plus rituximab was well tolerated, with preliminary antitumor activity in patients with R/R DLBCL. This innovative study demonstrates the feasibility of assessing the tolerability and preliminary efficacy of novel combinations utilizing a multi‐arm dose‐finding design.

Abstract Background In the absence of randomized studies directly comparing chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies, this study used matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Methods Primary data sources included individual patient data from the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (TRANSCEND [NCT02631044]; N = 256 for efficacy set, N = 269 for safety set) for liso-cel and summary-level data from the ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216; N = 101 for efficacy set, N = 108 for safety set) for axi-cel. Inter-study differences in design, eligibility criteria, baseline characteristics, and outcomes were assessed and aligned to the extent feasible. Clinically relevant prognostic factors were adjusted in a stepwise fashion by ranked order. Since bridging therapy was allowed in TRANSCEND but not ZUMA-1, the initial efficacy and safety analyses included bridging therapy use as a matching factor (TRANSCEND patients who received bridging therapy were removed). Subsequent sensitivity analyses excluded this matching factor. Results The initial analysis showed similar MAIC-weighted efficacy outcomes between TRANSCEND and ZUMA-1 for overall and complete response rates (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.40 [0.56–3.49] and 1.21 [0.56–2.64], respectively) and for overall survival and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.81 [0.44–1.49] and 0.95 [0.58–1.57], respectively). MAIC-weighted safety outcomes favored liso-cel, with significantly lower odds of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.03 [0.01–0.07] and 0.08 [0.01–0.67], respectively) and study-specific neurological events (0.16 [0.08–0.33] and 0.05 [0.02–0.15], respectively). Efficacy and safety outcomes remained similar in sensitivity analyses, which did not include use of bridging therapy as a matching factor. Conclusions After matching and adjusting for clinically relevant prognostic factors, liso-cel demonstrated comparable efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared with axi-cel in patients with third- or later-line relapsed or refractory LBCL. Trial registration: NCT02631044 and NCT02348216

Abstract Patients with RR DLBCL who have received ≥ 2 lines of therapy have limited treatment options and an expected overall survival (OS) of

This study (ReCORD-FL) sought to construct a historical control cohort to augment single-arm trials in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (r/r FL). A retrospective study in 10 centers across North America and Europe was conducted. Adults with grade 1–3A FL were required to be r/r after ≥2 therapy lines including an anti-CD20 and an alkylator. After first becoming r/r, patients were required to initiate ≥1 additional therapy line, which defined the study index date. Endpoints were observed from start of each therapy line (including index line) until death, last follow-up, or December 31, 2020. Endpoints were complete response (CR) rate, overall response rate (ORR), time to next treatment or death (TNT-D), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). One hundred eighty-seven patients were identified. Most patients’ (80.2%) index therapy occurred in third line (3L) (range, 3L–6L). Median follow-up from FL diagnosis was 9 years (range, 1–21 years). CR and ORR to the index therapy were 39.0% and 70.6%, respectively. Median (95% confidence interval) EFS from index was 14.6 (11.0-18.0) months; median OS from index was 10.6 years. Outcomes worsened across successive treatment lines and for patients who were double refractory (r/r to both an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and an alkylator) or POD24 (progressed ≤24 months after front-line anti-CD20) at index. Findings demonstrate the unmet need of FL patients with multiply relapsed, double refractory, or POD24 disease. Based on robustness of the historical data collected and comparability with a previous study (SCHOLAR-5), ReCORD-FL presents a valuable source of control data for comparative studies in r/r FL.

Abstract Background Computerized cognitive training (CCT) programs have shown some effectiveness in alleviating cognitive symptoms in long-term cancer survivors. For patients presenting with cognitive symptoms in the early post-treatment phase, the benefit of CCT is unclear. To assess the possibility of testing the effectiveness of CCT in the early post-treatment period, our aim was to investigate the feasibility of an 8-week home-based, online CCT intervention among patients who have recently completed treatment for hematological malignancy. Methods This study was a single-arm, non-blinded, feasibility study. All participants were provided with the CCT intervention for an 8-week period. Feasibility was evaluated based on participant adherence and patient perceptions of the intervention, assessed through responses to an acceptability questionnaire and semi-structured interviews at the end of the intervention period. Results The feasibility study included 19 patients who had completed treatment for hematological malignancy at a Canadian tertiary cancer center. Adherence to the CCT intervention was limited, with only one participant meeting the criteria for intervention adherence. At the end of the intervention period, participants characterized the program as easy to follow (92%) and felt well-prepared for how to complete the exercises (100%). In semi-structured interviews, participants highlighted post-treatment barriers to intervention adherence that included symptom burden and competing time demands. Participants also suggested improvements to the intervention that could help maintain adherence despite these barriers, such as fostering a sense of accountability, providing personalized feedback and coaching, and enabling opportunities for peer support. Conclusions Participation in CCT can be challenging in the post-treatment period for hematological cancers. Further research on the effectiveness of CCT in this setting may require the implementation of strategies that support participants’ engagement with the intervention in the context of symptoms and competing demands, such as establishing a minimum dose requirement and integrating approaches to help promote and sustain motivation.

Exportin-1 (XPO1) is a key player in the nuclear export pathway and is overexpressed in almost all cancers. This is especially relevant for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), where high XPO1 expression is associated with poor prognosis due to its oncogenic role in exporting proteins and RNA that are involved in cancer progression and treatment resistance. Here, we discuss the proteins and RNA transcripts that have been identified as XPO1 cargo in NHL lymphoma including tumour suppressors, immune modulators, and transcription factors, and their implications for oncogenesis. We then highlight the research to date on XPO1 inhibitors such as selinexor and other selective inhibitors of nuclear export (SINEs), which are used to treat some cases of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In vitro, in vivo, and clinical studies investigating the anti-cancer effects of SINEs from bench to bedside, both as a single agent and in combination, are also reported. Finally, we discuss the limitations of the current research landscape and future directions to better understand and improve the clinical utility of SINE compounds in NHL.

Selinexor, an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export, was evaluated in the Phase 2b SADAL study in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who previously received two to five prior systemic regimens. In post hoc analyses, we analyzed several categories of patient characteristics (age, renal function, DLBCL subtype, absolute lymphocyte count, transplant status, number of prior lines of therapy, refractory status, Ann Arbor disease stage, and lactate dehydrogenase) at baseline, i.e., during screening procedures, to determine their potential contributions to the efficacy (overall response rate [ORR], duration of response [DOR], overall survival [OS]) and tolerability of selinexor. Across most categories of characteristics, no significant difference was observed in ORR or DOR. OS was significantly longer for patients < 65 vs. ≥ 65 years, and for those with lymphocyte counts ≥ 1000/µL vs. < 1000/µL or lactate dehydrogenase ≤ ULN vs. > ULN. The most common adverse events (AEs) across the characteristics were thrombocytopenia and nausea, and similar rates of grade 3 AEs and serious AEs were observed. With its oral administration, novel mechanism of action, and consistency in responses in heavily pretreated patients, selinexor may help to address an important unmet clinical need in the treatment of DLBCL.

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are a heterogeneous group of rare and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Clinical staging, prognostic scoring, and initial treatment strategies have historically been based on paradigms developed in B-cell lymphomas. Despite primary treatment protocols that are typically anthracycline-based and frequently involve consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation in first remission, many patients develop disease progression. There remains a high unmet medical need for improved treatment strategies in the relapsed or refractory setting. Salvage chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation in those who are suitable has traditionally been the accepted approach, but this remains a minority of the total patient population. As increasing knowledge is gleaned regarding the biological heterogeneity within the various PTCL subtypes, newer targeted agents have been developed, studied, and approved in this small, heterogeneous population of relapsed or refractory disease. Given its success and tolerability in this pretreated population, brentuximab vedotin, an anti-CD30 antibody drug conjugate, was brought earlier in the disease course and is a model for advances in the targeted treatment of PTCL. As others undergo further development in the relapsed setting and successes are brought earlier in the disease course, the outcome for PTCL patients is likely to improve. However, innovative clinical trial designs are crucial for the assessment of targeted agents in this highly heterogeneous population. This review explores the current treatment environment for patients with relapsed and refractory PTCL, including newer strategies such as targeted agents and immunotherapy.

Background The management of patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma who achieve less than a partial response to first-line salvage chemotherapy is unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate response and outcomes to second-line salvage and autologous stem cell transplantation in patients not achieving a complete or partial response to platinum-containing first-line salvage chemotherapy.Design and Methods Consecutively referred transplant-eligible patients with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma after primary chemotherapy received gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin as first salvage chemotherapy. Those achieving a complete or partial response, and those with a negative gallium scan and stable disease with bulk

Background The use of high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with relapsed Hodgkin’s lymphoma is supported by two randomized clinical trials but its benefit in patients with primary refractory disease is less clear. Aiming to shed light on this issue, we analyzed and compared the outcomes of patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma treated with second-line chemotherapy and planned autologous stem-cell transplantation.Design and Methods We retrospectively analyzed data on 157 consecutive patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma referred to our institution for consideration of autologous stem-cell transplantation between 1999 and 2006. Of those, 73 met the definition of having primary refractory disease, ie. progressive disease during first line chemotherapy or within 3 months of completion of the treatment. Those patients achieving complete remission, partial remission and stable disease with symptomatic improvement after two or three cycles of salvage chemotherapy proceeded to stem cell mobilization and autologous transplantation.Results From first relapse/progression, the 3-year overall survival was 76% (95% CI: 66%−89%) for the refractory cohort and 91% (95% CI: 84%−98%) for the relapsed cohort (P=0.034); the overall response rate to second-line chemotherapy was 51% and 83% (P