-Author name in bold denotes the presenting author
-Asterisk * with author name denotes a Non-ASH member
Clinically Relevant Abstract denotes an abstract that is clinically relevant.

PhD Trainee denotes that this is a recommended PHD Trainee Session.

Ticketed Session denotes that this is a ticketed session.

2936 Interim Positron Emission Tomography (iPET) Assessed Using Deauville Score for Patients with Follicular Lymphoma Receiving First-Line Chemoimmunotherapy

Program: Oral and Poster Abstracts
Session: 623. Mantle Cell, Follicular, and Other Indolent B-Cell Lymphoma—Clinical Studies: Poster III
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
Follicular Lymphoma, Adult, Diseases, Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, Technology and Procedures, Study Population, Lymphoid Malignancies, Clinically relevant, imaging
Monday, December 7, 2020, 7:00 AM-3:30 PM

Reid W Merryman, MD1, Gabriela Spilberg, MD2*, Patrizia Mondello, MD, PhD, MSc3, Robert A. Redd, MS4*, Eleanor Taranto, MD5*, Gulrayz Ahmed, MD6*, Erin Jeter1*, Matthew Chase, MD7*, Gilles Salles, MD, PhD8, Andrew D Zelenetz, MD, PhD8, Jennifer R Brown, MD, PhD1, Jennifer Crombie, MD1*, Matthew S. Davids, MD1, David C. Fisher, MD1*, Arnold S. Freedman, MD1, Eric D Jacobsen, MD1, Caron A. Jacobson, MD1*, Austin I. Kim, MD9, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, MSc1, Benjamin L. Lampson, MD, PhD1, Samuel Y. Ng, MD, PhD1, Oreofe Odejide, MD1*, Philippe Armand, MD, PhD1 and Heather A. Jacene, MD10*

1Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
2Jefferson Radiology, Hartford, CT
3Department of Medicine, Lymphoma Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
4Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
5Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
6Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
7Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
8Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
9Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
10Department of Imaging, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA

Background: While most patients (pts) with follicular lymphoma (FL) have excellent outcomes with frontline chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), a subset of pts will experience early progression, which is associated with inferior survival. Earlier identification of high-risk FL pts could allow for intervention with novel treatments to forestall early progression. Current prognostic tools are imperfect, particularly for pts receiving bendamustine-based regimens, and novel biomarkers are needed. In Hodgkin lymphoma, interim positron emission tomography (iPET) evaluated based on Deauville score (DS) is highly prognostic and is used to guide response-adapted therapy. The prognostic value of iPET using DS has not yet been assessed in a large population of FL pts receiving frontline CIT. We hypothesized that iPET would predict progression-free survival (PFS) in this population which could support PET-guided treatment approaches.

Methods: We retrospectively identified pts with a diagnosis of FL (grade 1-3B) who initiated frontline CIT at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute from 1/2005-3/2019 and underwent an iPET after 2-4 cycles of CIT. Pts who received radiation (XRT) prior to CIT were included. Baseline, interim, and (when available) end-of-treatment (EOT) PET scans were reviewed by a nuclear medicine radiologist in a blinded fashion and assigned a DS of 1-5.

Results: 118 pts were identified. The median age was 55 (range 26-82). 73 pts (62%) had grade 1-2 FL, 17 pts (14%) grade 3A, 15 pts (13%) grade 3B, 12 pts (10%) grade 3 NOS, and 1 pt (1%) grade not reported. FLIPI score was low for 32%, intermediate for 42% and high for 26%. In total, 5 pts (4%) received XRT before CIT. The most common CIT regimens were RCHOP (54%) and BR (42%) (Table 1). 107 pts (91%) received 6 cycles of CIT and 4 pts (3%) received 8 cycles, while 7 pts (6%) discontinued CIT after 4-5 cycles due to cytopenias (4), heart failure (1), infection (1), or pt decision (1). 88% of iPETs were performed after 3 cycles. iPET DS was 1 for 18%, 2 for 57%, 3 for 13%, 4 for 9%, and 5 for 3%. EOT PET was available for review for 112 pts (95%) and demonstrated DS of 1 for 32%, 2 for 56%, 3 for 3%, 4 for 4%, and 5 for 5%. After CIT, 29 pts (25%) received a median of 9 doses (range 1-13) of rituximab maintenance (RM) and 2 pts (2%) received consolidative XRT.

With a median follow-up of 54 months (range 5-186), the 4-year (yr) PFS and overall survival (OS) for the entire cohort were 69% (95% CI 58-77%) and 94% (95% CI 87-98%), respectively. iPET was a significant predictor of PFS (p=0.0011 for 5 categories). Compared to pts with an iPET DS of 1-2, pts with a DS of 3 (HR 3.0, p=0.006) or a DS of 4-5 (HR 3.4, p=0.004) had inferior PFS (Figure 1) and were grouped together in a +iPET group (n=30) for all analyses. The 4-yr PFS for DS 1-2 and DS 3-5 pts were 77% and 46%, respectively (HR 3.2, p<0.001). iPET had similar prognostic value among pts receiving BR (HR 3.3 p=0.033) or RCHOP (HR 3.6, p=0.005) and retained significance when pts with grade 3B FL were excluded (HR 2.6, p=0.007). iPET was not predictive of OS (HR 1.6, p=0.48).

EOT PET was also a significant predictor of PFS (p<0.0001 for 5 categories). 3 pts with a DS of 3 on EOT PET had favorable outcomes and were grouped with DS 1-2 pts. A positive EOT PET (defined as DS 4-5) was observed more frequently among pts with an iPET DS of 3-5 (9/29 pts; 31%) compared to an iPET DS of 1-2 (1/83 pts; 1%) (p<0.001). To determine if iPET provides additional prognostic information beyond EOT PET, we sorted pts into 4 groups based on iPET/EOT PET status (i.e. -/-, +/-, -/+, and +/+). Compared to -/- pts, +/- pts (HR 2.4, p=0.039), -/+ pts (HR 3.6, p=0.045) and +/+ pts (HR 9.1, p=<0.001) all had inferior PFS (Figure 2). A multivariable analysis confirmed that iPET (HR 2.9, p=0.017), EOT PET (HR 7.6, P<0.001), high FLIPI (HR 2.5, p=0.011), and RM (HR 0.3, p=0.015) were significant predictors of PFS, while CIT regimen (p=0.94) and grade (p=0.21) were not.

Conclusions: Our study suggests that iPET may be a useful prognostic marker in FL. Additionally, iPET interpretation may be different in FL compared to other lymphomas. In this cohort, pts with a DS of 3 on iPET had inferior PFS with outcomes similar to those of pts with a DS of 4-5. A DS of 3-5 on iPET appears to predict earlier progression independent of EOT PET while providing response-driven prognostic information earlier in a patient’s treatment course. If validated, these results suggest that iPET could be investigated as a tool for response-adapted treatment strategies in FL.

Disclosures: Salles: Epizyme: Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role; MorphoSys: Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role; Novartis: Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role; Roche: Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role; Abbvie: Other: consultancy or advisory role; Autolus: Other: consultancy or advisory role; Debiopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role; Genmab: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Takeda: Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Consultancy; Velosbio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Milteniy: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role ; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: consultancy or advisory role; Allogene: Consultancy. Zelenetz: MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Sandoz: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding. Brown: Janssen, Teva: Speakers Bureau; Gilead, Loxo, Sun, Verastem: Research Funding; Abbvie, Acerta, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Invectys, Juno/Celgene, Kite, Morphosys, Novartis, Octapharma, Pharmacyclics, Sunesis, TG Therapeutics, Verastem: Consultancy. Crombie: AbbVie: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding. Davids: Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Zentalis: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Syros Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy. Fisher: Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jacobsen: Merck: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. LaCasce: BMS: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Speakers Bureau; UptoDate: Patents & Royalties. Armand: Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; IGM: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding.

*signifies non-member of ASH