-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.

650 Identifying Trial-Eligible High- and High-Intermediate Risk Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Using Prognostic Models: A Real-Life Comparative Analysis of IPI, aaIPI and NCCN-IPI from Danish Study Group

Program: Oral and Poster Abstracts
Type: Oral
Session: 626. Aggressive Lymphomas: Clinical and Epidemiological: New Prognostic Tools and Treatment Outcomes in Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
Research, Epidemiology, Clinical Research, Real-world evidence, Registries
Sunday, December 8, 2024: 4:45 PM

Jelena Jelicic1*, Karen Juul-Jensen, MD, PhD2*, Zoran Bukumiric3*, Mikkel Runason Simonsen, MSc4,5*, Michael Roost Clausen, MD, PhD6*, Ahmed Al-Mashhadi, MD4,7*, Robert Schou Pedersen, MD, PhD8*, Christian Bjørn Poulsen, MD, PhD9,10*, Anne Ortved Gang9,11*, Peter Brown, MD, PhD9,11*, Tarec Christoffer Christoffer El-Galaly2,4,11,12 and Thomas Stauffer Larsen, MD, PhD2,13*

1Department of Hematology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, Odense, AL, Denmark
2Department of Hematology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark, Odense, Denmark
3Institute for Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia
4Department of Hematology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
5Department of Mathematical Sciences, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
6Dept. of Hematology, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
7Dept. of Hematology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
8Dept. of Hematology, Regionshospital Goedstrup, Goedstrup, Denmark
9Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
10Department of Hematology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark
11Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
12Clinical Epidemiology Division, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
13Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Background: The International Prognostic Index (IPI) and age-adjusted IPI (aaIPI) have been used to select patients in recent frontline clinical trials, aiming to challenge R-CHOP as the standard of therapy. As the prognosis following R-CHOP treatment is favorable for low-risk patients, predictive tools to identify high-risk trial-eligible diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients most likely to benefit from experimental treatments are warranted. The lack of overall survival (OS) benefit may partly result from non-optimal patient selection based on prognostic models. Currently, an ongoing frontMIND (NCT04824092) clinical trial comparing tafasitamab + lenalidomide + R-CHOP vs. R-CHOP selected high-intermediate (HI) and high-risk (H) patients using IPI (score 3-5 in patients >60 years) and aaIPI (score 2-3 in patients ≤60). However, it remains unclear if aaIPI and other models can accurately identify high-risk patients for clinical trials.

This study compared the International Prognostic Indices (IPI, aaIPI, NCCN-IPI) used to identify trial-eligible HI and H-risk DLBCL patients. We also investigated the models' prognostic ability in trial-eligible patients aged ≤60, identified through the Danish Lymphoma Registry (LYFO).

Methods: Patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2020 were included if they fulfilled the following criteria extracted from the frontMIND trial: 1) newly diagnosed DLBCL; 2) age 18-80 years; 3) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2; 4) required laboratory at screening (blood counts, renal and liver function); 5) no CNS involvement; 6) no history of malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer). Moreover, only patients treated with R-CHOP (+/- etoposide) were included.

Results: Of 5,188 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL treated with R-CHOP/(+/-etoposide) identified in LYFO, 2,961 (57.0%) had sufficient registry data and fulfilled frontMIND trial inclusion criteria (excluding IPI/aaIPI criterion). The median age at diagnosis was 65. Males (n=1,719, 58.1%) and patients diagnosed in advanced stage 3/4 (n=1,900, 64.2%) were predominant. The median follow-up was 70.0 months (IQR, 32.8-112.9).

All three models stratified patients into four risk groups. NCCN-IPI was better in discrimination risk groups (c-index=0.680, p<0.05) than IPI (c-index=0.676) and aaIPI (c-index=0.636). The 5-year OS for H and HI risk patients, according to IPI, aaIPI, and NCCN-IPI, was 57.0% and 71.2%, 63.6% and 75.7%, and 46.1% and 71.3%, respectively.

When H and HI risk patients were selected according to frontMIND inclusion criteria (IPI 3-5 in patients>60 years and aaIPI 2-3 in patients≤60), almost half of the initial population was identified as trial eligible (1,426/2,961, 48.2%) with the 5-year OS of 70.1% (95% CI, 67.7-72.7). If IPI were used to identify HI and H risk patients, fewer patients (n=1,202, 40.6%) with poorer 5-year OS of 67.1% (95% CI, 64.4-69.9) would enter the trial than planned as per the original protocol. A similar 5-year OS of 67.4% was found when NCCN-IPI (score 4-8) was used (n=1,323, 44.7%).

Of 2,961 initially recognized trial-eligible patients, 1,072 were ≤60 years. Of them, 415 (38.7%) were eligible for the frontMIND trial if aaIPI was used to select H and HI risk patients (scores 2-3). The 5-year OS for these patients was 83.7% (95% CI, 80.1-87.4). However, IPI and NCCN-IPI identified fewer patients at H and HI risk, accounting for 17.8% (191 patients) and 18.4% (197 patients). 5-year OS in these patients was slightly lower than that of aaIPI, specifically 80.5% (95% CI, 75.0-86.4) for NCCN-IPI and 81.2% (95% CI, 75.7-87.2) for IPI. The discriminatory ability of aaIPI was not significant compared to IPI and NCCN-IPI (p>0.05).

Conclusion: This retrospective real-world study on 2,961 trial-eligible DLBCL patients investigated the impact of prognostic models as selection criteria for identifying high-risk candidates for clinical trials. Although some recent trials used aaIPI to select younger patients, we found that aaIPI fails to identify true HI and H-risk younger patients as 5-year OS was generally favorable (83.7%) in this real-world population. Although none of the three analyzed models could identify truly high-risk patients ≤60 years, IPI and NCCN-IPI identified fewer trial-eligible patients with a slightly worse prognosis than aaIPI and could also be used to select high-risk trial-eligible patients aged 60 or less.

Disclosures: Clausen: AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag A/S: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel expenses. Brown: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: 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; Swedish Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Larsen: Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding.

*signifies non-member of ASH