Type: Oral
Session: 906. Outcomes Research: Lymphoid Malignancies Excluding Plasma Cell Disorders: 'In with the Old, In with the New': Outcomes of Conventional and Novel Therapeutic Paradigms in Aggressive Lymphoid Malignancies
Hematology Disease Topics & Pathways:
Combination therapy, Adult, Lymphomas, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, B Cell lymphoma, Diseases, Aggressive lymphoma, Treatment Considerations, Lymphoid Malignancies, Study Population, Human
Methods: The BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer Database was used to identify all pts with de novo DLBCL treated with an initial R-CHOP-like regimen who developed late relapse (> 2 y from initial diagnosis) of DLBCL from January 2005 to April 2024 and received second-line R-CHOP-like therapy with curative-intent (typically R-CHOP or R-CEOP, in which etoposide is substituted for doxorubicin once maximum lifetime anthracycline exposure has been reached [Moccia et al, Blood Advances 2021]). Transformed lymphoma, PTLD, PMBCL, and CNS lymphoma were excluded. Primary outcome was time-to-progression (TTP). Other outcomes included overall response rate (ORR); complete response (CR) rate; progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); and disease-specific survival (DSS). Survival endpoints were calculated from the time of relapse to: progression of lymphoma or treatment/disease-related death (TTP), progression of lymphoma or death from any cause (PFS); death from any cause (OS); or treatment/disease-related death (DSS). Pts with ‘intent-to-transplant’ were evaluated for response, but time-to-event outcomes were censored at time of transplant.
Results: 53 pts meeting all inclusion criteria were identified with a median age of 77 y (range: 52-89) at time of relapse. 30 (57%) were male. Median time from initial diagnosis to relapse was 7.4 y (range: 2.5 – 15.9). 47 pts had biopsy confirmation of DLBCL at relapse. Cell of origin (COO) was GCB in 24/37 (65%), ABC/non-GCB in 12/37 (32%), or unclassifiable (1/37; 3%), according to gene expression profile (11/37) or Hans algorithm (26/37). COO concordance with initial diagnostic biopsy was 24/26 (92%). At time of relapse, in pts with available information, 80% had stage III-IV disease; 53% had poor performance status (ECOG 2-4) and 80% had high IPI (3-5). 15 pts (28%) started R-CHOP, with a median of 3 cycles (range 1-6) before switching to R-CEOP (n = 7), stopping for transplant (n = 4), limited stage (n = 2), or toxicity (n = 2). The remainder (n = 38) were started directly on R-CEOP. The median number of total cycles (R-CHOP and/or R-CEOP) was 5 (range 1-6), with 5 pts receiving consolidative radiation therapy. Four pts were treated with a limited stage approach. 19 pts (36%) did not complete their planned treatment, with toxicity or intolerance (n = 12; 63%) being the most common reason for early discontinuation. Most pts were not considered for transplant due to age or comorbidities. Six pts were intended for autologous stem cell transplant, with 5/6 proceeding to transplant.
Response rates were as follows: CR 60%, PR 11%, SD 4%, PD 9%, non-evaluable/missing 15%. With a median follow-up of 29 months (m), 2-y TTP was 55%, 2-y PFS was 46%, 2-y OS was 55% and 2-y DSS was 67%. Median TTP was 45 m (95% CI 0 – 97), median PFS was 20 m (95% CI 0 – 45), median OS was 39 m (95% CI 13 – 65), and median DSS was 59 m (95% CI 41 – 78). Outcomes were also assessed according to timing of relapse following initial therapy. Pts who relapsed more than 5 y from initial diagnosis (n=41) had a significantly better TTP than pts who relapsed between 2-5 y (n = 12) with 2-y TTP 68% vs 11%, respectively (HR 0.27 [95%CI 0.11-0.64]; p = 0.003), despite comparable baseline characteristics. No difference in TTP was observed between COO subgroups (HR 1.14 [95%CI 0.82-1.60]).
Conclusion: In pts with late relapse DLBCL, a retreatment strategy with R-CHOP-like therapy is a reasonable option. This approach results in durable remission in a high proportion of pts, thereby avoiding the need for more intensive therapies, particularly in pts who experience relapse more than 5 y from initial diagnosis.
Disclosures: Champagne: BeiGene: Honoraria. Villa: Merck, Abbvie, Roche, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, InCyte: Honoraria; Roche, AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck, Abbvie, Roche, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, InCyte: Consultancy. Gerrie: AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen, Lilly: Research Funding; AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen, Lily, Celgene: Honoraria. Venner: Janssen, BMS, GSK, Sanofi, Pfizer, Abbvie, Forus: Honoraria. Craig: Bayer: Consultancy, Other: Expert Testimony; BeiGene: Honoraria. Savage: Seagen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Regeneron: Other: DSMC. Scott: Genmab: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZenenca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Veracyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Nanostring: Patents & Royalties: use of gene expresssion to subtype aggressive lymphoma. Sehn: Roche, Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie, Acerta, Apobiologix, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Debiopharm, Genentech, Genmab, Gilead Sciences, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Lundbeck, Merck, MorphoSys, Novartis, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics, Verastem Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Other: Research Grants; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; Genentech, Inc.; Teva: Research Funding; AbbVie; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Beigene; BMS/Celgene; Genmab; Kite/Gilead; Incyte; Janssen; Merck; Seagen; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria; AbbVie; Amgen; AstraZeneca; Beigene; BMS/Celgene; Genmab; Kite/Gilead; Incyte; Janssen; Merck; Seagen; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy.
See more of: Oral and Poster Abstracts