ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with hematological malignancies (HM) infected with SARS-CoV-2 hae a higher risk of deeloping seere coronairus disease (COVID-19) with consequent death, due to immune system impairment. Anti-spike Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies (nMoAbs) are indicated for the treatment of paucisymptomatic COVID-19 patients, but eidence of safety and efficacy among HM subjects is still lacking. Aims: To assess the efficacy of different nMoAbs approed by Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) on HM patients affected by paucisymptomatic SARS-COV-2. Methods: Multicenter retrospectie obserational study at ten sites in Italy, which enrolled consecutie patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and treated with nMoAbs from February 2020 to December 2021. Only HM subjects on treatment or in disease remission within 6 months from treatment discontinuation with paucisymptomatic SARSCOV- 2 infection were included. nMoAbs approed by AIFA include Bamlaniimab, Bamlaniimab/Eteseimab, Casiriimab/Imdeimab, Sotroimab, and Regdanimab. The primary endpoint was to assess the time to SARS-CoV- 2 molecular swab negatiization. A comparison to an historical control not receiing nMoAbs was assessed. Secondary endpoints consisted in ealuation of Hospitalization rate due to COVID-19, including intensie care unit (ICU) admission rate due to respiratory failure, and safety assessment. Results: Oerall 51 HM patients (median age 62 years;35% women) were ealuated. Seenteen of them had non- Hodgkin lymphomas, 9 multiple myeloma, 6 chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 6 acute myeloid leukemia, 3 Hodgkin lymphoma, 2 acute lymphoblastic leukemia, 2 myeloproliferatie neoplasm, 1 Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia and 5 had other HM diagnosis. Thirty-six patients were on actie treatment, whereas 11 had completed their therapies within 6 months from nMoAbs administration, for 4 patients data were missing. In 7 subjects the last treatment was chemotherapy, in 19 immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy, in 9 target therapy, in 4 autologous stem cell transplantation, in 2 allogeneic stem cell transplantation, for 4 patients data were missing. Detailed description of patients' characteristics is reported in table 1. Twenty-six patients were treated with Bamlaniimab/Eteseimab, 17 with Casiriimab/Imdeimab, 3 with Bamlaniimab, and 2 with Sotroimab, for 3 patients data were missing. Median time to SARS-CoV-2 molecular swab negatiization was ealuable in 41 subjects and was 17 days (min 5, IQR 12-26, max 174). This result compared well with the preious finding of 28 days reported in an historical group of HM patients not treated with nMoAbs. We did not find any subpopulation, according to age, diagnosis, period of infection or type of nMoAbs who achieed a major benefit from nMoAbs treatment. The rate of Hospitalization due to COVID-19 progression was 19% (10/51), with an extremely low percentage of patients requiring ICU admission due to seer COVID-19 (2%,1/51). Most frequent side effects included chills (8%), diarrhea (6%), headache (2%), nausea (2%) and omiting (2%). Summary/Conclusion: Among paucisymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positie HM patients on actie treatment or in disease remission within 6 months from treatment discontinuation, the administration of nMoAbs substantially reduced the time to swab negatiization compared to an historical control of HM subjects. This treatment was also able to reduce the rate of Hospitalization and death due to COVID-19 progression in this high risk group. (Table Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background: Optimal consolidation for young R/R FL in the rituximab age remains uncertain and the benefit of ASCT is not clearly established. Aims: The FIL FLAZ12 trial (NCT01827605) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial, comparing RIT versus ASCT, as consolidation after chemoimmunotherapy, both followed by R maintenance in R/R FL. Methods: Pts aged 18-65 yrs, with R/R FL after 1 or 2 lines of chemoimmunotherapy, without significant comorbidities were enrolled. Patients received 3 courses of therapy chosen by the investigator among RCHOP, R-DHAP, R-FM, R-ICE, R-IEV or R-B. Pts achieving at least PR (according to Cheson et al. 2007) were randomized 1:1 to either RIT or ASCT before CD34+ collection. Conditioning for ASCT was BEAM or TEAM. RIT was given as previously described (Morschhauser et al., 2008). After consolidation, pts received R maintenance every 3 months for eight courses. Primary endpoint was PFS. Considering ASCT toxicity, it was hypothesized to be a superior choice, if capable of increasing 3-years PFS from 40% to 60% (two-side log-rank test with alpha of 5% and a power of 85%). Clinical secondary endpoints were ORR, CRR, OS, EFS and TTF. Results: Between Aug 2012, and Sep 2019, 164 pts were screened and 159 enrolled by 38 FIL Centers (enrolled population). Unfortunately, the study was prematurely closed due to low accrual. The data were analyzed on an ITT basis on May 2, 2021 with a median follow-up (mFU) from enrollment of 43 months and 75 PFS events. The two arms were clinically well balanced, with median age of 57 yrs (IQR 49-62), 55% male, 57% stage IV, 20% bulky disease. Tumor re-biopsy was performed in 79% pts. POD-24, retrospectively assessed was observed in 32% of pts. Two pts (1%) did not start treatment (non-confirmed histology and withdrawal). Sixteen (10%) pts discontinued before randomization (7 SD, 3 PD, 3 AE, 1 withdrawal, 2 poor compliance) and 141 (89%) were randomized to either RIT (71) or ASCT (70) (randomized population). Of these 19 (13%) (RIT 8, ASCT 11) did not receive the planned consolidation due to 7 PD, 4 AE, 1 medical decision, 2 poor mobilization, 2 withdrawals, 1 poor compliance, 2 protocol breaches, while 63 (89%) received RIT and 59 (84%) ASCT. After RIT, 61% of pts achieved CR and 23% PR, while after ASCT these were 70% and 9%. Estimated PFS at 3 yrs was 60% (95% CI: 46%-71%) in the RIT arm vs. 59% (95% CI:45%-70%) in the ASCT arm, p = 0.8613 (HR 0.96, 95%CI: 0.57,1.59). (Figure 1) 3yrs-OS was again superimposable in the two arms: 83% (95%CI: 69%-91%) in the RIT vs 85% (95% CI: 72%-91%) in the ASCT, p = 0.8310 (HR 1.10, 95%CI: 0.45,2.72). Grade ≥ 3 hematological toxicity was 46% in the RIT vs 94% in the ASCT arm (p < 0.001). For ASCT vs RIT grade ≥3 neutropenia occurred in 94% vs 41% of pts (p < 0.001). During follow-up, 4 pts died in remission: 1 AML (RIT), 2 SARS-COV2 infections (RIT) and 1 pneumonia (ASCT). Second cancers occurred in 3 pts after RIT and 7 after ASCT (p = 0.480). Multivariable analysis for PFS indicated POD-24, male sex, LDH and refractory disease as adverse parameters. Subgroup analysis for PFS including gender, age, LDH, POD-24 and extranodal disease show no subgroup favoring RIT nor ASCT. Image: Summary/Conclusion: Even if prematurely interrupted, our study demonstrated no meaningful difference in efficacy between ASCT and RIT, but ASCT was more toxic and more demanding for pts and health service. Both strategies induced a similar and favorable long-term outcome suggesting that consolidation programs milder than ASCT require further investigation in R/R FL.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for the clinical management of patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), raising questions about the optimal care of this patient group. METHODS: This consensus manuscript aims at discussing clinical evidence and providing expert advice on statements related to the management of HMs in the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, an international consortium was established including a steering committee, which prepared six working packages addressing significant clinical questions from the COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and mitigation strategies to specific HMs management in the pandemic. During a virtual consensus meeting, including global experts and lead by the European Society for Medical Oncology and the European Hematology Association, statements were discussed and voted upon. When a consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements to develop consensual clinical guidance. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The expert panel agreed on 33 statements, reflecting a consensus, which will guide clinical decision making for patients with hematological neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hematologic Neoplasms , COVID-19 Testing , Consensus , Hematologic Neoplasms/epidemiology , Hematologic Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , PandemicsABSTRACT
Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a life-threatening condition of high relevance for co-morbid patients, such as those with baseline hematological malignancies (HM). One year after the diagnosis of the first COVID-19 case, at the end of 2020, the first vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were administered to the population, starting with individuals at highest risk of infection. EPICOVIDEHA aims to describe the epidemiology, vaccination strategies and mortality rates from HM patients at risk. Methods We collected clinical and epidemiological data from patients with laboratory-based diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection after partial or complete vaccination. The study was sponsored by the European Hematology Association - Infectious Diseases Working Party. Patients were registered in the EPICOVIDEHA online survey between January 1, 2021 and July 31, 2021 from Europe and United States. Data captured included underlying conditions prior to SARS-CoV-2, HM status and management prior to SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and infection details and mortality. The survey will continue until December 31, 2021. Results Overall, 40 patients have been so far registered, 24 male and 16 females, the vast majority of them aged over 50 years (N=38, 95%). Three quarters of patients were affected by lymphoproliferative malignancies (chronic lymphoid leukemia [CLL] N=14 and non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL] and multiple myeloma [MM] N=8, each), followed by myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (N=4), acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (N=2) and others (chronic myeloid leukemia [CML], acute lymphoid leukemia [ALL], polycythemia vera [PV] and aggressive mastocytosis one of each). Thirty-one patients (77.5%) were receiving active treatment for underlying HM at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection, with 16 of them being on chemotherapy in the month prior to infection. All patients were vaccinated with a median time from vaccine to SARS-CoV-2 infection of 45.5 days (IRQ 19-67.5). Twenty-nine patients received a mRNA vaccine (BioNTech/Pfizer N=28, Moderna COVE N=1), whereas the remaining 11 an inactivated vaccine (Sinovac CoronaVac N=6) and vector-based vaccine (AstraZeneca Oxford N=5). Twenty-three patients were completely vaccinated, of which 22 (97.5%) patients were immunized (a minimum of 15 days following second dose). On the contrary, among 17 patients partially vaccinated, none was immunized. In 9 cases, viral genomes were analyzed (English variant N=7, South Africa variant N=1, Indian variant N=1). Overall, 25/40 patients presented with a severe/critical infection (62.5%), 13 of which (52%) were fully vaccinated and immunized, whereas only 15 (37.5%) were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. Twenty-seven (92.5%) patients were admitted to hospital, 5/27 (18.5%) to ICU, all requiring mechanical ventilation. After a follow-up of 30 day from SARS-CoV-2 infection, 8 patients died (20%), with 7/8 deaths (87.5%) attributable to SARS-CoV-2. There was no difference in overall survival between those patients that received 2 doses of vaccine or 1 dose (figure 1a), as well as no difference being observed between patients with and without lymphoproliferative malignancies (figure 1b), patients that receiving/not receiving active treatment in the last month (figure 1c), or the type of vaccine injected (figure 1d). Conclusions Our survey, involving over 150 Hematology Departments around the world, provides some preliminary insights. The majority of patients who do not respond to vaccination are patients with lymphoproliferative diseases, as can also be observed for other types of vaccination (e.g., flu-vaccination). Dramatically the mortality observed in all patients, although lower than that observed in the pre-vaccination period which in our experience was around 31%, still remains high (20%). Recruitment to this survey continues, and we hope that with larger numbers of cases, more definitive conclusions can be drawn to develop strategies to keep these complex patients safe. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Lop z-Garcia: Celgene: Other: Speaker Honoraria;Abbvie: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants;Janssen: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Advisor, Travel and accommodation grants, Research Funding;Roche: Other: Speaker Honoraria, Travel and accommodation grants;Novonordisk: Other: Speaker Honoraria;Fresenius: Other: Speaker Honoraria. Glenthoej: Novo Nordisk: Honoraria;Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;bluebird bio: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Alexion: Research Funding. Mikulska: Biotest: Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Speakers Bureau;MSD: Speakers Bureau;Gilead: Speakers Bureau;Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Busca: Gilead Sciences: Other: Lecture Honoraria;Merck: Other: Lecture Honoraria;Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Other: Lecture Honoraria;Basilea: Other: Lecture Honoraria;Biotest: Other: Lecture Honoraria;Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Lecture Honoraria;Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Corradini: KiowaKirin;Incyte;Daiichi Sankyo;Janssen;F. Hoffman-La Roche;Kite;Servier: Consultancy;AbbVie, ADC Theraputics, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead/Kite, GSK, Incyte, Janssen, KyowaKirin, Nerviano Medical Science, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Honoraria;AbbVie, ADC Theraputics, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead/Kite, GSK, Incyte, Janssen, KyowaKirin, Nerviano Medical Science, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy;Amgen;Takeda;AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel and accommodations;Novartis;Gilead;Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel and accommodations;BMS: Other: Travel and accommodation;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria;Incyte: Consultancy;Novartis, Janssen, Celgene, BMS, Takeda, Gilead/Kite, Amgen, AbbVie: Other: travel and accomodations. Hoenigl: Gilead, Pfizer, Astellas, Scynexis, and NIH: Research Funding. Klimko: Gilead Science, MSD, Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Gilead Sciences, MSD, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, and Astellas Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Pagliuca: Gentium/Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Gilead, Pfizer, and MSD: Research Funding. Passamonti: Celgene: 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, Speakers Bureau;AbbVie: Speakers Bureau;BMS: 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. Köhler: German Federal Ministry of Research and Education and the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: Other: Support;Miltenyi Biotec GmbH, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, and the Cologne Excellence Cluster on Cellular Stress Responses in Aging-Associated Diseases, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany: Other: Non-financial grants;Akademie für Infektionsmedizin e.V., Ambu GmbH, Astellas Pharma, European Confederation of Medical Mycology, Gilead Sciences, GPR Academy Ruesselsheim, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Noxxon N.V., and University Hospital, LMU Munich: Consultancy, Honoraria. Cornely: Amplyx, Basilea, BMBF, Cidara, DZIF, EU-DG RTD (101037867), F2G, Gilead, Matinas, MedPace, MSD, Mundipharma, Octapharma, Pfizer, Scynexis: Other: Grants or Contracts. Pagano: Gilead Science, MSD, Pfizer, Basilea, Janssen, Novartis, Jazz Pharmaceutical, Cidara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Gilead Sciences, MSD, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma: Speakers Bureau;Menarini: Consultancy.
ABSTRACT
Background: Glofit is a novel, CD20xCD3 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody that provides monovalent binding to CD3 on T cells and bivalent binding to CD20 on B cells. As monotherapy, Glofit has shown promising response rates with manageable safety in R/R B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) patients (pts;[Carlo-Stella et al. EHA 2021]). Because of their distinct and complementary mechanism of action, there is a rationale for combining Glofit with the anti-CD79b-targeted antibody-drug conjugate, Pola. NP39488 (NCT03533283) is a Phase Ib/II, open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation (DE) and expansion study evaluating Glofit + Pola or atezolizumab in R/R B-NHL pts (Hutchings et al. ASH 2019). Here, we report preliminary safety and efficacy data for Glofit + Pola in pts with R/R DLBCL during DE and expansion at the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D). Methods: To mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), a single 1000mg dose of obinutuzumab pre-treatment was administered on Cycle (C) 1 Day (D) 1 alongside step-up dosing (SUD) of Glofit on C1D8 and C1D15. Glofit was subsequently administered at the target dose from C2D1, every 3 weeks up to C12. Pola was administered at 1.8mg/kg on C1D2 and then on D1 of each subsequent cycle up to C6. The primary objective was to establish the RP2D of Glofit in combination with Pola. Results: As of June 10, 2021 (clinical cut-off date [CCOD]), 44 pts were treated with ≥1 cycle;median follow-up was 3.2 months (95% confidence interval: 1.4-3.5). In the first DE cohort, 7 pts had received Glofit at 2.5mg (C1D8)/10mg (C1D15)/10mg (C2D1 onwards) plus Pola. In the second DE cohort, 4 pts received the Glofit target dose of 30mg on C1D15 and this was established as the RP2D. During the expansion phase at RP2D, an additional 34 pts were treated with ≥1 cycle. Of 44 pts, 29 (66%) had histology of R/R DLBCL, 8 (18%) had R/R high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL;2 HGBCL not otherwise specified;5 double-hit DLBCL;1 triple-hit DLBCL) and 7 (16%) had R/R transformed follicular lymphoma. Pts (61% male) had a median age of 65.5 years (range: 29-82) and received a median of two prior lines (range: 1−5). Twenty-eight (64%) pts were refractory to their last therapy;2 pts had not been treated with Glofit at the CCOD. The most frequent adverse event (AE) was CRS (55%;23/42 pts): Grade (Gr) 1 (n=18);Gr 2 (n=7);no Gr ≥3 CRS events were observed (Lee et al. 2019 ASTCT criteria). Of the 7 pts with Gr 2 CRS, 5 were treated with tocilizumab and fluids for hypotension, and 4 pts were treated with low-flow oxygen due to hypoxia. None of the pts required vasopressors or intensive care unit admission. Gr >3 AEs occurred in 52% (n=23) of pts;most commonly, neutropenia (27%) and anemia (23%). For neurological AEs (NAEs), 13 events were reported in 13 patients (29.5%, 13/44 pts), all were limited to Gr 1−2. The most common NAEs were headache and (11%, 5/44 pts) and insomnia (4.5%, 2/44 pts). No immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome-like AEs were reported. Peripheral neuropathy due to Pola was reported in 5/44 pts (11%);all events were Gr 1. Serious AEs occurred in 22 pts (52%);none were CNS or neurological events. One pt experienced fatal COVID-19 pneumonia (not related). Study treatment was discontinued in 2 pts due to AEs (Gr 4 thrombocytopenia, and Gr 3 worsening of pre-existing renal impairment;both events were related to Glofit and Pola). At CCOD 33/44 pts were evaluable for interim (after 2 cycles, 1 target dose of Glofit) or primary (after 8 cycles) response;6/33 pts had experienced progressive disease and discontinued study treatment. Overall response (OR) rate for both dosing cohorts was 73% (24/33) and complete response (CR) rate, per investigator was 51.5% (17/33). Of 7 pts treated with 2.5/10/10mg SUD Glofit, OR and CR rates were both 86% (6/7);durable responses at ≥6 months post-end of treatment were observed. Of 26 pts treated with 2.5/10/30 mg SUD Glofit, OR rate was 73% (19/26) and CR rate was 46% (12/26);11.5% (3/26) pts had stable disease after 2 cycles of therapy. Duration of response and time on study by dosing cohort is shown in Figure. Biomarker and pharmacokinetic data will be provided. Conclusions: Glofit in combination with Pola showed tolerable safety and encouraging preliminary efficacy in R/R DLBCL pts. CRS and NAEs were limited to Gr 1 or 2, no new safety signals were detected for this combination, and the safety profile was consistent with that of the individual drugs. Updated data will be presented. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Hutchings: Genmab: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Celgene: Research Funding;Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding;Incyte: Research Funding;Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding;Novartis: Research Funding. Sureda: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau;Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Bluebird: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Roche: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel;GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Mundipharma: Consultancy;MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Terol: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding;Roche: Consultancy;BMS: Consultancy;Hospital Clinico Valencia: Current Employment;Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel;Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel;Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Research Funding;Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel. Bosch Albareda: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria;Abbvie: Consultancy;AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding;Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding;Kite: Honoraria;Sanofi: Honoraria;Lilly: Honoraria. Corradini: KiowaKirin;Incyte;Daiichi Sankyo;Janssen;F. Hoffman-La Roche;Kite;Servier: Consultancy;AbbVie, ADC Theraputics, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead/Kite, GSK, Incyte, Janssen, KyowaKirin, Nerviano Medical Science, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Honoraria;Amgen;Takeda;AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel and accommodations;Novartis;Gilead;Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel and accommodations;BMS: Other: Travel and accommodation;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria;Incyte: Consultancy;AbbVie, ADC Theraputics, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead/Kite, GSK, Incyte, Janssen, KyowaKirin, Nerviano Medical Science, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy;Novartis, Janssen, Celgene, BMS, Takeda, Gilead/Kite, Amgen, AbbVie: Other: travel and accomodations. Larsen: Novartis: Consultancy;Gilead: Consultancy;Odense University Hospital, Denmark: Current Employment;Celgene: Consultancy;BMS: Consultancy. Rueda Dominguez: Hospital Regional Universitario de Malaga: Current Employment;Roch : Consultancy;Takeda: Consultancy;Gilead: Consultancy;Merck Serono: Consultancy;BMS: Consultancy;MSD: Consultancy. Panchal: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment. Bottos: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Carlile: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company;AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Wang: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment;Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Filézac De L'Étang: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tandon: Roche Products Ltd: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Sellam: Roche: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gritti: Takeda: Consultancy;Roche: Consultancy;Kite Gilead: Consultancy;IQvia: Consultancy;Italfarmaco: Consultancy;Clinigen: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Glofitamab is a full-length, humanized immunoglobulin G1 bispecific antibody with a 2:1 molecular format that facilitates bivalent binding to CD20 on B-cells, and monovalent binding to CD3 on T-cells. Glofitamab redirects T cells to engage and eliminate malignant B cells. Glofitamab is an investigational agent. Polatuzumab vedotin (Polivy) is a CD79b-directed antibody-drug conjugate indicated in combination with bendamustine and a rituximab product for the treatment of adult pts with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, not otherwise specified, after at least two prior therapies.
ABSTRACT
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.