Open-label, phase 2 study of blinatumomab after frontline R-chemotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed, high-risk DLBCL

This open-label, multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study assessed the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab consolidation therapy in adult patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; International Prognostic Index 3–5 and/or double-/triple-hit or double MYC/BCL-2 expressors) who achieved complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) following run-in with 6 cycles of R-chemotherapy (NCT03023878). Of the 47 patients enrolled, 28 received blinatumomab. Five patients (17.9%) experienced grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse events of interest (neutropenia, n = 4; infection, n = 1). Two deaths reported at the end of the study were unrelated to treatment with blinatumomab (disease progression, n = 1; infection, n = 1). 3/4 patients with PR and 4/4 patients with SD after R-chemotherapy achieved CR following blinatumomab. Consolidation with blinatumomab in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk DLBCL who did not progress under R-chemotherapy was better tolerated than in previous studies where blinatumomab was used for treatment of patients with lymphoma

Role of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphomas in the CART era

Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CART) has rapidly been adopted as the standard third-line therapy to treat aggressive B-cell lymphomas (ABCL) after failure of second-line therapy despite the lack of direct comparisons with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT)-based strategies. Using the Grupo Español de Trasplante y Terapia Celular (GETH-TC) registry, we selected patients with the following characteristics: CART or alloHCT performed between 2016 and 2021; ≥18 years old; ABCL diagnosis; ≥2 lines of therapy; and either anti-CD19 CART or alloHCT as therapy at relapse. The analysis included a total of 316 (CART = 215, alloHCT = 101) patients. Median follow-up was 15 and 36 months for the CART and alloHCT cohorts, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, CART was confirmed to be similar to alloHCT for the primary study endpoint (progression-free survival) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, CI95%:0.56–1.51, p = 0.75). Furthermore, when the analysis was limited to only patients with chemo-sensitive diseases (complete and partial response) at infusion (CART = 26, alloHCT=93), no differences were reported (progression-free survival at month +18: 65% versus 55%, p = 0.59). However, CART had lower non-relapse mortality (HR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13–0.85, p = 0.02). Given the lower toxicity and similar survival outcomes, these results suggest the use of CART before alloHCT.We thank CERCA Programme/Generalitat de Catalunya for institutional support.Peer reviewe

Incorporating genetic and clinical data into the prediction of thromboembolism risk in patients with lymphoma

Background: The incorporation of genetic variables into risk scores for predicting venous thromboembolic events (VTE) could improve their capacity to identify those patients for whom thromboprophylaxis would be most beneficial. Proof-of-concept of this is provided by the TiC-ONCO score for predicting the risk of VTE in patients with solid tumours. Our aim was to develop a similarly improved tool-the TiC-LYMPHO score-for predicting VTE in patients with lymphoma. Methods: In a retrospective observational study of 208 patients with lymphoma, 31 (14.9%) were found to have experienced an episode of VTE either at the time of diagnosis or over the next 6 months. Clinical variables associated with VTE, determined via logistic regression analysis, plus the same genetic variables included in the TiC-ONCO score, were used to build the TiC-LYMPHO score algorithm. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and AUC of the TiC-LYMPHO, the Khorana and ThroLy scores were compared in the same population. Results: The TiC-LYMPHO score showed a significantly higher AUC, sensitivity and NPV (0.783, 95.35% and 97.98% respectively) than the other scores. The ThroLy score showed a significantly higher specificity (96.43% vs. 54.49%; p < 0.0001) and PPV (37.50% vs. 26.36%; p = 0.0147) than the TiC-LYMPHO score, whereas its AUC, sensitivity and NPV were significantly lower (0.579, 19.35% and 86.48%, respectively). Conclusion: These results show that by incorporating genetic and clinical data into VTE risk assessment, the TiC-LYMPHO score can categorize patients with lymphoma better in terms of their risk of VTE and allow individualized thromboprophylaxis to be prescribed