B Cell Lymphoma

Key clinical point: Loncastuximab tesirine (Lonca) shows long-term efficacy and a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 7.8 months, 48.3% of patients achieved an overall response, with a complete response being achieved by 24.8% of patients, 44% and 31% of whom remained event-free for ≥ 1 year and ≥ 2 years, respectively. The median overall and progression-free survival durations were 9.5 and 4.9 months, respectively. No new safety concerns were detected.

Study details: This long-term follow-up analysis of the phase 2 LOTIS-2 study included 145 heavily pretreated adult patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who received Lonca once every 3 weeks (0.15 mg/kg for 2 cycles; 0.075 mg/kg for subsequent cycles).

Disclosures: This study was funded by ADC Therapeutics SA. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or speakers for or receiving research funding or honoraria from various sources, including ADC Therapeutics. Four authors declared being employees of and holding equity and stock options in ADC Therapeutics.

Source: Caimi PF et al. Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Long-term efficacy and safety from the phase 2 LOTIS-2 study. Haematologica. 2023 (Aug 31). doi: 10.3324/haematol.2023.283459

Key clinical point: Loncastuximab tesirine (Lonca) shows long-term efficacy and a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 7.8 months, 48.3% of patients achieved an overall response, with a complete response being achieved by 24.8% of patients, 44% and 31% of whom remained event-free for ≥ 1 year and ≥ 2 years, respectively. The median overall and progression-free survival durations were 9.5 and 4.9 months, respectively. No new safety concerns were detected.

Study details: This long-term follow-up analysis of the phase 2 LOTIS-2 study included 145 heavily pretreated adult patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who received Lonca once every 3 weeks (0.15 mg/kg for 2 cycles; 0.075 mg/kg for subsequent cycles).

Disclosures: This study was funded by ADC Therapeutics SA. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or speakers for or receiving research funding or honoraria from various sources, including ADC Therapeutics. Four authors declared being employees of and holding equity and stock options in ADC Therapeutics.

Source: Caimi PF et al. Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Long-term efficacy and safety from the phase 2 LOTIS-2 study. Haematologica. 2023 (Aug 31). doi: 10.3324/haematol.2023.283459

Key clinical point: Loncastuximab tesirine (Lonca) shows long-term efficacy and a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: At a median follow-up of 7.8 months, 48.3% of patients achieved an overall response, with a complete response being achieved by 24.8% of patients, 44% and 31% of whom remained event-free for ≥ 1 year and ≥ 2 years, respectively. The median overall and progression-free survival durations were 9.5 and 4.9 months, respectively. No new safety concerns were detected.

Study details: This long-term follow-up analysis of the phase 2 LOTIS-2 study included 145 heavily pretreated adult patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who received Lonca once every 3 weeks (0.15 mg/kg for 2 cycles; 0.075 mg/kg for subsequent cycles).

Disclosures: This study was funded by ADC Therapeutics SA. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or speakers for or receiving research funding or honoraria from various sources, including ADC Therapeutics. Four authors declared being employees of and holding equity and stock options in ADC Therapeutics.

Source: Caimi PF et al. Loncastuximab tesirine in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Long-term efficacy and safety from the phase 2 LOTIS-2 study. Haematologica. 2023 (Aug 31). doi: 10.3324/haematol.2023.283459

Key clinical point: Parsaclisib led to clinically meaningful improvements and a manageable safety profile in Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi)-naive patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Major finding: Among BTKi-naive patients who received parsaclisib once daily, 70.1% (95% CI 58.6%-80.0%) and 15.6% (95% CI 8.3%-25.6%) of patients achieved an objective response and a complete response, respectively, with the median duration of response being 12.1 (95% CI 9.0-not evaluable) months. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were low grade and manageable by dose interruptions or reductions.

Study details: This phase 2 CITADEL-205 study included adult patients with relapsed or refractory MCL previously treated with 1-3 systemic therapies, with (n = 53) or without (n = 108) prior BTKi treatment, who received 20 mg parsaclisib once daily for 8 weeks followed by either 20 mg parsaclisib once weekly or 2.5 mg parsaclisib once daily.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or board members for or receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel and accommodation expenses from Incyte and others. Four authors declared being employees of and owning stocks in Incyte.

Source: Zinzani PL et al. Parsaclisib, a PI3Kδ inhibitor, in relapsed and refractory mantle cell lymphoma (CITADEL-205): A phase 2 study. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;62:102131 (Aug 10). doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102131

Key clinical point: Parsaclisib led to clinically meaningful improvements and a manageable safety profile in Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi)-naive patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Major finding: Among BTKi-naive patients who received parsaclisib once daily, 70.1% (95% CI 58.6%-80.0%) and 15.6% (95% CI 8.3%-25.6%) of patients achieved an objective response and a complete response, respectively, with the median duration of response being 12.1 (95% CI 9.0-not evaluable) months. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were low grade and manageable by dose interruptions or reductions.

Study details: This phase 2 CITADEL-205 study included adult patients with relapsed or refractory MCL previously treated with 1-3 systemic therapies, with (n = 53) or without (n = 108) prior BTKi treatment, who received 20 mg parsaclisib once daily for 8 weeks followed by either 20 mg parsaclisib once weekly or 2.5 mg parsaclisib once daily.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or board members for or receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel and accommodation expenses from Incyte and others. Four authors declared being employees of and owning stocks in Incyte.

Source: Zinzani PL et al. Parsaclisib, a PI3Kδ inhibitor, in relapsed and refractory mantle cell lymphoma (CITADEL-205): A phase 2 study. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;62:102131 (Aug 10). doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102131

Key clinical point: Parsaclisib led to clinically meaningful improvements and a manageable safety profile in Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi)-naive patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Major finding: Among BTKi-naive patients who received parsaclisib once daily, 70.1% (95% CI 58.6%-80.0%) and 15.6% (95% CI 8.3%-25.6%) of patients achieved an objective response and a complete response, respectively, with the median duration of response being 12.1 (95% CI 9.0-not evaluable) months. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were low grade and manageable by dose interruptions or reductions.

Study details: This phase 2 CITADEL-205 study included adult patients with relapsed or refractory MCL previously treated with 1-3 systemic therapies, with (n = 53) or without (n = 108) prior BTKi treatment, who received 20 mg parsaclisib once daily for 8 weeks followed by either 20 mg parsaclisib once weekly or 2.5 mg parsaclisib once daily.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Some authors declared serving as consultants, advisors, or board members for or receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel and accommodation expenses from Incyte and others. Four authors declared being employees of and owning stocks in Incyte.

Source: Zinzani PL et al. Parsaclisib, a PI3Kδ inhibitor, in relapsed and refractory mantle cell lymphoma (CITADEL-205): A phase 2 study. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;62:102131 (Aug 10). doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102131

FROM SOHO 2023

It may be possible for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to safely skip their interim PET-CT scan (PET2) following two cycles of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.

These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.

Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.

However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.

Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.

In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.

In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.

Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.

During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.

Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”

In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM SOHO 2023

It may be possible for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to safely skip their interim PET-CT scan (PET2) following two cycles of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.

These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.

Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.

However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.

Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.

In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.

In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.

Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.

During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.

Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”

In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM SOHO 2023

It may be possible for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to safely skip their interim PET-CT scan (PET2) following two cycles of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.

These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.

Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.

However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.

Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.

In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.

In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.

Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.

During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.

Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”

In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The rapid rise of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T-cell) therapy has allowed hematologists to make great strides in treating aggressive cases of multiple myeloma and several types of lymphoma and leukemia. But patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia in adults, have been left out.

Now there are encouraging signs that CLL could join the list of blood cancers that can be effectively treated by CAR T therapy. On another front, bispecific antibodies – which just received FDA approval to treat B-cell lymphoma – are being tested as treatments for CLL.

“These are the two immunotherapies that have the most potential right now,” said Ohio State University, Columbus, hematologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, in an interview. She went on to say that these treatments could be a boon for patients with CLL who don’t respond well to targeted therapy drugs or are so young that those medications may not retain effectiveness throughout the patients’ lifespans.

As the American Cancer Society explains, CAR T therapy is a way to get T cells “to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells.” The cells are then returned to the patient.

As the National Cancer Institute says, “If all goes as planned, the CAR T cells will continue to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill any cancer cells that harbor the target antigen on their surfaces.”

According to Dr. Rogers, CAR T therapy is less toxic than stem cell transplantation, a related treatment. That means older people can better tolerate it, including many CLL patients in their late 60s and beyond, she said. (Side effects of CAR T therapy include cytokine release syndrome, nervous system impairment, and weakening of the immune system.)

Thus far, CAR T therapy has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat lymphomas, some forms of leukemia, and multiple myeloma. “Despite the excitement around these therapies, they lead to long-term survival in fewer than half of the patients treated,” cautions the National Cancer Institute, which also notes their high cost: more than $450,000 in one case.

CAR T therapy is not FDA-approved for CLL. “There are many reasons why CAR T is less effective in patients with CLL versus other lymphomas,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in an interview. “For one, many patients with heavily pretreated CLL – prior to any use of CAR T – have mutations that are known to be difficult to treat. Dysfunctional T cells are also common in patients with CLL, and there’s often a lower number of available T-cells to manufacture.”

The results of a phase 1/2 trial released in August 2023 offered new insight about CAR T for CLL. In the open-label trial reported in The Lancet, 117 U.S. patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma underwent a form of CAR T therapy called lisocabtagene maraleucel after failing treatment with two lines of therapy, including a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Among 49 patients at a specific dose, “the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18%,” the researchers reported. A total of 51 patients in the entire study died.

The rate of undetectable minimal residual disease blood was 64%. That rate is impressive, said University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leukemia specialist Nitin Jain, MD, in an interview. It’s not nearly as high as researchers have seen in other disease settings, but it’s “a good, good thing for these patients. We’ll have to see in the longer follow-up how these patients fare 2, 3, or 4 years down the line.”

Dr. Rogers, the Ohio physician, said doctors had hoped durable benefit in the Lancet study would be more impressive. An important factor limiting its value may be the aggressiveness of the disease in patients who have already failed several treatments, she said. “The efficacy of CAR T might be improved by giving it as an earlier line of therapy before the CLL has become this aggressive. But it’s difficult to propose that you should use this before a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor or venetoclax because it’s expensive and difficult.”

What’s next for CART T research in CLL? Understanding the best timing for treatment will be key, Dr. Rogers said.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Greenberger predicted that “we will begin to see CAR T explored in CLL patients whose disease has a high risk of failing approved agents, such as Bruton´s tyrosine kinase and B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors. However, CLL patients may still receive prior therapy with more effective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase or B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors in the future before using CAR T. This will likely be heightened as more Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitors become generic in the next 5 to 10 years and, hopefully, less expensive than CAR T therapy.”

In the big picture, he said, “treatment of CLL with CAR T is possible, but still needs significant improvements if it is to become a mainline therapy in the future.”

CAR T therapy remains available via clinical trials, and Dr. Rogers said it is “currently an important option for patients whose CLL has become resistant to standard targeted agents. We can certainly expect to extend someone’s expected survival by years if they have a favorable response.” She acknowledged that the cost is quite high, but noted that targeted therapies are also expensive, especially over the long term. They can run to $10,000-$20,000 a month. Bispecific antibodies are also being explored as potential therapy for CLL. “They’re really exciting,” Dr. Rogers said, with the potential to spur responses similar to those from CAR T therapy.

A 2022 review described these drugs as “molecules that combine antibody-directed therapies with cellular mediated immunotherapy.” The FDA explains that “by targeting two antigens or epitopes, they can cause multiple physiological or antitumor responses, which may be independent or connected.”

According to Dr. Greenberger, many bispecifics are in clinical trials now. However, “in the context of CLL, actually, the data is actually very, very limited. The development is just starting, and there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials ongoing.”

But data from lymphoma trials are encouraging, he said, and bispecifics “are actually looking as good as CAR T in some settings.”

Regimens can be a challenge for patients taking bispecifics, Dr. Greenberger said. “Repeat dosing with a step-up dosing approach to start is typically required when treating lymphoma.”

On the other hand, Dr. Rogers noted that antibody treatment can be easier for hematologists to arrange than CAR T therapy and stem cell transplants. “From an administrative side, there’s not as many things you need to have set up. So it’s able to be administered in a wider variety of settings,” she said,

Bispecific side effects include cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity as well as infusion reactions, Dr. Greenberger said, adding that “I would not exclude cost as a challenge.”

According to Formulary Watch, the bispecific Columvi (glofitamab-gxbm), which recently gained FDA approval to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, is estimated to cost $350,000 for an 8.5-month round of treatment. Reuters reported that the bispecific Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs), which just received FDA approval to treat multiple myeloma, is estimated to cost $270,000-$360,000 for 6-8 months of treatment.

For now, bispecific trials “are mostly now reserved for patients with CLL who become resistant to our current standard targeted agents,” Dr. Rogers said. “It’s a little unclear if you can do CAR T therapy first and then bispecifics, or bispecifics and then CAR T therapy.”

What’s coming next for bispecifics? “On the horizon is better ease of administration, which is already being addressed by subcutaneous dosing for some bispecifics in lymphomas,” Dr. Greenberger said. “There’s also the possibility of combining bispecifics with conventional therapy.”

Dr. Rogers discloses ties with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, and LOXO@Lilly. Dr. Greenberger discloses employment with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which supports academic grants and a venture philanthropy via the Therapy Acceleration Program.

Dr. Jain reports ties with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and numerous other disclosures.
 

The rapid rise of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T-cell) therapy has allowed hematologists to make great strides in treating aggressive cases of multiple myeloma and several types of lymphoma and leukemia. But patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia in adults, have been left out.

Now there are encouraging signs that CLL could join the list of blood cancers that can be effectively treated by CAR T therapy. On another front, bispecific antibodies – which just received FDA approval to treat B-cell lymphoma – are being tested as treatments for CLL.

“These are the two immunotherapies that have the most potential right now,” said Ohio State University, Columbus, hematologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, in an interview. She went on to say that these treatments could be a boon for patients with CLL who don’t respond well to targeted therapy drugs or are so young that those medications may not retain effectiveness throughout the patients’ lifespans.

As the American Cancer Society explains, CAR T therapy is a way to get T cells “to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells.” The cells are then returned to the patient.

As the National Cancer Institute says, “If all goes as planned, the CAR T cells will continue to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill any cancer cells that harbor the target antigen on their surfaces.”

According to Dr. Rogers, CAR T therapy is less toxic than stem cell transplantation, a related treatment. That means older people can better tolerate it, including many CLL patients in their late 60s and beyond, she said. (Side effects of CAR T therapy include cytokine release syndrome, nervous system impairment, and weakening of the immune system.)

Thus far, CAR T therapy has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat lymphomas, some forms of leukemia, and multiple myeloma. “Despite the excitement around these therapies, they lead to long-term survival in fewer than half of the patients treated,” cautions the National Cancer Institute, which also notes their high cost: more than $450,000 in one case.

CAR T therapy is not FDA-approved for CLL. “There are many reasons why CAR T is less effective in patients with CLL versus other lymphomas,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in an interview. “For one, many patients with heavily pretreated CLL – prior to any use of CAR T – have mutations that are known to be difficult to treat. Dysfunctional T cells are also common in patients with CLL, and there’s often a lower number of available T-cells to manufacture.”

The results of a phase 1/2 trial released in August 2023 offered new insight about CAR T for CLL. In the open-label trial reported in The Lancet, 117 U.S. patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma underwent a form of CAR T therapy called lisocabtagene maraleucel after failing treatment with two lines of therapy, including a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Among 49 patients at a specific dose, “the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18%,” the researchers reported. A total of 51 patients in the entire study died.

The rate of undetectable minimal residual disease blood was 64%. That rate is impressive, said University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leukemia specialist Nitin Jain, MD, in an interview. It’s not nearly as high as researchers have seen in other disease settings, but it’s “a good, good thing for these patients. We’ll have to see in the longer follow-up how these patients fare 2, 3, or 4 years down the line.”

Dr. Rogers, the Ohio physician, said doctors had hoped durable benefit in the Lancet study would be more impressive. An important factor limiting its value may be the aggressiveness of the disease in patients who have already failed several treatments, she said. “The efficacy of CAR T might be improved by giving it as an earlier line of therapy before the CLL has become this aggressive. But it’s difficult to propose that you should use this before a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor or venetoclax because it’s expensive and difficult.”

What’s next for CART T research in CLL? Understanding the best timing for treatment will be key, Dr. Rogers said.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Greenberger predicted that “we will begin to see CAR T explored in CLL patients whose disease has a high risk of failing approved agents, such as Bruton´s tyrosine kinase and B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors. However, CLL patients may still receive prior therapy with more effective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase or B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors in the future before using CAR T. This will likely be heightened as more Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitors become generic in the next 5 to 10 years and, hopefully, less expensive than CAR T therapy.”

In the big picture, he said, “treatment of CLL with CAR T is possible, but still needs significant improvements if it is to become a mainline therapy in the future.”

CAR T therapy remains available via clinical trials, and Dr. Rogers said it is “currently an important option for patients whose CLL has become resistant to standard targeted agents. We can certainly expect to extend someone’s expected survival by years if they have a favorable response.” She acknowledged that the cost is quite high, but noted that targeted therapies are also expensive, especially over the long term. They can run to $10,000-$20,000 a month. Bispecific antibodies are also being explored as potential therapy for CLL. “They’re really exciting,” Dr. Rogers said, with the potential to spur responses similar to those from CAR T therapy.

A 2022 review described these drugs as “molecules that combine antibody-directed therapies with cellular mediated immunotherapy.” The FDA explains that “by targeting two antigens or epitopes, they can cause multiple physiological or antitumor responses, which may be independent or connected.”

According to Dr. Greenberger, many bispecifics are in clinical trials now. However, “in the context of CLL, actually, the data is actually very, very limited. The development is just starting, and there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials ongoing.”

But data from lymphoma trials are encouraging, he said, and bispecifics “are actually looking as good as CAR T in some settings.”

Regimens can be a challenge for patients taking bispecifics, Dr. Greenberger said. “Repeat dosing with a step-up dosing approach to start is typically required when treating lymphoma.”

On the other hand, Dr. Rogers noted that antibody treatment can be easier for hematologists to arrange than CAR T therapy and stem cell transplants. “From an administrative side, there’s not as many things you need to have set up. So it’s able to be administered in a wider variety of settings,” she said,

Bispecific side effects include cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity as well as infusion reactions, Dr. Greenberger said, adding that “I would not exclude cost as a challenge.”

According to Formulary Watch, the bispecific Columvi (glofitamab-gxbm), which recently gained FDA approval to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, is estimated to cost $350,000 for an 8.5-month round of treatment. Reuters reported that the bispecific Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs), which just received FDA approval to treat multiple myeloma, is estimated to cost $270,000-$360,000 for 6-8 months of treatment.

For now, bispecific trials “are mostly now reserved for patients with CLL who become resistant to our current standard targeted agents,” Dr. Rogers said. “It’s a little unclear if you can do CAR T therapy first and then bispecifics, or bispecifics and then CAR T therapy.”

What’s coming next for bispecifics? “On the horizon is better ease of administration, which is already being addressed by subcutaneous dosing for some bispecifics in lymphomas,” Dr. Greenberger said. “There’s also the possibility of combining bispecifics with conventional therapy.”

Dr. Rogers discloses ties with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, and LOXO@Lilly. Dr. Greenberger discloses employment with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which supports academic grants and a venture philanthropy via the Therapy Acceleration Program.

Dr. Jain reports ties with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and numerous other disclosures.
 

The rapid rise of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T-cell) therapy has allowed hematologists to make great strides in treating aggressive cases of multiple myeloma and several types of lymphoma and leukemia. But patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), the most common leukemia in adults, have been left out.

Now there are encouraging signs that CLL could join the list of blood cancers that can be effectively treated by CAR T therapy. On another front, bispecific antibodies – which just received FDA approval to treat B-cell lymphoma – are being tested as treatments for CLL.

“These are the two immunotherapies that have the most potential right now,” said Ohio State University, Columbus, hematologist Kerry A. Rogers, MD, in an interview. She went on to say that these treatments could be a boon for patients with CLL who don’t respond well to targeted therapy drugs or are so young that those medications may not retain effectiveness throughout the patients’ lifespans.

As the American Cancer Society explains, CAR T therapy is a way to get T cells “to fight cancer by changing them in the lab so they can find and destroy cancer cells.” The cells are then returned to the patient.

As the National Cancer Institute says, “If all goes as planned, the CAR T cells will continue to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill any cancer cells that harbor the target antigen on their surfaces.”

According to Dr. Rogers, CAR T therapy is less toxic than stem cell transplantation, a related treatment. That means older people can better tolerate it, including many CLL patients in their late 60s and beyond, she said. (Side effects of CAR T therapy include cytokine release syndrome, nervous system impairment, and weakening of the immune system.)

Thus far, CAR T therapy has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat lymphomas, some forms of leukemia, and multiple myeloma. “Despite the excitement around these therapies, they lead to long-term survival in fewer than half of the patients treated,” cautions the National Cancer Institute, which also notes their high cost: more than $450,000 in one case.

CAR T therapy is not FDA-approved for CLL. “There are many reasons why CAR T is less effective in patients with CLL versus other lymphomas,” said Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief scientific officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, in an interview. “For one, many patients with heavily pretreated CLL – prior to any use of CAR T – have mutations that are known to be difficult to treat. Dysfunctional T cells are also common in patients with CLL, and there’s often a lower number of available T-cells to manufacture.”

The results of a phase 1/2 trial released in August 2023 offered new insight about CAR T for CLL. In the open-label trial reported in The Lancet, 117 U.S. patients with CLL or small lymphocytic lymphoma underwent a form of CAR T therapy called lisocabtagene maraleucel after failing treatment with two lines of therapy, including a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Among 49 patients at a specific dose, “the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18%,” the researchers reported. A total of 51 patients in the entire study died.

The rate of undetectable minimal residual disease blood was 64%. That rate is impressive, said University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center leukemia specialist Nitin Jain, MD, in an interview. It’s not nearly as high as researchers have seen in other disease settings, but it’s “a good, good thing for these patients. We’ll have to see in the longer follow-up how these patients fare 2, 3, or 4 years down the line.”

Dr. Rogers, the Ohio physician, said doctors had hoped durable benefit in the Lancet study would be more impressive. An important factor limiting its value may be the aggressiveness of the disease in patients who have already failed several treatments, she said. “The efficacy of CAR T might be improved by giving it as an earlier line of therapy before the CLL has become this aggressive. But it’s difficult to propose that you should use this before a Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitor or venetoclax because it’s expensive and difficult.”

What’s next for CART T research in CLL? Understanding the best timing for treatment will be key, Dr. Rogers said.

The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s Dr. Greenberger predicted that “we will begin to see CAR T explored in CLL patients whose disease has a high risk of failing approved agents, such as Bruton´s tyrosine kinase and B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors. However, CLL patients may still receive prior therapy with more effective Bruton’s tyrosine kinase or B cell lymphoma 2 inhibitors in the future before using CAR T. This will likely be heightened as more Bruton´s tyrosine kinase inhibitors become generic in the next 5 to 10 years and, hopefully, less expensive than CAR T therapy.”

In the big picture, he said, “treatment of CLL with CAR T is possible, but still needs significant improvements if it is to become a mainline therapy in the future.”

CAR T therapy remains available via clinical trials, and Dr. Rogers said it is “currently an important option for patients whose CLL has become resistant to standard targeted agents. We can certainly expect to extend someone’s expected survival by years if they have a favorable response.” She acknowledged that the cost is quite high, but noted that targeted therapies are also expensive, especially over the long term. They can run to $10,000-$20,000 a month. Bispecific antibodies are also being explored as potential therapy for CLL. “They’re really exciting,” Dr. Rogers said, with the potential to spur responses similar to those from CAR T therapy.

A 2022 review described these drugs as “molecules that combine antibody-directed therapies with cellular mediated immunotherapy.” The FDA explains that “by targeting two antigens or epitopes, they can cause multiple physiological or antitumor responses, which may be independent or connected.”

According to Dr. Greenberger, many bispecifics are in clinical trials now. However, “in the context of CLL, actually, the data is actually very, very limited. The development is just starting, and there are phase 1 and phase 2 trials ongoing.”

But data from lymphoma trials are encouraging, he said, and bispecifics “are actually looking as good as CAR T in some settings.”

Regimens can be a challenge for patients taking bispecifics, Dr. Greenberger said. “Repeat dosing with a step-up dosing approach to start is typically required when treating lymphoma.”

On the other hand, Dr. Rogers noted that antibody treatment can be easier for hematologists to arrange than CAR T therapy and stem cell transplants. “From an administrative side, there’s not as many things you need to have set up. So it’s able to be administered in a wider variety of settings,” she said,

Bispecific side effects include cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity as well as infusion reactions, Dr. Greenberger said, adding that “I would not exclude cost as a challenge.”

According to Formulary Watch, the bispecific Columvi (glofitamab-gxbm), which recently gained FDA approval to treat diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, is estimated to cost $350,000 for an 8.5-month round of treatment. Reuters reported that the bispecific Talvey (talquetamab-tgvs), which just received FDA approval to treat multiple myeloma, is estimated to cost $270,000-$360,000 for 6-8 months of treatment.

For now, bispecific trials “are mostly now reserved for patients with CLL who become resistant to our current standard targeted agents,” Dr. Rogers said. “It’s a little unclear if you can do CAR T therapy first and then bispecifics, or bispecifics and then CAR T therapy.”

What’s coming next for bispecifics? “On the horizon is better ease of administration, which is already being addressed by subcutaneous dosing for some bispecifics in lymphomas,” Dr. Greenberger said. “There’s also the possibility of combining bispecifics with conventional therapy.”

Dr. Rogers discloses ties with Genentech, AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, and LOXO@Lilly. Dr. Greenberger discloses employment with the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, which supports academic grants and a venture philanthropy via the Therapy Acceleration Program.

Dr. Jain reports ties with Pharmacyclics, AbbVie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and numerous other disclosures.
 

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is characterized by t(11;14) and cyclin D1 overexpression. It is also known to be clinically heterogenous, with disease presentations ranging from indolent to aggressive. Baseline risk can be determined on the basis of a combination of clinical and pathologic features. A key prognostic tool, for example, is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index-Combined (MIPI-c), which integrates the standard MIPI clinical factors (age, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase, and leukocyte count) with estimates of proliferation (Ki-67).¹ Other features, including the presence of TP53 alterations, have also been associated with poor outcomes, even with intensive therapy.²

Recently, a study aimed to further refine prognostication in MCL in order to identify high-risk patients that may be more likely to benefit from novel treatment strategies (Scheubeck et al). This retrospective study included 684 patients with MCL from the MCL-Younger and MCL-Elderly trials with evaluable data for Ki-67 or p53 expression (a surrogate for TP53 alterations). Patients were classified as having high-risk disease on the basis of a high-risk MIPI-c or p53 expression > 50% or as having low-risk disease on the basis of low, low-intermediate, or high-intermediate MIPI-c and p53 expression ≤ 50%. Patients with high-risk disease had significantly shorter median failure-free survival (1.1 vs 5.6 years; P < .0001) and overall survival (2.2 vs 13.2 years; P < .0001) compared with those with low-risk disease. The differences were confirmed in two validation cohorts from the Italian MCL0208 and Nordic-MCL4 trials. These data highlight the poor outcomes of conventional therapy in patients with high-risk MCL. Evaluation of novel approaches should be considered in these patients.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have been promising options for patients with MCL, including those with high-risk features. Acalabrutinib is a second-generation covalent BTK inhibitor that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients who have received at least one prior line of therapy. The final results of the single-arm, phase 2 ACE-LY-004 study recently demonstrated long-term safety and efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL (Le Gouill et al). The overall and complete response rates were 81.5% (95% CI 73.5%-87.9%) and 47.6% (95% CI 38.5%-56.7%), respectively. After a 38.1-month median follow-up, the median duration of response and progression-free survival were 28.6 months (95% CI 17.5-39.1) and 22.0 months (95% CI 16.6-33.3), respectively. Responses were also seen in patients with high-risk features, including blastoid morphology, high-risk MIPI score, and high Ki-67. No new safety signals were observed. This study confirms the role of BTK inhibitors in MCL and providers longer-term estimates of response. Evaluation of BTK inhibitors in earlier lines of therapy and in combination with other agents are ongoing.

Although the majority of patients with MCL will have favorable responses to initial therapy, those with high-risk features, particularly TP53 aberrations, have poor outcomes with standard approaches. Despite a growing number of treatment options in the relapsed setting, such as targeted therapies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, relapses remain common. Allogenic stem cell transplantation can be associated with prolonged response for patients with relapsed MCL, though it has the potential for significant treatment-associated toxicity.

Recently, prolonged follow-up of a retrospective cohort of patients with MCL, including a subset with TP53 aberrations, was reported (Lew et al). Thirty-six patients with MCL were included, including 13 with TP53-mutated disease. A subset of patients (61%) received an allogeneic transplant in first remission. The estimated overall survival rates after allogenic transplant were 56% (95% CI 36%-72%) at 10 years for the overall cohort and 59% (95% CI 21%-75%) at 4 years for patients with TP53-mutated disease at median follow-ups of 10.8 and 4.2 years, respectively. No relapses were observed in the TP53-mutated subset beyond 6 months after transplantation. These data suggest a potentially curative option for patients with high-risk MCL. Given the availability of CAR T-cell therapy, the optimal timing of allogenic stem cell transplant has become less clear for patients with TP53-mutant disease. Although this study was small and retrospective, these data are encouraging for patients with high-risk disease.

Additional References

1.            Hoster E, Rosenwald A, Berger F, et al. Prognostic value of Ki-67 index, cytology, and growth pattern in mantle-cell lymphoma: Results from randomized trials of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1386-1394. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.8387

2.            Eskelund CW, Dahl C, Hansen JW, et al. TP53 mutations identify younger mantle cell lymphoma patients who do not benefit from intensive chemoimmunotherapy. Blood. 2017;130:1903-1910. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-77973

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is characterized by t(11;14) and cyclin D1 overexpression. It is also known to be clinically heterogenous, with disease presentations ranging from indolent to aggressive. Baseline risk can be determined on the basis of a combination of clinical and pathologic features. A key prognostic tool, for example, is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index-Combined (MIPI-c), which integrates the standard MIPI clinical factors (age, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase, and leukocyte count) with estimates of proliferation (Ki-67).¹ Other features, including the presence of TP53 alterations, have also been associated with poor outcomes, even with intensive therapy.²

Recently, a study aimed to further refine prognostication in MCL in order to identify high-risk patients that may be more likely to benefit from novel treatment strategies (Scheubeck et al). This retrospective study included 684 patients with MCL from the MCL-Younger and MCL-Elderly trials with evaluable data for Ki-67 or p53 expression (a surrogate for TP53 alterations). Patients were classified as having high-risk disease on the basis of a high-risk MIPI-c or p53 expression > 50% or as having low-risk disease on the basis of low, low-intermediate, or high-intermediate MIPI-c and p53 expression ≤ 50%. Patients with high-risk disease had significantly shorter median failure-free survival (1.1 vs 5.6 years; P < .0001) and overall survival (2.2 vs 13.2 years; P < .0001) compared with those with low-risk disease. The differences were confirmed in two validation cohorts from the Italian MCL0208 and Nordic-MCL4 trials. These data highlight the poor outcomes of conventional therapy in patients with high-risk MCL. Evaluation of novel approaches should be considered in these patients.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have been promising options for patients with MCL, including those with high-risk features. Acalabrutinib is a second-generation covalent BTK inhibitor that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients who have received at least one prior line of therapy. The final results of the single-arm, phase 2 ACE-LY-004 study recently demonstrated long-term safety and efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL (Le Gouill et al). The overall and complete response rates were 81.5% (95% CI 73.5%-87.9%) and 47.6% (95% CI 38.5%-56.7%), respectively. After a 38.1-month median follow-up, the median duration of response and progression-free survival were 28.6 months (95% CI 17.5-39.1) and 22.0 months (95% CI 16.6-33.3), respectively. Responses were also seen in patients with high-risk features, including blastoid morphology, high-risk MIPI score, and high Ki-67. No new safety signals were observed. This study confirms the role of BTK inhibitors in MCL and providers longer-term estimates of response. Evaluation of BTK inhibitors in earlier lines of therapy and in combination with other agents are ongoing.

Although the majority of patients with MCL will have favorable responses to initial therapy, those with high-risk features, particularly TP53 aberrations, have poor outcomes with standard approaches. Despite a growing number of treatment options in the relapsed setting, such as targeted therapies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, relapses remain common. Allogenic stem cell transplantation can be associated with prolonged response for patients with relapsed MCL, though it has the potential for significant treatment-associated toxicity.

Recently, prolonged follow-up of a retrospective cohort of patients with MCL, including a subset with TP53 aberrations, was reported (Lew et al). Thirty-six patients with MCL were included, including 13 with TP53-mutated disease. A subset of patients (61%) received an allogeneic transplant in first remission. The estimated overall survival rates after allogenic transplant were 56% (95% CI 36%-72%) at 10 years for the overall cohort and 59% (95% CI 21%-75%) at 4 years for patients with TP53-mutated disease at median follow-ups of 10.8 and 4.2 years, respectively. No relapses were observed in the TP53-mutated subset beyond 6 months after transplantation. These data suggest a potentially curative option for patients with high-risk MCL. Given the availability of CAR T-cell therapy, the optimal timing of allogenic stem cell transplant has become less clear for patients with TP53-mutant disease. Although this study was small and retrospective, these data are encouraging for patients with high-risk disease.

Additional References

1.            Hoster E, Rosenwald A, Berger F, et al. Prognostic value of Ki-67 index, cytology, and growth pattern in mantle-cell lymphoma: Results from randomized trials of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1386-1394. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.8387

2.            Eskelund CW, Dahl C, Hansen JW, et al. TP53 mutations identify younger mantle cell lymphoma patients who do not benefit from intensive chemoimmunotherapy. Blood. 2017;130:1903-1910. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-77973

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is characterized by t(11;14) and cyclin D1 overexpression. It is also known to be clinically heterogenous, with disease presentations ranging from indolent to aggressive. Baseline risk can be determined on the basis of a combination of clinical and pathologic features. A key prognostic tool, for example, is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index-Combined (MIPI-c), which integrates the standard MIPI clinical factors (age, performance status, lactate dehydrogenase, and leukocyte count) with estimates of proliferation (Ki-67).¹ Other features, including the presence of TP53 alterations, have also been associated with poor outcomes, even with intensive therapy.²

Recently, a study aimed to further refine prognostication in MCL in order to identify high-risk patients that may be more likely to benefit from novel treatment strategies (Scheubeck et al). This retrospective study included 684 patients with MCL from the MCL-Younger and MCL-Elderly trials with evaluable data for Ki-67 or p53 expression (a surrogate for TP53 alterations). Patients were classified as having high-risk disease on the basis of a high-risk MIPI-c or p53 expression > 50% or as having low-risk disease on the basis of low, low-intermediate, or high-intermediate MIPI-c and p53 expression ≤ 50%. Patients with high-risk disease had significantly shorter median failure-free survival (1.1 vs 5.6 years; P < .0001) and overall survival (2.2 vs 13.2 years; P < .0001) compared with those with low-risk disease. The differences were confirmed in two validation cohorts from the Italian MCL0208 and Nordic-MCL4 trials. These data highlight the poor outcomes of conventional therapy in patients with high-risk MCL. Evaluation of novel approaches should be considered in these patients.

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have been promising options for patients with MCL, including those with high-risk features. Acalabrutinib is a second-generation covalent BTK inhibitor that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients who have received at least one prior line of therapy. The final results of the single-arm, phase 2 ACE-LY-004 study recently demonstrated long-term safety and efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL (Le Gouill et al). The overall and complete response rates were 81.5% (95% CI 73.5%-87.9%) and 47.6% (95% CI 38.5%-56.7%), respectively. After a 38.1-month median follow-up, the median duration of response and progression-free survival were 28.6 months (95% CI 17.5-39.1) and 22.0 months (95% CI 16.6-33.3), respectively. Responses were also seen in patients with high-risk features, including blastoid morphology, high-risk MIPI score, and high Ki-67. No new safety signals were observed. This study confirms the role of BTK inhibitors in MCL and providers longer-term estimates of response. Evaluation of BTK inhibitors in earlier lines of therapy and in combination with other agents are ongoing.

Although the majority of patients with MCL will have favorable responses to initial therapy, those with high-risk features, particularly TP53 aberrations, have poor outcomes with standard approaches. Despite a growing number of treatment options in the relapsed setting, such as targeted therapies and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, relapses remain common. Allogenic stem cell transplantation can be associated with prolonged response for patients with relapsed MCL, though it has the potential for significant treatment-associated toxicity.

Recently, prolonged follow-up of a retrospective cohort of patients with MCL, including a subset with TP53 aberrations, was reported (Lew et al). Thirty-six patients with MCL were included, including 13 with TP53-mutated disease. A subset of patients (61%) received an allogeneic transplant in first remission. The estimated overall survival rates after allogenic transplant were 56% (95% CI 36%-72%) at 10 years for the overall cohort and 59% (95% CI 21%-75%) at 4 years for patients with TP53-mutated disease at median follow-ups of 10.8 and 4.2 years, respectively. No relapses were observed in the TP53-mutated subset beyond 6 months after transplantation. These data suggest a potentially curative option for patients with high-risk MCL. Given the availability of CAR T-cell therapy, the optimal timing of allogenic stem cell transplant has become less clear for patients with TP53-mutant disease. Although this study was small and retrospective, these data are encouraging for patients with high-risk disease.

Additional References

1.            Hoster E, Rosenwald A, Berger F, et al. Prognostic value of Ki-67 index, cytology, and growth pattern in mantle-cell lymphoma: Results from randomized trials of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1386-1394. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.8387

2.            Eskelund CW, Dahl C, Hansen JW, et al. TP53 mutations identify younger mantle cell lymphoma patients who do not benefit from intensive chemoimmunotherapy. Blood. 2017;130:1903-1910. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-77973

Back in 1997, a young Stanford (Calif.) University student named Christopher Flowers made his debut in the medical literature with a Nature Medicine report that called out the pharmaceutical industry for overlooking the crucial role of clinical investigators in drug development.

“My research uncovered a series of physicians who served as ‘clinical champions’ and dramatically sped the process of drug development,” Dr. Flowers recalled in an interview. “This early career research inspired me to become the type of clinical champion that I uncovered.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Over his career, hematologist-oncologist Dr. Flowers has developed lifesaving therapies for lymphoma, which has transformed into a highly treatable and even curable disease. He’s listed as a coauthor of hundreds of peer-reviewed cancer studies, reports, and medical society guidelines. And he’s revealed stark disparities in blood cancer care: His research shows that non-White patients suffer from worse outcomes, regardless of factors like income and insurance coverage.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recently named physician-scientist Dr. Flowers as division head of cancer medicine, a position he’s held on an interim basis. As of Sept. 1, he will permanently oversee 300 faculty and more than 2,000 staff members.
 

A running start in Seattle

For Dr. Flowers, track and field is a sport that runs in the family. His grandfather was a top runner in both high school and college, and both Dr. Flowers and his brother ran competitively in Seattle, where they grew up. But Dr. Flowers chose a career in oncology, earning a medical degree at Stanford and master’s degrees at both Stanford and the University of Washington, Seattle.

The late Kenneth Melmon, MD, a groundbreaking pharmacologist, was a major influence. “He was one of the first people that I met when I began as an undergraduate at Stanford. We grew to be long-standing friends, and he demonstrated what outstanding mentorship looks like. In our research collaboration, we investigated the work of Dr. Gertrude Elion and Dr. George Hitchings involving the translation of pharmacological data from cellular and animal models to clinically useful drugs including 6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, acyclovir, and zidovudine.”

The late Oliver Press, MD, a blood cancer specialist, inspired Dr. Flower’s interest in lymphoma. “I began work with him during an internship at the University of Washington. Ollie was a great inspiration and a key leader in the development of innovative therapies for lymphoma. He embodied the role of a clinical champion translating work in radioimmunotherapy to new therapeutics for patients with lymphomas. Working with him ultimately led me to pursue a career in hematology and oncology with a focus on the care for patients with lymphomas.”
 

Career blooms as lymphoma care advances

Dr. Flowers went on to Emory University, Atlanta, where he served as scientific director of the Research Informatics Shared Resource and a faculty member in the department of biomedical informatics. “I applied my training in informatics and my clinical expertise to support active grants from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Innovation in Regulatory Science and from the National Cancer Institute to develop informatics tools for pathology image analysis and prognostic modeling.”

For 13 years, he also served the Winship Cancer Institute as director of the Emory Healthcare lymphoma program (where his patients included Kansas City Chiefs football star Eric Berry), and for 4 years as scientific director of research informatics. Meanwhile, Dr. Flowers helped develop national practice guidelines for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology. He also chaired the ASCO guideline on management of febrile neutropenia.

In 2019, MD Anderson hired Dr. Flowers as chair of the department of lymphoma/myeloma. A year later, he was appointed division head ad interim for cancer medicine.

“Chris is a unique leader who expertly combines mentorship, sponsorship, and bidirectional open, honest communication,” said Sairah Ahmed, MD, associate professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson. “He doesn’t just empower his team to reach their goals. He also inspires those around him to turn vision into reality.”

As Dr. Flowers noted, many patients with lymphoma are now able to recover and live normal lives. He himself played a direct role himself in boosting lifespans.

“I have been fortunate to play a role in the development of several treatments that have led to advances in first-line therapy for patients with aggressive lymphomas. I partnered with others at MD Anderson, including Dr. Sattva Neelapu and Dr. Jason Westin, who have developed novel therapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with relapse lymphomas,” he said. “Leaders in the field at MD Anderson like Dr. Michael Wang have developed new oral treatments for patients with rare lymphoma subtypes like mantle cell lymphoma. Other colleagues such as Dr. Nathan Fowler and Dr. Loretta Nastoupil have focused on the care for patients with indolent lymphomas and developed less-toxic therapies that are now in common use.”
 

Exposing the disparities in blood cancer care

Dr. Flowers, who’s African American, has also been a leader in health disparity research. In 2016, for example, he was coauthor of a study into non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that revealed that Blacks in the United States have dramatically lower survival rates than Whites. The 10-year survival rate for Black women with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was just 47%, for example, compared with 66% for White females. “Although incidence rates of lymphoid neoplasms are generally higher among Whites, Black men tend to have poorer survival,” Dr. Flowers and colleagues wrote.

In a 2021 report for the ASCO Educational Book, Dr. Flowers and hematologist-oncologist Demetria Smith-Graziani, MD, now with Emory University, explored disparities across blood cancers and barriers to minority enrollment in clinical trials. “Some approaches that clinicians can apply to address these disparities include increasing systems-level awareness, improving access to care, and reducing biases in clinical setting,” the authors wrote.

Luis Malpica Castillo, MD, assistant professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, lauded the work of Dr. Flowers in expanding opportunities for minority patients with the disease.

“During the past years, Dr. Flowers’ work has not only had a positive impact on the Texan community, but minority populations living with cancer in the United States and abroad,” he said. “Currently, we are implementing cancer care networks aimed to increase diversity in clinical trials by enrolling a larger number of Hispanic and African American patients, who otherwise may not have benefited from novel therapies. The ultimate goal is to provide high-quality care to all patients living with cancer.”

In addition to his research work, Dr. Flowers is an advocate for diversity within the hematology community. He’s a founding member and former chair of the American Society of Hematology’s Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (formerly the Committee on Promoting Diversity), and he helped develop the society’s Minority Recruitment Initiative.

What’s next for Dr. Flowers? For one, he plans to continue working as a mentor; he received the ASH Mentor Award in honor of his service in 2022. “I am strongly committed to increasing the number of tenure-track investigators trained in clinical and translational cancer research and to promote their career development.”

And he looks forward to helping develop MD Anderson’s recently announced $2.5 billion hospital in Austin. “This will extend the exceptional care that we provide as the No. 1 cancer center in the United States,” he said. “It will also create new opportunities for research and collaboration with experts at UT Austin.”

When he’s not in clinic, Dr. Flowers embraces his lifelong love of speeding through life on his own two feet. He’s even inspired his children to share his passion. “I run most days of the week,” he said. “Running provides a great opportunity to think and process new research ideas, work through leadership challenges, and sometimes just to relax and let go of the day.”

Back in 1997, a young Stanford (Calif.) University student named Christopher Flowers made his debut in the medical literature with a Nature Medicine report that called out the pharmaceutical industry for overlooking the crucial role of clinical investigators in drug development.

“My research uncovered a series of physicians who served as ‘clinical champions’ and dramatically sped the process of drug development,” Dr. Flowers recalled in an interview. “This early career research inspired me to become the type of clinical champion that I uncovered.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Over his career, hematologist-oncologist Dr. Flowers has developed lifesaving therapies for lymphoma, which has transformed into a highly treatable and even curable disease. He’s listed as a coauthor of hundreds of peer-reviewed cancer studies, reports, and medical society guidelines. And he’s revealed stark disparities in blood cancer care: His research shows that non-White patients suffer from worse outcomes, regardless of factors like income and insurance coverage.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recently named physician-scientist Dr. Flowers as division head of cancer medicine, a position he’s held on an interim basis. As of Sept. 1, he will permanently oversee 300 faculty and more than 2,000 staff members.
 

A running start in Seattle

For Dr. Flowers, track and field is a sport that runs in the family. His grandfather was a top runner in both high school and college, and both Dr. Flowers and his brother ran competitively in Seattle, where they grew up. But Dr. Flowers chose a career in oncology, earning a medical degree at Stanford and master’s degrees at both Stanford and the University of Washington, Seattle.

The late Kenneth Melmon, MD, a groundbreaking pharmacologist, was a major influence. “He was one of the first people that I met when I began as an undergraduate at Stanford. We grew to be long-standing friends, and he demonstrated what outstanding mentorship looks like. In our research collaboration, we investigated the work of Dr. Gertrude Elion and Dr. George Hitchings involving the translation of pharmacological data from cellular and animal models to clinically useful drugs including 6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, acyclovir, and zidovudine.”

The late Oliver Press, MD, a blood cancer specialist, inspired Dr. Flower’s interest in lymphoma. “I began work with him during an internship at the University of Washington. Ollie was a great inspiration and a key leader in the development of innovative therapies for lymphoma. He embodied the role of a clinical champion translating work in radioimmunotherapy to new therapeutics for patients with lymphomas. Working with him ultimately led me to pursue a career in hematology and oncology with a focus on the care for patients with lymphomas.”
 

Career blooms as lymphoma care advances

Dr. Flowers went on to Emory University, Atlanta, where he served as scientific director of the Research Informatics Shared Resource and a faculty member in the department of biomedical informatics. “I applied my training in informatics and my clinical expertise to support active grants from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Innovation in Regulatory Science and from the National Cancer Institute to develop informatics tools for pathology image analysis and prognostic modeling.”

For 13 years, he also served the Winship Cancer Institute as director of the Emory Healthcare lymphoma program (where his patients included Kansas City Chiefs football star Eric Berry), and for 4 years as scientific director of research informatics. Meanwhile, Dr. Flowers helped develop national practice guidelines for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology. He also chaired the ASCO guideline on management of febrile neutropenia.

In 2019, MD Anderson hired Dr. Flowers as chair of the department of lymphoma/myeloma. A year later, he was appointed division head ad interim for cancer medicine.

“Chris is a unique leader who expertly combines mentorship, sponsorship, and bidirectional open, honest communication,” said Sairah Ahmed, MD, associate professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson. “He doesn’t just empower his team to reach their goals. He also inspires those around him to turn vision into reality.”

As Dr. Flowers noted, many patients with lymphoma are now able to recover and live normal lives. He himself played a direct role himself in boosting lifespans.

“I have been fortunate to play a role in the development of several treatments that have led to advances in first-line therapy for patients with aggressive lymphomas. I partnered with others at MD Anderson, including Dr. Sattva Neelapu and Dr. Jason Westin, who have developed novel therapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with relapse lymphomas,” he said. “Leaders in the field at MD Anderson like Dr. Michael Wang have developed new oral treatments for patients with rare lymphoma subtypes like mantle cell lymphoma. Other colleagues such as Dr. Nathan Fowler and Dr. Loretta Nastoupil have focused on the care for patients with indolent lymphomas and developed less-toxic therapies that are now in common use.”
 

Exposing the disparities in blood cancer care

Dr. Flowers, who’s African American, has also been a leader in health disparity research. In 2016, for example, he was coauthor of a study into non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that revealed that Blacks in the United States have dramatically lower survival rates than Whites. The 10-year survival rate for Black women with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was just 47%, for example, compared with 66% for White females. “Although incidence rates of lymphoid neoplasms are generally higher among Whites, Black men tend to have poorer survival,” Dr. Flowers and colleagues wrote.

In a 2021 report for the ASCO Educational Book, Dr. Flowers and hematologist-oncologist Demetria Smith-Graziani, MD, now with Emory University, explored disparities across blood cancers and barriers to minority enrollment in clinical trials. “Some approaches that clinicians can apply to address these disparities include increasing systems-level awareness, improving access to care, and reducing biases in clinical setting,” the authors wrote.

Luis Malpica Castillo, MD, assistant professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, lauded the work of Dr. Flowers in expanding opportunities for minority patients with the disease.

“During the past years, Dr. Flowers’ work has not only had a positive impact on the Texan community, but minority populations living with cancer in the United States and abroad,” he said. “Currently, we are implementing cancer care networks aimed to increase diversity in clinical trials by enrolling a larger number of Hispanic and African American patients, who otherwise may not have benefited from novel therapies. The ultimate goal is to provide high-quality care to all patients living with cancer.”

In addition to his research work, Dr. Flowers is an advocate for diversity within the hematology community. He’s a founding member and former chair of the American Society of Hematology’s Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (formerly the Committee on Promoting Diversity), and he helped develop the society’s Minority Recruitment Initiative.

What’s next for Dr. Flowers? For one, he plans to continue working as a mentor; he received the ASH Mentor Award in honor of his service in 2022. “I am strongly committed to increasing the number of tenure-track investigators trained in clinical and translational cancer research and to promote their career development.”

And he looks forward to helping develop MD Anderson’s recently announced $2.5 billion hospital in Austin. “This will extend the exceptional care that we provide as the No. 1 cancer center in the United States,” he said. “It will also create new opportunities for research and collaboration with experts at UT Austin.”

When he’s not in clinic, Dr. Flowers embraces his lifelong love of speeding through life on his own two feet. He’s even inspired his children to share his passion. “I run most days of the week,” he said. “Running provides a great opportunity to think and process new research ideas, work through leadership challenges, and sometimes just to relax and let go of the day.”

Back in 1997, a young Stanford (Calif.) University student named Christopher Flowers made his debut in the medical literature with a Nature Medicine report that called out the pharmaceutical industry for overlooking the crucial role of clinical investigators in drug development.

“My research uncovered a series of physicians who served as ‘clinical champions’ and dramatically sped the process of drug development,” Dr. Flowers recalled in an interview. “This early career research inspired me to become the type of clinical champion that I uncovered.”

MD Anderson Cancer Center

Over his career, hematologist-oncologist Dr. Flowers has developed lifesaving therapies for lymphoma, which has transformed into a highly treatable and even curable disease. He’s listed as a coauthor of hundreds of peer-reviewed cancer studies, reports, and medical society guidelines. And he’s revealed stark disparities in blood cancer care: His research shows that non-White patients suffer from worse outcomes, regardless of factors like income and insurance coverage.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, recently named physician-scientist Dr. Flowers as division head of cancer medicine, a position he’s held on an interim basis. As of Sept. 1, he will permanently oversee 300 faculty and more than 2,000 staff members.
 

A running start in Seattle

For Dr. Flowers, track and field is a sport that runs in the family. His grandfather was a top runner in both high school and college, and both Dr. Flowers and his brother ran competitively in Seattle, where they grew up. But Dr. Flowers chose a career in oncology, earning a medical degree at Stanford and master’s degrees at both Stanford and the University of Washington, Seattle.

The late Kenneth Melmon, MD, a groundbreaking pharmacologist, was a major influence. “He was one of the first people that I met when I began as an undergraduate at Stanford. We grew to be long-standing friends, and he demonstrated what outstanding mentorship looks like. In our research collaboration, we investigated the work of Dr. Gertrude Elion and Dr. George Hitchings involving the translation of pharmacological data from cellular and animal models to clinically useful drugs including 6-mercaptopurine, allopurinol, azathioprine, acyclovir, and zidovudine.”

The late Oliver Press, MD, a blood cancer specialist, inspired Dr. Flower’s interest in lymphoma. “I began work with him during an internship at the University of Washington. Ollie was a great inspiration and a key leader in the development of innovative therapies for lymphoma. He embodied the role of a clinical champion translating work in radioimmunotherapy to new therapeutics for patients with lymphomas. Working with him ultimately led me to pursue a career in hematology and oncology with a focus on the care for patients with lymphomas.”
 

Career blooms as lymphoma care advances

Dr. Flowers went on to Emory University, Atlanta, where he served as scientific director of the Research Informatics Shared Resource and a faculty member in the department of biomedical informatics. “I applied my training in informatics and my clinical expertise to support active grants from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for Innovation in Regulatory Science and from the National Cancer Institute to develop informatics tools for pathology image analysis and prognostic modeling.”

For 13 years, he also served the Winship Cancer Institute as director of the Emory Healthcare lymphoma program (where his patients included Kansas City Chiefs football star Eric Berry), and for 4 years as scientific director of research informatics. Meanwhile, Dr. Flowers helped develop national practice guidelines for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Radiology. He also chaired the ASCO guideline on management of febrile neutropenia.

In 2019, MD Anderson hired Dr. Flowers as chair of the department of lymphoma/myeloma. A year later, he was appointed division head ad interim for cancer medicine.

“Chris is a unique leader who expertly combines mentorship, sponsorship, and bidirectional open, honest communication,” said Sairah Ahmed, MD, associate professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson. “He doesn’t just empower his team to reach their goals. He also inspires those around him to turn vision into reality.”

As Dr. Flowers noted, many patients with lymphoma are now able to recover and live normal lives. He himself played a direct role himself in boosting lifespans.

“I have been fortunate to play a role in the development of several treatments that have led to advances in first-line therapy for patients with aggressive lymphomas. I partnered with others at MD Anderson, including Dr. Sattva Neelapu and Dr. Jason Westin, who have developed novel therapies like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy for patients with relapse lymphomas,” he said. “Leaders in the field at MD Anderson like Dr. Michael Wang have developed new oral treatments for patients with rare lymphoma subtypes like mantle cell lymphoma. Other colleagues such as Dr. Nathan Fowler and Dr. Loretta Nastoupil have focused on the care for patients with indolent lymphomas and developed less-toxic therapies that are now in common use.”
 

Exposing the disparities in blood cancer care

Dr. Flowers, who’s African American, has also been a leader in health disparity research. In 2016, for example, he was coauthor of a study into non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that revealed that Blacks in the United States have dramatically lower survival rates than Whites. The 10-year survival rate for Black women with chronic lymphocytic leukemia was just 47%, for example, compared with 66% for White females. “Although incidence rates of lymphoid neoplasms are generally higher among Whites, Black men tend to have poorer survival,” Dr. Flowers and colleagues wrote.

In a 2021 report for the ASCO Educational Book, Dr. Flowers and hematologist-oncologist Demetria Smith-Graziani, MD, now with Emory University, explored disparities across blood cancers and barriers to minority enrollment in clinical trials. “Some approaches that clinicians can apply to address these disparities include increasing systems-level awareness, improving access to care, and reducing biases in clinical setting,” the authors wrote.

Luis Malpica Castillo, MD, assistant professor of lymphoma at MD Anderson Cancer Center, lauded the work of Dr. Flowers in expanding opportunities for minority patients with the disease.

“During the past years, Dr. Flowers’ work has not only had a positive impact on the Texan community, but minority populations living with cancer in the United States and abroad,” he said. “Currently, we are implementing cancer care networks aimed to increase diversity in clinical trials by enrolling a larger number of Hispanic and African American patients, who otherwise may not have benefited from novel therapies. The ultimate goal is to provide high-quality care to all patients living with cancer.”

In addition to his research work, Dr. Flowers is an advocate for diversity within the hematology community. He’s a founding member and former chair of the American Society of Hematology’s Committee on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (formerly the Committee on Promoting Diversity), and he helped develop the society’s Minority Recruitment Initiative.

What’s next for Dr. Flowers? For one, he plans to continue working as a mentor; he received the ASH Mentor Award in honor of his service in 2022. “I am strongly committed to increasing the number of tenure-track investigators trained in clinical and translational cancer research and to promote their career development.”

And he looks forward to helping develop MD Anderson’s recently announced $2.5 billion hospital in Austin. “This will extend the exceptional care that we provide as the No. 1 cancer center in the United States,” he said. “It will also create new opportunities for research and collaboration with experts at UT Austin.”

When he’s not in clinic, Dr. Flowers embraces his lifelong love of speeding through life on his own two feet. He’s even inspired his children to share his passion. “I run most days of the week,” he said. “Running provides a great opportunity to think and process new research ideas, work through leadership challenges, and sometimes just to relax and let go of the day.”

Key clinical point: A low (below cutoff) geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) score is significantly associated with worse prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: A low GNRI score was significantly associated with worse overall survival (pooled hazard ratio [pHR] 1.78; P < .01) and progression-free survival (pHR 2.31; P < .01).

Study details: This meta-analysis included seven retrospective cohort studies that provided a cutoff value for GNRI (between 92 and 104.24) and involved 2448 patients with DLBCL for whom a calculated GNRI score was available.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Key R&D Projects, Jiangxi. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Yan C et al. Prognostic value of geriatric nutritional risk index in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A meta-analysis. Clin Transl Oncol. 2023 (Jul 12). doi: 10.1007/s12094-023-03271-w

Key clinical point: A low (below cutoff) geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) score is significantly associated with worse prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: A low GNRI score was significantly associated with worse overall survival (pooled hazard ratio [pHR] 1.78; P < .01) and progression-free survival (pHR 2.31; P < .01).

Study details: This meta-analysis included seven retrospective cohort studies that provided a cutoff value for GNRI (between 92 and 104.24) and involved 2448 patients with DLBCL for whom a calculated GNRI score was available.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Key R&D Projects, Jiangxi. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Yan C et al. Prognostic value of geriatric nutritional risk index in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A meta-analysis. Clin Transl Oncol. 2023 (Jul 12). doi: 10.1007/s12094-023-03271-w

Key clinical point: A low (below cutoff) geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) score is significantly associated with worse prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: A low GNRI score was significantly associated with worse overall survival (pooled hazard ratio [pHR] 1.78; P < .01) and progression-free survival (pHR 2.31; P < .01).

Study details: This meta-analysis included seven retrospective cohort studies that provided a cutoff value for GNRI (between 92 and 104.24) and involved 2448 patients with DLBCL for whom a calculated GNRI score was available.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Key R&D Projects, Jiangxi. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Yan C et al. Prognostic value of geriatric nutritional risk index in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A meta-analysis. Clin Transl Oncol. 2023 (Jul 12). doi: 10.1007/s12094-023-03271-w

Key clinical point: Serum levels of IL-6 and IL-10 at diagnosis may serve as predictors of treatment response and prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: Patients with partial or no rresponse vs complete response to treatment had significantly higher serum IL-6 (P = .009) and IL-10 (P < .001) levels. High serum IL-6 (≥ 4.5 pg/mL) and IL-10 (≥ 5.0 pg/mL) levels were independent prognostic factors for relapse (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.524; P = .003, and aHR 1.835; P = .007, respectively) and survival (aHR 2.012; P = .031, and aHR 5.312; P = .017, respectively).

Study details: This single-center retrospective study included 77 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL and 77 matched control individuals without DLBCL.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bao C et al. Cytokine profiles in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: IL-6 and IL-10 levels are associated with adverse clinical features and poor outcomes. Cytokine. 2023;169:156289 (Jul 13). doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2023.156289

Key clinical point: Serum levels of IL-6 and IL-10 at diagnosis may serve as predictors of treatment response and prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: Patients with partial or no rresponse vs complete response to treatment had significantly higher serum IL-6 (P = .009) and IL-10 (P < .001) levels. High serum IL-6 (≥ 4.5 pg/mL) and IL-10 (≥ 5.0 pg/mL) levels were independent prognostic factors for relapse (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.524; P = .003, and aHR 1.835; P = .007, respectively) and survival (aHR 2.012; P = .031, and aHR 5.312; P = .017, respectively).

Study details: This single-center retrospective study included 77 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL and 77 matched control individuals without DLBCL.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bao C et al. Cytokine profiles in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: IL-6 and IL-10 levels are associated with adverse clinical features and poor outcomes. Cytokine. 2023;169:156289 (Jul 13). doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2023.156289

Key clinical point: Serum levels of IL-6 and IL-10 at diagnosis may serve as predictors of treatment response and prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: Patients with partial or no rresponse vs complete response to treatment had significantly higher serum IL-6 (P = .009) and IL-10 (P < .001) levels. High serum IL-6 (≥ 4.5 pg/mL) and IL-10 (≥ 5.0 pg/mL) levels were independent prognostic factors for relapse (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.524; P = .003, and aHR 1.835; P = .007, respectively) and survival (aHR 2.012; P = .031, and aHR 5.312; P = .017, respectively).

Study details: This single-center retrospective study included 77 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL and 77 matched control individuals without DLBCL.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bao C et al. Cytokine profiles in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: IL-6 and IL-10 levels are associated with adverse clinical features and poor outcomes. Cytokine. 2023;169:156289 (Jul 13). doi: 10.1016/j.cyto.2023.156289

Key clinical point: Compared with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) improved survival but led to increased hospital admissions for infections in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma (BCL).

Major finding: Patients receiving BR vs R-CVP or R-CHOP had a significantly higher 5-year overall survival (80% vs 75%; adjusted hazard ratio 0.79; P < .01) but increased hospital admissions for infections during the first 9 months (21.9% vs 17.3%) and 36 months (41.2% vs 33.6%)  (both P < .01).

Study details: This retrospective real-world cohort study propensity-score matched patients with indolent BCL (mostly follicular lymphoma with other subtypes being marginal zone, lymphoplasmacytic, and small lymphocytic lymphoma, and hairy cell leukemia) who received BR (n = 2032) and those who received R-CVP or R-CHOP (n = 2032).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, Canada. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Suleman A et al. Outcomes of patients with indolent lymphoma treated with bendamustine plus rituximab compared to rituximab plus CVP or CHOP chemoimmunotherapy in Ontario. Br J Haematol. 2023 (Jul 20). doi: 10.1111/bjh.18972

Key clinical point: Compared with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) improved survival but led to increased hospital admissions for infections in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma (BCL).

Major finding: Patients receiving BR vs R-CVP or R-CHOP had a significantly higher 5-year overall survival (80% vs 75%; adjusted hazard ratio 0.79; P < .01) but increased hospital admissions for infections during the first 9 months (21.9% vs 17.3%) and 36 months (41.2% vs 33.6%)  (both P < .01).

Study details: This retrospective real-world cohort study propensity-score matched patients with indolent BCL (mostly follicular lymphoma with other subtypes being marginal zone, lymphoplasmacytic, and small lymphocytic lymphoma, and hairy cell leukemia) who received BR (n = 2032) and those who received R-CVP or R-CHOP (n = 2032).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, Canada. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Suleman A et al. Outcomes of patients with indolent lymphoma treated with bendamustine plus rituximab compared to rituximab plus CVP or CHOP chemoimmunotherapy in Ontario. Br J Haematol. 2023 (Jul 20). doi: 10.1111/bjh.18972

Key clinical point: Compared with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) improved survival but led to increased hospital admissions for infections in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma (BCL).

Major finding: Patients receiving BR vs R-CVP or R-CHOP had a significantly higher 5-year overall survival (80% vs 75%; adjusted hazard ratio 0.79; P < .01) but increased hospital admissions for infections during the first 9 months (21.9% vs 17.3%) and 36 months (41.2% vs 33.6%)  (both P < .01).

Study details: This retrospective real-world cohort study propensity-score matched patients with indolent BCL (mostly follicular lymphoma with other subtypes being marginal zone, lymphoplasmacytic, and small lymphocytic lymphoma, and hairy cell leukemia) who received BR (n = 2032) and those who received R-CVP or R-CHOP (n = 2032).

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, Canada. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Suleman A et al. Outcomes of patients with indolent lymphoma treated with bendamustine plus rituximab compared to rituximab plus CVP or CHOP chemoimmunotherapy in Ontario. Br J Haematol. 2023 (Jul 20). doi: 10.1111/bjh.18972

Key clinical point: Lenalidomide combined with rituximab + etoposide, cytarabine, cisplatinum, and methylprednisolone (LR-ESHAP) shows promising efficacy and manageable toxicity and is a feasible salvage regimen before autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: The overall and complete response rates were 67% (95% CI 52%-81%) and 35% (95% CI 21%-50%), respectively. At a 41-month median follow-up, the median progression-free, overall, and event-free survival were 16 months (95% CI 4-28), 22 months (95% CI not estimable), and 7 months (95% CI 0-20), respectively. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (70%) and neutropenia (67%).

Study details: This phase 2 study included 46 adult patients with DLBCL who had relapsed after or were refractory to first-line therapy and received three cycles of LR-ESHAP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the GELTAMO group (Spain) and Celgene Corporation. Some authors declared receiving consulting fees, research funding, travel support, or honoraria for lectures, presentations, or participation in speakers' bureaus or educational events from various sources, including Celgene. Fourteen authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Martín García-Sancho A et al. Lenalidomide in combination with R-ESHAP in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A phase 2 study from GELTAMO. Br J Haematol. 2023 (Jul 23). doi: 10.1111/bjh.18989

Key clinical point: Lenalidomide combined with rituximab + etoposide, cytarabine, cisplatinum, and methylprednisolone (LR-ESHAP) shows promising efficacy and manageable toxicity and is a feasible salvage regimen before autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: The overall and complete response rates were 67% (95% CI 52%-81%) and 35% (95% CI 21%-50%), respectively. At a 41-month median follow-up, the median progression-free, overall, and event-free survival were 16 months (95% CI 4-28), 22 months (95% CI not estimable), and 7 months (95% CI 0-20), respectively. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (70%) and neutropenia (67%).

Study details: This phase 2 study included 46 adult patients with DLBCL who had relapsed after or were refractory to first-line therapy and received three cycles of LR-ESHAP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the GELTAMO group (Spain) and Celgene Corporation. Some authors declared receiving consulting fees, research funding, travel support, or honoraria for lectures, presentations, or participation in speakers' bureaus or educational events from various sources, including Celgene. Fourteen authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Martín García-Sancho A et al. Lenalidomide in combination with R-ESHAP in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A phase 2 study from GELTAMO. Br J Haematol. 2023 (Jul 23). doi: 10.1111/bjh.18989

Key clinical point: Lenalidomide combined with rituximab + etoposide, cytarabine, cisplatinum, and methylprednisolone (LR-ESHAP) shows promising efficacy and manageable toxicity and is a feasible salvage regimen before autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Major finding: The overall and complete response rates were 67% (95% CI 52%-81%) and 35% (95% CI 21%-50%), respectively. At a 41-month median follow-up, the median progression-free, overall, and event-free survival were 16 months (95% CI 4-28), 22 months (95% CI not estimable), and 7 months (95% CI 0-20), respectively. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (70%) and neutropenia (67%).

Study details: This phase 2 study included 46 adult patients with DLBCL who had relapsed after or were refractory to first-line therapy and received three cycles of LR-ESHAP.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the GELTAMO group (Spain) and Celgene Corporation. Some authors declared receiving consulting fees, research funding, travel support, or honoraria for lectures, presentations, or participation in speakers' bureaus or educational events from various sources, including Celgene. Fourteen authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Martín García-Sancho A et al. Lenalidomide in combination with R-ESHAP in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A phase 2 study from GELTAMO. Br J Haematol. 2023 (Jul 23). doi: 10.1111/bjh.18989