Distribution of lymphoma subtypes in Ukraine according to the WHO 2016 classification.

The Ukrainian Lymphoma Registry (ULR) was established in 2019 with the aim of monitoring the quality of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of lymphoma in Ukraine. Between September 2019 and October 2021, 546 patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma were prospectively registered. All cases were diagnosed according to the 2016 updated WHO lymphoma classification. The male-to-female ratio (M/F) for the whole population was 0.7, with a median age of 46 years (range 18-95). The adoption of the 2016 WHO classification resulted in the identification of 36 different lymphoma subtypes, with 132 cases (24.2%) classified differently compared to the 2008 WHO classification. Only 12 cases (2.8%) were true new entities, including seven cases of high-grade B-cell lymphoma NOS, three of anaplastic large B-cell lymphoma, ALK-negative, 1 case of HHV8+ DLBCL NOS, and 1 of high-grade B-cell lymphoma with C-MYC and BCL2/BCL6 rearrangement. Moreover, 55 (61.1%) entities, including 37 defined by WHO 2008 and 18 defined by WHO 2016, were not represented at all. The analysis of cases registered in the ULR provides a comprehensive breakdown of the subtypes, stage distribution, and treatment of malignant lymphomas (ML) in Ukraine, supporting the usefulness of prospective data collection and timely reporting. We believe that this study is the first step toward a better understanding of the real-life outcomes of patients with ML.

Acalabrutinib Versus Investigator's Choice in Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Final ASCEND Trial Results.

Acalabrutinib is a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). ASCEND is the pivotal phase 3 study of acalabrutinib versus investigator's choice of idelalisib plus rituximab (IdR) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL. In the primary ASCEND analysis (median 16.1-month follow-up), acalabrutinib showed superior efficacy with an acceptable tolerability profile versus IdR/BR; here, we report final ~4 year follow-up results. Patients with R/R CLL received oral acalabrutinib 100 mg twice daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity, or investigator's choice of IdR or BR. A total of 310 patients (acalabrutinib, n = 155; IdR, n = 119; BR, n = 36) were enrolled. At median follow-up of 46.5 months (acalabrutinib) and 45.3 months (IdR/BR), acalabrutinib significantly prolonged investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) versus IdR/BR (median, not reached [NR] vs 16.8 months; P < 0.001); 42-month PFS rates were 62% (acalabrutinib) versus 19% (IdR/BR). Median overall survival (OS) was NR (both arms); 42-month OS rates were 78% (acalabrutinib) versus 65% (IdR/BR). Adverse events led to drug discontinuation in 23%, 67%, and 17% of patients in the acalabrutinib, IdR, and BR arms, respectively. Events of clinical interest (acalabrutinib vs IdR/BR) included all-grade atrial fibrillation/flutter (8% vs 3%), all-grade hypertension (8% vs 5%), all-grade major hemorrhage (3% vs 3%), grade ≥3 infections (29% vs 29%), and second primary malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (7% vs 2%). At ~4 years follow-up, acalabrutinib maintained favorable efficacy versus standard-of-care regimens and a consistent tolerability profile in patients with R/R CLL.

Selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma: Outcomes by cytogenetic risk.

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562.

Effect of prior treatments on selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma.

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562 .

Effect of age and frailty on the efficacy and tolerability of once-weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (<65 and ≥65 years, nonfrail and frail). Patients ≥65 years with XVd had higher ORR (OR 1.77, p = .024), ≥VGPR (OR, 1.68, p = .027), PFS (HR 0.55, p = .002), and improved OS (HR 0.63, p = .030), compared with Vd. In frail patients, XVd was associated with a trend towards better PFS (HR 0.69, p = .08) and OS (HR 0.62, p = .062). Significant improvements were also observed in patients <65 (ORR and TTNT) and nonfrail patients (PFS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and TTNT). Patients treated with XVd had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy in ≥65 year-old (22% vs. 37%; p = .0060) and frail patients (15% vs. 44%; p = .0002). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were not observed more often in older compared to younger patients, nor in frail compared to nonfrail patients. XVd is safe and effective in patients <65 and ≥65 and in nonfrail and frail patients with previously treated MM.

Pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin in relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (KEYNOTE-204): an interim analysis of a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: PD-1 blockade via pembrolizumab monotherapy has shown antitumour activity and toxicity in patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. Here, we present interim analyses from the KEYNOTE-204 study evaluating pembrolizumab versus brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma with measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who were ineligible for or had relapsed after autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) were enrolled at 78 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries and territories. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive voice response system to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or brentuximab vedotin 1·8 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous autologous HSCT and status after front-line therapy. Results from the second interim analysis are presented here, with a database cutoff of Jan 16, 2020. The dual primary endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review, and overall survival (not analysed at this interim analysis). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02684292. Recruitment for this trial is closed. FINDINGS: Between July 8, 2016, and July 13, 2018, 151 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab and 153 to brentuximab vedotin. After a median time from randomisation to data cutoff of 25·7 months (IQR 23·4-33·0), median progression-free survival was 13·2 months (95% CI 10·9-19·4) for pembrolizumab versus 8·3 months (5·7-8·8) for brentuximab vedotin (hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·48-0·88]; p=0·0027). The most common grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events were pneumonitis (six [4%] of 148 patients in the pembrolizumab group vs one [1%] of 152 patients in the brentuximab vedotin group), neutropenia (three [2%] vs 11 [7%]), decreased neutrophil count (one [1%] vs seven [5%]), and peripheral neuropathy (one [1%] vs five [3%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 24 (16%) of 148 patients receiving pembrolizumab and 16 (11%) of 152 patients receiving brentuximab vedotin. One treatment-related death due to pneumonia occurred in the pembrolizumab group. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with brentuximab vedotin, with safety consistent with previous reports. These data support pembrolizumab as the preferred treatment option for patients with relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma who have relapsed post-autologous HSCT or are ineligible for autologous HSCT. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA).