Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: 2019 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment.

DISEASE OVERVIEW: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma originating from the germinal center, and it represents a heterogeneous group of diseases with variable outcomes that are differentially characterized by clinical features, cell of origin (COO), molecular features, and most recently, frequently recurring mutations. DIAGNOSIS: DLBCL is ideally diagnosed from an excisional biopsy of a suspicious lymph node, which shows sheets of large cells that disrupt the underlying structural integrity of the follicle center and stain positive for pan-B-cell antigens, such as CD20 and CD79a. COO is determined by immunohistochemical stains, while molecular features such as double-hit or triple-hit disease are determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis. Commercial tests for frequently recurring mutations are currently not routinely used to inform treatment. RISK STRATIFICATION: Clinical prognostic systems for DLBCL, including the rituximab International Prognostic Index, age-adjusted IPI, and NCCN-IPI, use clinical factors for the risk stratification of patients, although this does not affect the treatment approach. Furthermore, DLBCL patients with non-germinal center B-cell (GCB)-like DLBCL (activated B-cell like and unclassifiable) have a poorer response to up-front chemoimmunotherapy (CI) compared to patients with GCB-like DLBCL. Those with c-MYC-altered disease alone and in combination with translocations in BCL2 and/or BCL6 (particularly when the MYC translocation partner is immunoglobulin) respond poorly to up-front CI and salvage autologous stem cell transplant at relapse. RISK-ADAPTED THERAPY: This review will focus on differential treatment of DLBCL up-front and at the time of relapse by COO and molecular features.

Belinostat in combination with standard cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed peripheral T-cell lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Belinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor approved for relapsed refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). The primary objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of belinostat combined with CHOP (Bel-CHOP). Secondary objectives included safety/tolerability, overall response rate (ORR), and belinostat pharmacokinetics (PK). METHODS: Patients were ≥ 18 years with histologically confirmed, previously untreated PTCL. Patients received belinostat (1000 mg/m2 once daily) + standard CHOP for 6 cycles with varying schedules using a 3 + 3 design in Part A. Part B enrolled patients at MTD dose. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were treated. One patient experienced DLT (Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity) on Day 1-3 schedule, resulting in escalation to Day 1-5 schedule (n = 3). No DLTs were observed and Day 1-5 schedule with 1000 mg/m2 was declared as MTD. Twelve additional patients were enrolled in Part B using MTD. Median relative dose intensity was 98%. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), including nausea (78%), fatigue (61%), and vomiting (57%). Serious AEs occurred in 43%, with febrile neutropenia (17%) and pyrexia (13%). Overall ORR was 86% with 71% reported CR at MTD. Belinostat PK parameters were similar to single-agent. CONCLUSIONS: Bel-CHOP was well tolerated and MTD in CHOP combination was the same dose and schedule as single agent dosing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01839097.

Outcomes of patients with limited-stage aggressive large B-cell lymphoma with high-risk cytogenetics.

There is a paucity of data regarding outcomes and response to standard therapy in patients with limited-stage (LS) agressive B-cell lymphoma (LS-ABCL) who harbor MYC rearrangement (MYC-R) with or without BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of MYC-R LS-ABCL patients who received either rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), or more intensive immunochemotherapy (IIC) plus or minus consolidative involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT). One hundred four patients from 15 academic centers were included. Forty four patients (42%) received R-CHOP, of whom 52% had IFRT. Sixty patients (58%) received IIC, of whom 40% had IFRT. Overall response rate was 91% (84% complete response [CR]; 7% partial response). Patients with double-hit lymphoma (DHL; n = 40) had a lower CR rate compared with patients with MYC-R only (75% vs 98%; P = .003). CR rate was higher in the IFRT vs no-IFRT group (98% vs 72%; P < .001). Median follow-up was 3.2 years; 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overal survival (OS) were 78% and 86% for the entire cohort, and 74% and 81% for the DHL patients, respectively. PFS and OS were similar across treatment groups (IFRT vs no IFRT, R-CHOP vs IIC) in the entire cohort and in DHL patients. Our data provide a historical benchmark for MYC-R LS-ABCL and LS-DHL patients and show that outcomes for this population may be better than previously recognized. There was no benefit of using IIC over R-CHOP in patients with MYC-R LS-ABCL and LS-DHL.

The evolving role of targeted biological agents in the management of indolent B-cell lymphomas.

Improved understanding of the mechanisms of lymphomagenesis has resulted in a surge of development for new targeted agents. An impressive number of biological agents targeting different steps in the pathways of tumor proliferation, survival and apoptosis have become available. The management of patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHLs) is rapidly transforming with incorporation of those targeted biological agents into the front-line and relapsed/refractory setting. This review highlights several categories of novel biological agents and will discuss their potential role in the contemporary management of patients with iNHLs.

Donor Lymphocyte Infusion in Hematologic Malignancies--Good to be Fresh?

BACKGROUND: Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) has been used with variable success in a variety of hematologic malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients who were treated with DLI for persistent or relapsed disease at the Temple University Bone Marrow Transplant Unit from July 1, 1993 to December 31, 2013 to evaluate the effect of the type of DLI (fresh vs. cryopreserved) on event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Median follow-up was 64.8 months (range, 0.3-142.6 months). RESULTS: We found that EFS and OS were similar between patients receiving cryopreserved cells and those receiving fresh DLI (median OS for cryopreserved cells, 0.39 years; median OS for fresh cells, 0.32 years; P = .793; median EFS for cryopreserved cells, 0.410 years; median EFS for fresh cells, 0.420 years; P = .4264). In the setting of relapsed disease, treatment with any chemotherapy regimen before receiving DLI did not significantly impact OS (n = 63; P = .2203) or EFS (n = 40; P = .542). A subgroup analysis limited to patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML)/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (32 patients) showed that differences in OS and EFS between cryopreserved and fresh DLI approached significance (median OS for cryopreserved cells, 0.34 years; median OS for fresh cells, 0.17 years; P = .16; median EFS for cryopreserved cells, 0.37 years; median EFS for fresh cells, 0.094 years; P = 0.11). CONCLUSION: We conclude that the use of fresh cells versus cryopreserved cells does not have an impact on outcomes, and selected patients can achieve long-term survival with DLI for treatment of relapse after transplantation, although the overall outcomes remain dismal.