The Emerging Role of Minimal Residual Disease Testing in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

SWIGH-SCORE: A translational light-weight approach in computational detection of rearranged immunoglobulin heavy chain to be used in monoclonal lymphoproliferative disorders

We present a lightweight tool for clonotyping and measurable residual disease (MRD) assessment in monoclonal lymphoproliferative disorders. It is a translational method that enables computational detection of rearranged immunoglobulin heavy chain gene sequences.•The swigh-score clonotyping tool emphasizes parallelization and applicability across sequencing platforms.•The algorithm is based on an adaptation of the Smith-Waterman algorithm for local alignment of reads generated by 2nd and 3rd generation of sequencers.For method validation, we demonstrate the targeted sequences of immunoglobulin heavy chain genes from diagnostic bone marrow using serial dilutions of CD138+ plasma cells from a patient with multiple myeloma. Sequencing libraries from diagnostic samples were prepared for the three sequencing platforms, Ion S5 (Thermo Fisher Scientific), MiSeq (Illumina), and MinION (Oxford Nanopore), using the LymphoTrack assay. Basic quality filtering was performed, and a Smith-Waterman-based swigh-score algorithm was developed in shell and C for clonotyping and MRD assessment using FASTQ data files. Performance is demonstrated across the three different sequencing platforms.

Clinical implications of circulating tumor DNA in predicting the outcome of diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients receiving first-line therapy

BACKGROUND

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been proven to be a promising tumor-specific biomarker in solid tumors, but its clinical utility in risk stratification and early prediction of relapse for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has not been well explored.

METHODS

Here, using a lymphoma-specific sequencing panel, we assessed the prognostic and predictive utilities of ctDNA measurements before, during, and after first-line therapy in 73 Chinese DLBCL patients.

RESULTS

The pretreatment ctDNA level serving as an independent prognostic factor for both progression-free survival (PFS, adjusted HR 2.47; p = 0.004) and overall survival (OS, adjusted HR 2.49; p = 0.011) was confirmed in our cohort. Furthermore, the patients classified as molecular responders who presented a larger decrease in ctDNA levels after the initial two treatment cycles had more favorable PFS (unreached vs. 6.25 months; HR 5.348; p = 0.0015) and OS (unreached vs. 25.87; HR 4.0; p = 0.028) than non-responders. In addition, interim ctDNA clearance may be an alternative noninvasive method of positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET-CT) for predicting better PFS (HR 3.65; p = 0.0033) and OS (HR 3.536; p = 0.016). We also demonstrated that posttreatment ctDNA was a sensitive indicator for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients with a high risk of recurrence (HR 6.471; p = 0.014), who were otherwise claimed to achieve radiographic CR (complete remission).

CONCLUSIONS

CtDNA is a promising noninvasive tool for prognosis prediction, response assessment, and early relapse prediction of first-line treatment in DLBCL patients.

Systemic immune inflammation index, ratio of lymphocytes to monocytes, lactate dehydrogenase and prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients

BACKGROUND

In malignant tumors, inflammation plays a vital role in the development, invasion, and metastasis of cancer cells. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the most common malignant proliferative disease of the lymphatic system, is commonly associated with inflammation. The international prognostic index (IPI), which includes age, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), number of extranodal lesions, Ann Arbor score, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, can evaluate the prognosis of DLBCL. However, its use in accurately identifying high-risk patients and guiding treatment is poor. Therefore, it is important to find novel immune markers in predicting the prognosis of DLBCL patients.

AIM

To determine the association between the systemic immune inflammation index (SII), ratio of lymphocytes to monocytes (LMR), ratio of LMR to LDH (LMR/LDH), and prognosis of patients with DLBCL.

METHODS

A total of 68 patients diagnosed with DLBCL, treated in our hospital between January 2016 and January 2020, were included. χ² test, Pearson’s R correlation, Kaplan Meier curves, and Cox proportional risk regression analysis were used. The differences in the SII, LMR, and LMR/LDH among patients with different clinicopathological features were analyzed. The differences in progression-free survival time among patients with different SII, LMR, and LMR/LDH expressions and influencing factors affecting the prognosis of DLBCL patients, were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The LMR and LMR/LDH in patients with Ann Arbor stage III–IV, ECOG score ≥ 2, and SII, IPI score 2–5 were significantly higher than those of patients with Ann Arbor stage I-II and ECOG score < 2 (P < 0.05). Patients with high SII, LMR, and LMR/LDH had progression-free survival times of 34 mo (95%CI: 32.52–38.50), 35 mo (95%CI: 33.42–36.58) and 35 mo (95%CI: 33.49–36.51), respectively, which were significantly lower than those with low SII, LMR, and LMR/LDH (P < 0.05); the SII, LMR, and LMR/LDH were positively correlated (P < 0.05). Cox proportional risk regression analysis showed that the SII, LMR, and LMR/LDH were influencing factors for the prognosis of DLBCL patients (hazard ratio = 1.143, 1.665, and 1.704, respectively; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The SII, LMR, and LMR/LDH are related to the clinicopathological features of DLCBL, and they also influence the prognosis of patients with the disease.

Liquid biopsy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: utility in cell origin determination and survival prediction in Chinese patients

The utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in classifying the cell origin of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has not been explored in the Chinese population. In this study, we aimed to investigate the genetic characteristics of DLBCL based on both tumor and ctDNA sequencing and to assess the predictive value of ctDNA in DLBCL. A targeted sequencing panel of 413 genes was applied to tumor biopsies and paired plasma samples obtained from 30 patients with DLBCL before therapeutic intervention (pretreatment). The concordance between plasma genotyping classification and traditional cell-of-origin classification using tumor tissue was 80.0% (20/25). Patients with higher baseline plasma ctDNA levels had poorer survival compared to those with lower ctDNA levels (2-year progression survival rate: 40.0% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.011; 5-year overall survival rate: 30.5% vs. 70.0%, p = 0.004). Collectively, our results demonstrated that pretreatment ctDNA analysis could assist origin determination and prognosis prediction clinically.

Efficacy and Safety of the Biosimilar IBI301 Plus Standard CHOP (I-CHOP) in Comparison With Rituximab Plus CHOP (R-CHOP) in Patients with Previously Untreated Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Phase 3 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have limited access to rituximab. IBI301 is a recombinant chimeric murine/human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and is a candidate biosimilar to rituximab. This study aimed to assess the therapeutic equivalence of IBI301 and rituximab in previously untreated patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial compared IBI301 and rituximab, both plus the chemotherapy of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, and prednisone (CHOP), was conducted in 68 centers across China. Eligible patients with untreated CD20 positive (CD20⁺) DLBCL randomly received IBI301 (375 mg/m²) plus the standard CHOP or rituximab (375 mg/m²) plus the standard CHOP for six cycles of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was the overall remission rate (ORR). Efficacy equivalence was defined if 95% CIs for the ORR difference between the two groups were within a ± 12.0% margin.

RESULTS

Between August 22, 2016, and September 5, 2018, 419 patients were randomly allocated into the IBI301 group (N = 209) and rituximab group (N = 210). In the full analysis set, the ORR was 89.9% and 93.8% in the IBI301 and rituximab groups, respectively, and the ORR difference was -3.9% (95% CI - 9.1%-1.3%), falling within a ± 12.0% margin. The occurrences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (100% vs. 99.0%) and AEs of grade ≥ 3 (87.1% vs. 83.3%) were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

IBI301 had a non-inferiority efficacy and a comparable safety compared with rituximab. IBI301 plus CHOP could be suggested as a candidate treatment regimen for untreated patients with CD20⁺ DLBCL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02867566).

Pharmacokinetics and safety of IBI301 versus rituximab in patients with CD20+ B-cell lymphoma: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled study

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trial aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) of IBI301 with rituximab in patients with CD20-positive (CD20⁺) B-cell lymphoma, who achieved a complete response/unconfirmed complete response after standard treatments. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive IBI301 or rituximab (375 mg/m², IV). Patients who continuously benefitted from the trial after the PK phase underwent the extension phase to receive up to three cycles of 3-month-cycle of rituximab/IBI301 maintenance therapy. PK was described using the area under the serum concentration–time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC_0-inf), AUC from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t), and maximum serum concentration (C_max). Pharmacodynamics (PD), incidence of adverse events and immunogenicity were evaluated. PK was defined equivalent, if 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for geometric mean ratios of PK endpoints fell within the margin of 0.8–1.25. Overall, 181 patients were enrolled in IBI301 (n = 89) and rituximab (n = 92) groups. Geometric mean ratios of AUC_0-inf, AUC_0-t, and C_max were 0.91 (90% CI 0.85, 0.97), 0.91 (90% CI 0.86, 0.97), and 0.96 (90% CI 0.92, 1.01) between treatment groups, all within the bioequivalence range. Peripheral CD19⁺ and CD20⁺ B-cell counts were similar at each prespecified time point between the groups. No difference in immunogenicity was observed. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (84.3% vs. 83.5%) and treatment-related AEs (56.2% vs. 61.5%) were comparable (IBI301 vs. rituximab). IBI301 was PK bioequivalent to rituximab in patients with CD20⁺ B-cell lymphoma. The PD, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of IBI301 were similar to those of rituximab.