logo
Pola-R-CHP May Reverse Outlook in High-Risk Lymphoma

Pola-R-CHP May Reverse Outlook in High-Risk Lymphoma

Medscape9 hours ago

LUGANO, Switzerland — Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in a genetic subgroup associated with worse outcomes show significantly greater responses to treatment with the standard first-line regimen of polatuzumab vedotin plus R-CHOP (Pola-R-CHP) compared with R-CHOP alone, new research showed.
'We found that newly diagnosed patients with DLBclass [classifier]-defined C5 DLBCLs derive the greatest benefit from Pola-R-CHP therapy,' said first author Eleonora Calabretta, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston , in presenting the late-breaking findings at the 18th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma (ICML) 2025.
'These findings support the use of DLBclass to design molecularly driven clinical trials and inform practice.'
The pivotal POLARIX trial, comparing the combination of the anti-CD79B drug polatuzumab and the long-time standard chemotherapy regimen of R-CHOP to R-CHOP alone, became the first phase 3 trial in more than 20 years to show a regimen to have greater efficacy over R-CHOP, with a 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 76.7% vs 70.2%, respectively, which was sustained at 5 years (66.7% vs 58.1%), placing Pola-R-CHP in position as a new standard of care in newly diagnosed patients with intermediate- to high-risk DLBCL.
However, as evidence mounts showing a multitude of genetic subsets in DLBCL that may have varying responses to therapies, Calabretta and her colleagues conducted an analysis of the POLARIX trial to look at possible differences within that trial.
For their analysis, the team's recently established DLBclass classifier, a probabilistic, neural network-based tool that categorizes patients in genetic clusters ranging from C1 through C5, was utilized.
Tumor biopsies from 407 patients in the POLARIX trial were analyzed, including 198 who were treated with R-CHOP and 209 treated with Pola-R-CHP.
Patients' baseline clinical characteristics were well balanced between treatment arms.
The results showed a substantial difference between patients in the two treatment groups who were specifically in the C5 cluster, which is associated with the poorest outcomes of the five groups, characterized by recurrent MYD88 and CD79B gain-of-function mutations and enhanced B-cell receptor signaling.
Among those patients, the 5-year PFS rate of those in the Pola-R-CHP group was 70.4% compared with just 42% in the R-CHOP arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; P = .005).
'These findings are especially important if we consider that the cluster C5 patients are those with the poorest prognoses among all the subsets, suggesting that the Pola-containing regimen may abrogate the predicted poor outcomes of this particular subset,' Calabretta said.
In contrast, all of the 5-year PFS outcomes in the four other molecular clusters (C1-C4) were comparable between the two treatment arms, she added.
The improved benefit of Pola-R-CHP in the C5 group remained after a multivariate adjustment for factors including International Prognostic Index score (2 vs 3-5), age (60 years or older vs younger than 60 years), and cell of origin (activated B cell, germinal center B cell, or unclassified, unknown; HR 0.41; P = .012).
The study further showed the Pola-R-CHP benefit in C5 DLBCL was independent of patients' CD79B mutational status, which is known to be prevalent in C5 DLBCL.
While the results did not show a significant improvement in overall survival — consistent with the findings in the POLARIX primary results — Calabretta noted that there was a significant trend that was nevertheless promising.
'We do see a nonstatistically significant trend that is likely due to the fact that salvage therapies for patients that relapse have great efficacy and can rescue many patients,' she told Medscape Medical News .
'There are many novel therapies for patients that relapse, and this is quite exciting and unprecedented in DLBCL treatment history.'
The DLBclass app is free and available for download. 'It does require processed sequencing data,' Calabretta said, 'but is available for use for anyone that would like to.'
'Our work has shown that DLBclass can identify patients that respond to Pola-R-CHP, but as of now in a research setting. There is ongoing effort to make this a clinically actionable assay,' she added.
Classifiers Provide Granularity to DLBCL's High Molecular Heterogeneity
As opposed to another genetic classifier tool, LymphGen, in which approximately 40% of cases were unclassified or in a composite category, the newer DLBclass classifier, described in May in the journal Blood , assigns all patients with detectable mutations to one of the five genetic clusters, regardless of the confidence level.
Commenting on the study, Alvaro Alencar, MD, an associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami, noted the study has important 'clinical significance as it expands the understanding of the activity of Pola-R-CHP in different DLBCL subsets.'
The study supports prior exploratory subgroup analyses of POLARIX that suggest greater benefit in patients with the ABC cell-of-origin, one of two main genetic subtypes previously identified (along with the GCB subtype), Alencar noted.
'We know C5 is enriched for the ABC [molecular subset], and the greater response in this class reinforces the previous knowledge of greater activity of Pola-R-CHP in the ABC vs GCB [subgroups],' he told Medscape Medical News .
While the retrospective analysis is 'incredibly helpful, the next frontier is how to apply this on a large scale,' he noted.
'Not even the FISH [fluorescence in situ hybridization; chromosomal test) is uniformly performed in DLBCL worldwide,' he noted. 'If indeed available with fast turnaround time, [the DLBclass classifier] could help identify a subgroup that should be certainly preferably treated with Pola-R-CHP,' Alencar said.
Molecular Classification in DLBCL Hits 'Prime Time'
Discussing the DLBclass research, as well as a dizzying array of other studies at the meeting tackling the complex genetic heterogeneity of DLBCL, Martin Dreyling, MD, noted that many prior studies looking to improve upon the long-held standard of R-CHOP basically 'failed because we didn't see the whole picture.'
Due to advances such as LymphGen, the DLBclass tool, and other emerging stratifying approaches, 'we now have more granular classification, and this will give us a more detailed view of the disease,' said Dreyling, a professor of medicine and head of the lymphoma program at the Department of Medicine III, LMU Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany, in a meeting overview.
'The key question is, what are the clinical consequences? That is what we have to explore,' he emphasized, noting that in the POLARIX analysis, 'we can see that Pola-R-CHP does have a major impact in the C5 subgroup.'
The rapidly evolving research developments ultimately indicate that 'it's prime time in molecular classification,' Dreyling said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

PD-L1 Did Not Predict Immunotherapy Benefit in CC
PD-L1 Did Not Predict Immunotherapy Benefit in CC

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

PD-L1 Did Not Predict Immunotherapy Benefit in CC

Findings of the BEATcc trial suggest PD-L1 status is not a reliable biomarker for guiding immunotherapy selection in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer, potentially simplifying treatment decisions for clinicians managing this patient population. A post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 trial demonstrated that the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy plus bevacizumab provided clinical benefit regardless of PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) status. This was among the results of the trial that Kristina Lindemann, MD, head of the Gynecological Oncology Center at Oslo University Hospital, Norway, presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology Gynecological Cancers Congress 2025. Current Treatment Landscape The treatment landscape for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer has evolved significantly in recent years, according to Lindemann. Since the publication of GOG-240, platinum-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab has served as the standard of care for chemotherapy-naive patients. She noted, during her presentation, that the Keynote 826 study further established pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy and bevacizumab as a treatment option, but only for biomarker-positive patients with a CPS of at least 1. The question that remains now is 'can we further improve the efficacy' of chemotherapy by adding immunotherapy in the biomarker-negative population, that is in those with a CPS of less than 1 or an unknown PD-L1 status? BEATcc Trial Design and First Results The BEATcc trial was an open-label, multicenter randomized phase 3 study in an all-comer population of 410 patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer who had received no prior systemic anticancer therapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy or the control arm of bevacizumab and platinum-based chemotherapy alone. The trial met its dual primary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and interim overall survival (OS). Lindemann reported that the addition of atezolizumab to the backbone of chemotherapy and bevacizumab significantly increased both PFS and interim OS, with an increase in median PFS from 10.4 months to 13.7 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78). Median OS was 32.1 and 22.8 months, respectively (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88). Biomarker Analysis The post hoc analysis presented by Lindemann examined treatment efficacy according to PD-L1 status in 313 patients (76% of the randomized population) who had available CPS scores. The analysis showed that the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy and bevacizumab provided benefit across all CPS subgroups. In the CPS-negative group (CPS < 1), PFS improved from 10.2 months in the control group to 13.6 months with atezolizumab (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28-0.82). Similarly, in the CPS-positive group (CPS ≥ 1), the median PFS increased from 10.5 months to 16.6 months (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.74). Interaction tests showed no predictive effect of CPS for PFS ( P = .73), PFS2 ( P = .53), or OS ( P = .12). Commenting on these data, Lindemann emphasized that 'atezolizumab demonstrates efficacy in terms of providing a significant beneficial effect on PFS as well as interim OS, both in the intention-to-treat population, but also in the biomarker-evaluable population, and this efficacy was seen across all CPS cut-offs.' Stéphanie Lheureux, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, who served as the external discussant, provided context regarding the interpretation of these biomarker analyses. She highlighted critical differences between the BEATcc and Keynote 826 trials in their approach to biomarker assessment. 'It's important to note that for both trials, the primary endpoint was a dual primary endpoint with both OS and PFS, which was powered for the trial design. They both used the same specific CPS core biomarker, but the way they analyzed the biomarker was very different in the two trials,' Lheureux noted. She explained that, in Keynote 826, CPS score was prospectively assessed as a stratification factor and was well-balanced between groups, with CPS < 1 representing about 10% of the population. In contrast, the BEATcc biomarker analysis was conducted as a post hoc analysis, with 24% of patients lacking CPS scores and some imbalance between treatment groups. 'We need to be very careful when we look at subgroup analysis. The clinical trial design matters very much when we analyze the results,' Lheureux cautioned. 'If the subgroup analysis is not powered, it could just be hypothesis generating, and we need to be very careful of how we interpret this.' Clinical Implications and Future Perspectives The findings of BEATcc have already influenced clinical practice guidelines. 'The BEAT regimen is now listed as a preferred first-line regimen in these patients' in the updated National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, reflecting the potential for broader application of atezolizumab regardless of biomarker status, Lindemann explained. Looking ahead, Lheureux emphasized that more sophisticated approaches to personalized treatment selection using biomarkers are needed. "We need to make sure biomarkers are context specific and appropriately validated with the right rigorous trials, and we need to assess the potential evolution of this biomarker with the tumor evolution and heterogeneity,' she said. Lindemann said the final OS analysis from the BEATcc trial is expected in 2026, which may provide additional insights into the long-term benefits of the atezolizumab combination across different biomarker subgroups. 'In the BEATcc trial, PD-L1 status does not seem to be a robust biomarker guiding patient selection for immunotherapy in this setting.' The findings suggest that atezolizumab, in combination with bevacizumab and chemotherapy, 'represents an effective first-line treatment option for patients with recurrent [or] metastatic cervical cancer and should actually be offered irrespective of CPS,' she concluded. Lindemann reports financial relationships with GSK, MSD, AstraZeneca, Karyopharm, Eisai, and Genmab. Lheureux reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Repare Therapeutics, GSK, Schrodinger, Merck, Roche, Seagen, AbbVie, Zai Lab, Gilead, and Eisai.

Which drink is best for hydration? Hint: It isn't water
Which drink is best for hydration? Hint: It isn't water

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Which drink is best for hydration? Hint: It isn't water

When you're thirsty and in need of a drink, which beverages are best at keeping you hydrated? Sure, you can always reach for a glass of water — but plain H20 isn't the most hydrating beverage around, according to a study from Scotland's St. Andrews University that compared the hydration responses of several different drinks. The researchers found that while water — both still and sparkling — does a pretty good job of quickly hydrating the body, beverages with a little bit of sugar, fat or protein do an even better job of keeping us hydrated for longer. The reason has to do with how our bodies respond to beverages, according to Ronald Maughan, a professor at St. Andrews' School of Medicine and the study's author. One factor is the volume of a given drink: The more you drink, the faster the drink empties from your stomach and gets absorbed into the bloodstream, where it can dilute the body's fluids and hydrate you. The other factor affecting how well a beverage hydrates relates to a drink's nutrient composition. For example, milk was found to be even more hydrating than plain water because it contains the sugar lactose, some protein and some fat, all of which help to slow the emptying of fluid from the stomach and keep hydration happening over a longer period. Milk also has sodium, which acts like a sponge and holds onto water in the body and results in less urine produced. The same can be said for oral rehydration solutions that are used to treat diarrhea. Those contain small amounts of sugar, as well as sodium and potassium, which can also help promote water retention in the body. 'This study tells us much of what we already knew: Electrolytes — like sodium and potassium — contribute to better hydration, while calories in beverages result in slower gastric emptying and therefore slower release of urination,' said Melissa Majumdar, a registered dietitian, personal trainer and spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics who was not involved in the study. But here's where it gets tricky: Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect 'pulls' water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won't fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies, and water also plays a key role in maintaining skin's elasticity and suppleness. It's the cheapest moisturizer you'll find. While staying hydrated is important — doing so keeps our joints lubricated, helps prevent infections, and carries nutrients to our cells — in most situations people don't need to worry too much about how hydrating their beverages are. 'If you're thirsty, your body will tell you to drink more,' Maughan said. But for athletes training seriously in warm conditions with high sweat losses, or for someone whose cognitive function may be negatively impacted by working long hours without beverage breaks, hydration becomes a critical issue. Alcohol acts as a diuretic, which causes you to pass more urine, so when it comes to alcoholic beverages hydration will depend on a beverage's total volume. 'Beer would result in less water loss than whiskey, because you are ingesting more fluid with beer,' Maughan said. 'Strong alcoholic drinks will dehydrate, dilute alcoholic drinks will not.' When it comes to coffee, how well your java hydrates you will depend on the amount of caffeine you consume. A regular coffee with about 80 milligrams of caffeine — roughtly what you would find in 12 oz. of Folgers' house blend – would be pretty much as hydrating as water, according to Maughan's research. Consuming more than 300mg of caffeine, or about 2-4 cups of coffee, could cause you to lose excess fluid as the caffeine causes a mild, short-term diuretic effect. This is more likely to happen with someone who doesn't typically consume caffeine, and it could be offset by adding a tablespoon or two of milk to your cup of joe. Lisa Drayer is a nutritionist, an author and a CNN health and nutrition story was original published in September 2019. It has been up for CNN's Fitness, But Better newsletter series. Our seven-part guide will help you ease into a healthy routine, backed by experts.

ASCO 2025: Reshaping the Landscape in Endometrial Cancer
ASCO 2025: Reshaping the Landscape in Endometrial Cancer

Medscape

time4 hours ago

  • Medscape

ASCO 2025: Reshaping the Landscape in Endometrial Cancer

Reflecting on data delivered at ASCO 2025, Ursula A. Matulonis, MD, reports that there has been remarkable progress in the treatment landscape for endometrial cancer, particularly for patients with advanced or recurrent disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors like pembrolizumab, dostarlimab, and durvalumab are now available, with some approved in combination with chemotherapy for mismatch repair-deficient or all-comer advanced disease. ASCO and other recent meetings have highlighted the urgent need to address more aggressive endometrial cancer subtypes — such as serous, clear cell, and carcinosarcomas — with targeted therapies including WEE1 and CDK2 inhibitors, as well as antibody-drug conjugates. Promising new data, including the use of abemaciclib with letrozole and metformin for ER-positive, low-grade cancers, underscores the growing momentum in precision therapy and the importance of ongoing clinical trial participation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store