2 Clarke Drive
Suite 100
Cranbury, NJ 08512
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences™ and OncLive - Clinical Oncology News, Cancer Expert Insights. All rights reserved.
Leo I. Gordon, MD, parses major changes to the 2024 NCCN guidelines for the treatment of patients with MCL, MZL, and follicular lymphoma.
A plethora of changes in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for B-cell lymphomas not only spanned mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), and follicular lymphoma, but also included the omission of Castleman Disease as it is now its own guideline, according to Leo I. Gordon, MD, vice chair of the B-cell lymphomas NCCN guidelines.
“It’s key for community oncologists to recognize that these treatments in B-cell lymphoma are changing quickly based on both basic and clinical research,” Gordon said in an interview with OncLive®. “There have been a number of changes in follicular lymphoma, MZL, and MCL in this latest iteration of the guidelines.”
In the interview, Gordon detailed major changes published in the 2024 NCCN guidelines for MCL, MZL, and follicular lymphoma. Gordon is the Abby and John Friend Professor of Oncology Research and a professor of medicine (hematology and oncology) at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois.
Gordon: In follicular lymphoma, one of the more important things is the addition of T-cell engager therapy as third-line [and subsequent therapy options]. That includes both bispecific antibodies, specifically epcoritamab which was added as a category 2A [preferred recommendation], and CAR T-cell therapy, specifically liso-cel [which was also included as] a category 2A [preferred recommendation].
In MZL, for second-line and subsequent therapy of older or infirm patients we’ve added the use of a non-covalent BTK inhibitor with pirtobrutinib [as a category 2A preferred recommendation], after [receiving a] prior covalent BTK inhibitor.
In MCL, there have been a number of things, [including] the way we think about TP53 mutations, for example. We have relied upon next-generation sequencing [NGS] as the way to determine if there is a TP53 mutation, which turns out to be a fairly significant prognostic factor in MCL. One of the questions is whether immunohistochemistry [IHC] on the pathology specimen is a reasonable surrogate for NGS. We’ve revised one of the footnotes in the MANT-1 section of the MCL guidelines [from] ‘TP53 by IHC is not a proven surrogate for a TP53 mutation or deletion 17[p],’ [to say] that ‘TP53 sequencing is preferred’.
However, because NGS may not be available everywhere and all the time, [we believe] in the frontline setting [TP53 testing by] IHC can be used as a surrogate, but ultimately should be confirmed with sequencing. [This] addresses how we measure that important prognostic factor. Because it’s so important, we’ve now allowed IHC to determine [its status]. The other question is, ‘how much expression of P53 do you need by IHC to be the equivalent of the mutation by NGS?’ Anywhere from 30% to 50%, certainly greater than 50%, suggests it’s probably going to be mutated if you order NGS.
Another important change came in the MANT-3 [section]. In patients with classical TP53 mutations the combination of zanubrutinib, obinituzumab, and venetoclax—which has been the subject of [investigation in] the phase 2 BOVen trial [NCT03824483]—has been added as a category 2A recommendation. Whereas that [regimen] was [previously] only available on clinical trials, we believe that should now be a category 2A recommendation for patients with TP53-mutated MCL, even off a clinical trial. It’s an important change in the guidelines and offers physicians and patients the option for what appears to be one of the more effective, at least from what we can tell from early data from the trials, ways to treat [patients with] TP53-mutated MCL.
In the second-line and subsequent therapy [section of the MCL guidelines], we added liso-cel, which is another T-cell engager, as a category 2A recommendation. In MANT-A section 3 of 5, we revised a footnote, which may not be thought by many to be that significant, but I believe it’s important. [In that footnote] we added that obinutuzumab can be optional and substituted for rituximab at the discretion of the treating physician.
In terms of other notable changes, we’ve moved Castleman Disease, and this is something that’s important for community physicians, from the B-cell lymphoma guidelines and published that as a separate guideline. We’ve also changed the name of follicular lymphoma grade 1/2 to follicular lymphoma or classic follicular lymphoma. Additionally, CAR T-cell therapy and bispecific antibody therapy are now referred to as T-cell engager therapy.
It’s [necessary] to know that we’re talking about bispecific antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy when we say T-cell engager therapy. It’s also important to communicate that older patients are now [referred to as] elderly patients in the guidelines. For community oncologists who are adapting to these changes, it’s important to know where to find [this information] because the [guidelines] are somewhat dense, and the algorithms can sometimes be difficult to follow.
It’s important for community oncologists, if they can, to maintain a relationship with lymphoma specialists at academic institutions for advice and to not change where the patients are treated but know that we now have treatments such as these T-cell engager therapies that may not be available routinely, and that referral too late may affect care. It’s important for the community oncologist to use the guidelines to know when to refer patients for novel treatments like these T-cell engager therapies.
Yes. Communicating these changes to insurers who don’t necessarily update their approval algorithms to coincide with the guidelines [can be challenging], and sometimes we find ourselves being told that something is not in the guidelines or not approved when we’ve just written them into the guidelines. It’s on us to educate everybody and to do so in a congenial way. Sometimes we get into arguments with insurance companies, and that’s not useful for anybody. It’s key to make sure that they’re aware of the importance of the guidelines and that the guidelines are changing in real time.
I tend not to use the guidelines in day-to-day patient discussions. They help to inform the way I approach bringing ideas to patients, but, similar to insurers, I stress that the field is moving quickly and what was standard of care a year ago may not be standard of care today. It’s important not necessarily to say, ‘the guidelines now say’ or ‘we wrote in the guidelines now’, but to say from our best information and based on our best research this may be the better way to approach this. I prefer to do that communication not guideline-based, but where I believe the field is moving.
There are two things that I hope will be addressed in 2025. First, in DLBCL, there are some new combinations of T-cell engager therapies, specifically bispecific antibodies, together with chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory DLBCL either before or after CAR T-cell therapy. I’m anticipating that those [regimens] may be included in the guidelines come the next iteration. Combinations such as those that we saw in the phase 3 STARGLO study [NCT04408638] of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin [with glofitamab or rituximab] look very promising. There are data looking at bispecific antibodies and lenalidomide [Revlimid], which look exciting. I’m expecting to see some additions in DLBCL.
[Secondly], it’s hopefully coming to be time where we can begin to look at the question of transplant in patients with MCL in complete remission 1 [CR1]. We had updated the guidelines the last time to include data from the phase 3 TRIANGLE study [NCT02858258], [indicating] that transplant does not necessarily add anything if you include chemotherapy plus a BTK inhibitor as upfront therapy and for a period of maintenance. We’re starting to see a change in the utility of transplant in patients with MCL in CR1, and the phase 3 ECOG-ACRIN EA4151 trial [NCT03267433] is looking at that question in a different way. It’s coming time where we may see some data emerge from that study, hopefully in the next year or so.