An international analysis evaluating frontline bendamustine with rituximab in extranodal marginal zone lymphoma

[Update on marginal zone lymphoma classification, diagnosis and treatment in 2024]

Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is the third most frequent lymphoma in Western countries with an increasing incidence with age. There are different histologic subtypes: Splenic MZL (SMZL), Nodal MZL (NZML), Extranodal MZL (EMZL) or MALT lymphoma and more recently, a novel entity called splenic diffuse red pulp small B-cell lymphoma. The accurate diagnosis relies on morphologic, phenotypic, cytogenetic and molecular features in order to rule out other indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas. First line treatment depends on MZL subtypes: depending on localized or disseminated disease, MALT lymphoma are managed with radiotherapy on immunochemotherapy. SMZL, when requiring therapy, are treated with splenectomy ore more frequently monotherapy Rituximab or immunochemotherapy depending on age, comorbidities and tumor burden. Management of NMZL is often similar to Follicular lymphoma treatment. Treatment of refractory or relapsed MZL takes into account the time between the diagnosis and the progression, the nature and outcomes of previous therapies and the general condition of the patient. Conventional treatments may be a suitable option but novel therapies are more frequently used. In this review, we focus on the role of Bruton Tyrosine Kinases (where only Zanubrutinib has marketing authorization in France), PI3Kinases, Syk and BCL-2 inhibitors as well as on the results of immunomodulatory drugs and more recently the use of bispecific antibodies and T-cell chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T cell).

Recent updates in the indolent lymphomas: Update on marginal zone lymphoma and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia

Marginal Zone Lymphoma (MZL) and Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia (WM) are indolent lymphomas that both arise from post germinal center lymphocytes. Both can secrete a monoclonal protein but high levels are mostly only seen in WM. The MYD88 L256P somatic mutation that is present in an estimated 95% of patients with WM has helped greatly in differentiating the two lymphomas. Several large clinical studies with new drugs have been performed that have provided new treatment options for both MZL and WM patients. In this short review we will discuss the recent literature published and provide some recommendations.

Real-world data for marginal zone lymphoma patients in the French REALYSA cohort: The REALMA study

Marginal Zone Lymphoma (MZL) comprises three subtypes: extranodal MZL (EMZL), splenic MZL (SMZL) and nodal MZL (NMZL). Since clinical trials have limited representativeness, there is a need for real-world data (RWD) evidence in MZL. Real-world data in Lymphoma and survival in Adults (REALYSA) is a prospective multicentric French cohort of newly diagnosed lymphoma patients. This study consists of the first abstraction of MZL patients prospectively included in REALYSA between 12/2018 and 01/2021 with at least 1 year of follow-up. It provides a landscape description of clinical characteristics, initial workup, quality of life and first-line therapy performed in routine practice. Among 207 included patients, 122 presented with EMZL, 51 with SMZL and 34 with NMZL. At baseline, median age was 67 years (range 28-96), and patients reported a favorable global health status (75/100 (IQR 58,83)) - which was higher in NMZL and lower in SMZL patients (p = 0.006). 18FDG-PET/CT was frequently performed at initial workup (EMZL 72%, SMZL 73%, NMZL 85%). Active surveillance was the initial management for 58 (28%) patients. The most prescribed therapies were rituximab-chlorambucil in the EMZL population (30%), rituximab monotherapy in the SMZL population (37%) and R-CHOP (24%)/bendamustine-rituximab (15%) in the NMZL population. At end of first line, overall response rate was 93% among treated patients with 75% of complete response. This French nationwide study provided for the first time prospective RWD on clinical characteristics, initial management and treatment response of MZL patients.

Characteristics, efficacy, and prognosis analysis of newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma

Objective

To retrospectively analyze the characteristics of newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) patients, evaluate the efficacy of different treatment regimens, and explore prognostic factors in the era of immunotherapy.

Methods

We reviewed the clinical data of newly diagnosed MZL patients treated at the Department of Hematology, The First Hospital of Jilin University, from October 2013 to October 2023. Survival differences between groups were analyzed using the log-rank test, and prognostic factors were identified.

Results

A total of 265 newly diagnosed MZL patients were included, with a median age of 59 years (range 22-90). The most common pathological type was mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, accounting for 66.0% of cases. Among the 147 MZL patients included in the efficacy analysis, the median follow-up was 43.4 months. Both the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached. The 5-year PFS and OS rates were 76.0% and 86.6%, respectively. Patients who achieved complete response (CR) after induction therapy had significantly better PFS (P=0.0045), OS (P<0.001), and time to next treatment (TTNT) (P=0.0045) compared to those who did not achieve CR. A subgroup analysis was conducted on 51 MZL patients with high tumor burden who received ≥4 cycles of treatment. It was found that the CR rate (CRR) in patients receiving obinutuzumab (G) ± chemotherapy was significantly higher than in those receiving rituximab (R) ± chemotherapy (93.8% vs. 48.6%, P=0.002). Multivariate analysis revealed that disease progression or death within 24 months of initial treatment (POD24) was an independent risk factor affecting OS (P<0.001). Patients who experienced POD24 had a median survival of only 19.7 months, with a 3-year OS rate of just 37.6%, whereas those without POD24 had a 3-year OS rate of 97.3%.

Conclusion

MZL is predominantly seen in middle-aged and elderly patients and is a specific indolent B-cell lymphoma, with MALT lymphoma being the most common subtype. Achieving CR after induction therapy significantly prolongs survival in MZL patients. Compared to R ± chemotherapy, G ± chemotherapy achieves a higher CRR in high tumor burden MZL patients. In the era of immunotherapy, POD24 is an independent prognostic factor for MZL.

Delphi consensus recommendations on treatment for advanced-stage marginal zone lymphoma in South Korea

Due to the lack of treatment guidelines for the management of advanced-stage marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), only one chemoimmunotherapy-cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone plus rituximab (R-CVP)-is reimbursed in the first-line setting in South Korea. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus-based recommendation for the treatment of patients with advanced-stage MZL. Twelve hematologist oncologists participated in a two-round Delphi process to identify consensus on the management of patients with advanced-stage MZL in South Korea. Physicians rated their level of agreement with each statement on a four-point Likert scale. Statements were divided into two sections: definitions used in clinical practice and clinical management of patients with advanced-stage MZL. Consensus was reached for 23 of 33 (69.7%) and 5 of 13 statements (38.5%) in rounds 1 and 2, respectively. There was strong consensus (91.7%) that advanced-stage MZL subtypes are defined according to the Lugano staging system. First-line systemic treatment should be prescribed for patients with symptomatic advanced-stage MZL. Although there was unanimous agreement that R-CVP is the standard first-line treatment for advanced-stage MZL, physicians also agreed that bendamustine with rituximab (BR) has greater efficacy than R-CVP as first-line treatment (91.7%). For the treatment of relapsed/refractory advanced-stage MZL, BR and R-CVP can be repeated in patients with short (< 24 months) and long remission periods (≥ 24 months), respectively. This study provides insights on the management of patients with advanced-stage MZL in South Korea. This may enhance clinical decision-making, thus improving patient outcomes.

More is not always better, sometimes it is just more

Not available.

IELSG38: phase II trial of front-line chlorambucil plus subcutaneous rituximab induction and maintenance in mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma

The IELSG38 trial was conducted to investigate the effects of subcutaneous (SC) rituximab on the complete remission (CR) rate and the benefits of SC rituximab maintenance in patients with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) who received front-line treatment with chlorambucil plus rituximab. Study treatment was an induction phase with oral chlorambucil 6 mg/m2/day on weeks 1-6, 9-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-22, and intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1 of weeks 1-4, and 1,400 mg SC on weeks 9, 13, 17, and 21. Then, a maintenance phase followed with rituximab administered at 1,400 mg SC every two months for two years. Of the 112 patients enrolled, 109 were evaluated for efficacy. The CR rates increased from 52% at the end of the induction phase to 70% upon completion of the maintenance phase. With a median follow-up of 5.8 years, the 5-year event-free, progression-free, and overall survival rates were 87% (95% CI: 78-92), 84% (95% CI: 75-89), and 93% (95% CI: 86-96), respectively. The most common grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (33%) and lymphocytopenia (16%). Six patients experienced treatment-related serious adverse events, including fever of unknown origin, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, severe cerebellar ataxia, and fatal acute myeloid leukemia. The trial showed that SC rituximab did not improve the CR rate at the conclusion of the induction phase, which was the main endpoint. Nevertheless, SC rituximab maintenance might have facilitated long-term disease control, potentially contributing to enhanced event-free and progression-free survival.

Marginal zone lymphomas: a consensus practice statement from the Australasian Lymphoma Alliance

Marginal zone lymphomas (MZLs) are a rare, indolent group of non-Hodgkin lymphomas with different diagnostic, genetic and clinical features and therapeutic implications. The most common is extranodal MZL of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue, followed by splenic MZL and nodal MZL. Patients with MZL generally have good outcomes with long survival rates but frequently have a relapsing/remitting course requiring several lines of therapy. The heterogeneous presentation and relapsing course present the clinician with several diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. This position statement presents evidence-based recommendations in the setting of Australia and New Zealand.

Bendamustine and rituximab as frontline therapy in extranodal marginal zone lymphoma: a single-institution experience

Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL) encompasses 70% of cases of marginal zone lymphoma. Frontline bendamustine and rituximab (BR) were derived from trials involving other indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Only one trial has evaluated frontline BR prospectively in EMZL. This retrospective study reports outcomes among EMZL patients receiving frontline BR. Twenty-five patients were included with a median age of 69 years (40-81). Five (20.0%) patients had stage I/II disease, and 20 (80.0%) had stage III/IV disease. The median number of cycles was 6.0 (3.0-6.0). Maintenance rituximab was administered to 10 (41.7%) individuals. Overall response rate (ORR) was 100.0% (60.0% complete response, 40.0% partial response). Medians of overall survival and progression-free survival were not reached. The estimated 2-year progression-free survival was 85.2% and overall survival was 100.0%. Four (16.6%) patients had infections related to treatment; 3 (12.0%) transformed to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; 5 (20.8%) had a relapse or progression of EMZL; and 3 (12.0%) died unrelated to BR. BR is an efficacious and well-tolerated front-line regimen for EMZL with response data consistent with existing literature.

Advances in the treatment of relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma

Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is the second most common subtype of inert B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, accounting for 5-15% of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases. Patients with MZL have a long survival period, with a median survival of >10 years, and patients treated with a combination of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody can achieve an overall effective rate of 81%. However, 20% of patients with MZL show relapse or experience disease progression within 2 years, with a median survival of only 3-5 years. Currently, the treatment options for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MZL are limited, underscoring the pressing need for novel therapeutic drugs. The advent of novel anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, small molecule kinase inhibitors, immunomodulators, and other therapeutic strategies has ushered in a new era in the treatment of R/R MZL. Our objective is to summarize the existing treatment strategies, including immunotherapy and the emergent targeted therapies, and to evaluate their effectiveness and safety in the management of R/R MZL. By doing so, we aim to provide a clear understanding of the therapeutic landscape for R/R MZL, and to guide future research directions toward improving the prognosis and quality of life for patients afflicted with this challenging disease.

The prognostic role of gene polymorphisms in patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas and mantle-cell lymphoma receiving bendamustine and rituximab: results of the 5-year follow-up study

The variability in disease outcome for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL) and mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) could be related to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes that affect immune and inflammatory response. We investigated SNPs that could have a prognostic role for patients receiving bendamustine and rituximab (BR). All samples were genotyped for the IL-2 (rs2069762), IL-10 (rs1800890, rs10494879), VEGFA (rs3025039), IL-8 (rs4073), CFH (rs1065489) and MTHFR (rs1801131) SNPs by allelic discrimination assays using TaqMan SNP Genotyping Assays. We report a long-term follow-up analysis of 79 iNHL and MCL patients that received BR. Overall response rate was 97.5% (CR rate 70.9%). After a median follow-up of 63 months, median PFS and OS were not reached. We report a significant association between SNP in IL-2 (rs2069762) and reduced PFS and OS (p<.0001). We suggest a role for cytokine SNPs in disease outcome, while SNPs seem not related to long-term toxicity or secondary malignancies.

Marginal zone lymphoma: 2023 update on diagnosis and management

DISEASE OVERVIEW

Marginal zone lymphomas (MZL) are collectively the second most common type of indolent lymphoma.

DIAGNOSIS

Three subtypes of MZL are recognized: splenic, extranodal, and nodal. The diagnosis is secured following biopsy of an involved nodal or extranodal site demonstrating a clonal B-cell infiltrate with CD5 and CD10 negative immunophenotype most common. Some cases will features IgM paraprotein, but MYD88 L256P mutations are less frequent than in Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia. Prognostication Several prognostic models have been developed, including the MALT-IPI and the MZL-IPI. The latter is broadly applicable across MZL subtypes and incorporates elevated serum LDH, anemia, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia and nodal or disseminated subtypes as independent predictors of outcome.

TREATMENT

We discuss suggested approach to therapy for both early and advanced-stage disease, with reference to chemo-immunotherapy, radiotherapy, and emerging treatments in relapsed/refractory disease such as BTK inhibitors.

Impact of early relapse within 24 months after first-line systemic therapy (POD24) on outcomes in patients with marginal zone lymphoma: A US multisite study

Progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) from diagnosis in marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) was shown to portend poor outcomes in prior studies. However, many patients with MZL do not require immediate therapy, and the time from diagnosis-to-treatment interval can be highly variable with no universal criteria to initiate systemic therapy. Hence, we sought to evaluate the prognostic relevance of early relapse or progression within 24 months from systemic therapy initiation in a large US cohort. The primary objective was to evaluate the overall survival (OS) in the two groups. The secondary objective included the evaluation of factors predictive of POD24 and the assessment of cumulative incidence of histologic transformation (HT) in POD24 versus non-POD24 groups. The study included 524 patients with 143 (27%) in POD24 and 381 (73%) in non-POD24 groups. Patients with POD24 had inferior OS compared to those without POD24, regardless of the type of systemic therapy received (rituximab monotherapy or immunochemotherapy) at diagnosis. After adjusting for factors associated with inferior OS in the univariate Cox model, POD24 remained associated with significantly inferior OS (HR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.53-4.09, p = 0.0003) in multivariable analysis. The presence of monoclonal protein at diagnosis and those who received first-line rituximab monotherapy had higher odds of POD24 on logistic regression analysis. Patients with POD24 had a significantly higher risk for HT compared to those without POD24. POD24 in MZL might be associated with adverse biology and could be used as an additional information point in clinical trials and investigated as a marker for worse prognosis.

Enhancing prognostication and personalizing treatment of extranodal marginal zone lymphoma

INTRODUCTION

Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL) of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue is an indolent lymphoma originating from marginal zone B-cells and associated with chronic inflammation. EMZL demonstrates distinct genomic alterations according to the primary extranodal site of disease but commonly affects signaling pathways including NF-ĸB, B-cell receptor, and NOTCH. Treatment with radiation therapy is commonly implemented in localized diseases, and multiple agents are available for patients with advanced-stage diseases in need of therapy. Bendamustine with rituximab is a frontline platform associated with high efficacy.

AREAS COVERED

Clinical features, diagnosis, genomics, models enabling risk stratification, treatment options, and future directions.

EXPERT OPINION

The lack of consistent genotyping profile in EMZL precludes the development of tissue and circulatory biomarkers for the diagnosis, risk stratification, and monitoring of minimal residual disease. Furthermore, the biological heterogeneity observed in extranodal sites associated with overall limited genomic data prevents the testing of druggable pathways aiming for a personalized treatment approach. Future clinical trials should focus on EMZL considering the unique clinical characteristics in the eligibility criteria and response assessment to better inform efficacy of novel agents and delineate sequences of therapies.

Bendamustine and rituximab is well-tolerated and efficient in the treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma in elderly: A single center observational study

Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a preferred first-line therapy for indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (iNHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL); however, few reports on BR performance in elderly patients are available to date. We compared safety and efficacy of BR in patients ≥70 years (elderly) vs <70 years (younger) treated at our institution. Among 201 patients, 113 were elderly (median age: 77 years), including 38 patients ≥80 years, and 88 were younger (median age: 62 years). Elderly patients had more bone marrow involvement by lymphoma, anemia, ECOG status 3 and high-risk disease follicular lymphoma (P < .05 for all). Fifty-four percent of elderly received full dose of bendamustine vs 79.5% of younger patients. More elderly patients (54%) vs younger (43.2%) experienced treatment delay. Less elderly proceeded to rituximab maintenance. Overall, the number of adverse events per patient and transformed B-Cell lymphoma/secondary malignancies were similar between groups. Elderly patients had less febrile neutropenia, rituximab-associated infusion reactions, but more herpes zoster reactivation. There were more deaths in the elderly (37.2%) vs younger (10.2%) groups (P < .001), mainly due to non-lymphoma-related causes. With median follow-up of 42 months [4.0-97.0] disease-free survival for the elderly was similar to younger patients. There was no difference between patients <80 and ≥80 years (P = .274). In conclusion, the real-world elderly patients have more advanced disease and higher ECOG status. BR is well-tolerated; elderly patients had lower incidence of febrile neutropenia. Dose reduction and treatment delays are common, but BR efficacy was not affected even in very old patients (≥80 years).

Diagnosis and Treatment for Gastric Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (MALT) Lymphoma

Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, which was first reported in 1984, shows an indolent clinical course. However, the detailed clinicopathological characteristics of gastric MALT lymphoma have not been fully elucidated. We performed a literature search concerning the clinical features and treatment for gastric MALT lymphoma using PubMED. MALT lymphomas develop in single or multiple extranodal organs, of which the stomach is one of the most frequent sites; gastric MALT lymphoma accounts for 7% to 9% of all B-cell lymphomas, and 40% to 50% of primary gastric lymphomas. The eradication of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is the first-line treatment for patients with gastric MALT lymphoma, regardless of the clinical stage. Approximately 60-90% of cases with stage I/II₁ disease only achieve a complete histological response via H. pylori eradication. In patients who do not respond to H. pylori eradication therapy, second-line treatments such as watch-and-wait, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, rituximab immunotherapy, and/or a combination of these are recommended. Thus, H. pylori plays a causative role in the pathogenesis of gastric MALT lymphoma, and H. pylori eradication leads to complete histological remission in the majority of cases.

Management of marginal zone lymphomas

Marginal zone lymphomas (MZLs) represent about 7% of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and include 3 different subtypes-namely, extranodal (EMZL), nodal, and splenic (SMZL). The initial assessment requires specific diagnostic and staging procedures depending on organ-related peculiarities. In particular, although positron emission tomography/computed tomography was not initially recommended, recent data have reassessed its role in the routine staging of MZL, especially when only localized treatment is planned or there is a suspicion of histologic transformation. Recent findings have improved the risk stratification of MZL patients, highlighting the association of early progression after frontline therapy with worse overall survival. A significant fraction of MZL cases may be related to specific bacterial (ie, Helicobacter pylori in gastric EMZL) or viral infections (hepatis C virus), and in the earlier phases of disease, a variable percentage of patients may respond to anti-infective therapy. Involved-site radiotherapy has a central role in the management of localized EMZL not amenable to or not responding to anti-infective therapy. Although rituximab-based treatments (bendamustine- rituximab in advanced EMZL or rituximab monotherapy in SMZL) have demonstrated favorable results, the current therapeutic scenario is predicted to rapidly change as emerging novel agents, especially Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, have demonstrated promising efficacy and safety profiles, leading to their approval in the relapsed setting. Moreover, a large variety of novel agents (phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cells, bispecific antibodies) are being tested in MZL patients with encouraging preliminary results.

A roadmap for clinical trial design in marginal zone lymphoma

Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is commonly underrepresented in clinical trials collectively studying mostly nodal indolent lymphomas.In this manuscript we propose new inclusion and response criteria defined by MZL subtype and disease location for those with extranodal MZL. Progression of disease within 24 months is associated with poor outcomes in MZL and future studies should assess the efficacy of novel agents in this population.

Management of Extranodal Marginal Zone Lymphoma: Present and Upcoming Perspectives

Simple Summary

Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma distinguishes itself from other indolent lymphomas due to its unique pathophysiology and natural history. This is reflected in its management, where next to traditional treatment strategies such as observation, radiotherapy or chemotherapy, eradication of the causal agent and even surgery represent important aspects of therapy. This review focuses on the particular aspects of this indolent lymphoma that affect management and summarizes the current evidence and different guidelines.

Abstract

Extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL) encompasses a subgroup of non-Hodgkin lymphomas that often present with localized involvement and may manifest in a diversity of organs and tissues. EMZL pathogenesis is in some cases linked to chronic inflammation/infection, which may impose additional diagnostic and clinical challenges. The most studied and established connection is the presence of Helicobacter pylori in gastric EMZL. Due to its heterogeneity of presentation and intricate pathological features, treatment can be complex, and staging systems are decisive for the choice of therapy. Nevertheless, there is no consensus regarding the most suitable staging system, and recommendations vary among different countries. As a rule of thumb, in limited stages, a local therapy with surgery or radiation is the preferred option, and it is potentially curative. Of note, eradicating the causal agent may be an important step of treatment, especially in gastric EMZL, in which Helicobacter pylori eradication remains the first-line therapy for the majority of patients. In patients with more advanced stages, watch-and-wait is a valuable option, especially amongst those without clear indications for systemic therapy, and it may be carried on for several years. If watch-and-wait is not an option, systemic therapy may be needed. Even though several agents have been tested as monotherapy or in combination in recent years, there is no consensus regarding the first-line therapy, and decisions can vary depending on individual factors, such as age, clinical performance and stage. This review aims to discuss the several aspects of EMZL, including genetic milieu, pathogenesis and staging systems, that may influence the choice of therapy. In addition, we present a summary of evidence of several systemic therapies, compare different recommendations worldwide and discuss future perspectives and novelties in its therapy.