The impact of bridging therapy (BT) on CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CD19CAR-T) outcomes in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) is poorly characterized. Current practice is guided through physician preference rather than established evidence. Identification of effective BT modalities and factors predictive of response could improve both CAR-T intention to treat and clinical outcomes. We assessed BT modality and response in 375 adult patients with LBCL in relation to outcomes after axicabtagene ciloleucel (Axi-cel) or tisagenlecleucel (Tisa-cel) administration. The majority of patients received BT with chemotherapy (57%) or radiotherapy (17%). We observed that BT was safe for patients, with minimal morbidity or mortality. We showed that complete or partial response to BT conferred a 42% reduction in disease progression and death after CD19CAR-T therapy. Multivariate analysis identified several factors associated with likelihood of response to BT, including response to last line therapy, the absence of bulky disease, and the use of polatuzumab-containing chemotherapy regimens. Our data suggested that complete or partial response to BT may be more important for Tisa-cel than for Axi-cel, because all patients receiving Tisa-cel with less than partial response to BT experienced frank relapse within 12 months of CD19CAR-T infusion. In summary, BT in LBCL should be carefully planned toward optimal response and disease debulking, to improve patient outcomes associated with CD19CAR-T. Polatuzumab-containing regimens should be strongly considered for all suitable patients, and failure to achieve complete or partial response to BT before Tisa-cel administration may prompt consideration of further lines of BT where possible.

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) progressing on ibrutinib constitute an unmet need. Though Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) and PLCG2 mutations are associated with ibrutinib resistance, their frequency and relevance to progression are not fully understood. In this multicenter retrospective observational study, we analyzed 98 patients with CLL on ibrutinib (49 relapsing after an initial response and 49 still responding after ≥1 year of continuous treatment) using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel (1% sensitivity) comprising 13 CLL-relevant genes including BTK and PLCG2. BTK hotspot mutations were validated by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) (0.1% sensitivity). By integrating NGS and ddPCR results, 32 of 49 relapsing cases (65%) carried at least 1 hotspot BTK and/or PLCG2 mutation(s); in 6 of 32, BTK mutations were only detected by ddPCR (variant allele frequency [VAF] 0.1% to 1.2%). BTK/PLCG2 mutations were also identified in 6 of 49 responding patients (12%; 5/6 VAF <10%), of whom 2 progressed later. Among the relapsing patients, the BTK-mutated (BTKmut) group was enriched for EGR2 mutations, whereas BTK-wildtype (BTKwt) cases more frequently displayed BIRC3 and NFKBIE mutations. Using an extended capture-based panel, only BRAF and IKZF3 mutations showed a predominance in relapsing cases, who were enriched for del(8p) (n = 11; 3 BTKwt). Finally, no difference in TP53 mutation burden was observed between BTKmut and BTKwt relapsing cases, and ibrutinib treatment did not favor selection of TP53-aberrant clones. In conclusion, we show that BTK/PLCG2 mutations were absent in a substantial fraction (35%) of a real-world cohort failing ibrutinib, and propose additional mechanisms contributing to resistance.

Standard treatment options in classic HCL (cHCL) result in high response rates and near normal life expectancy. However, the disease itself and the recommended standard treatment are associated with profound and prolonged immunosuppression, increasing susceptibility to infections and the risk for a severe course of COVID-19. The Hairy Cell Leukemia Foundation (HCLF) has recently convened experts and discussed different clinical strategies for the management of these patients. The new recommendations adapt the 2017 consensus for the diagnosis and management with cHCL to the current COVID-19 pandemic. They underline the option of active surveillance in patients with low but stable blood counts, consider the use of targeted and non-immunosuppressive agents as first-line treatment for cHCL, and give recommendations on preventive measures against COVID-19.

Summary: From the outset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, patients and healthcare professionals have been concerned that a history of haematological malignancy will lead to an increased risk of severe COVID‐19. This led to the UK government advising patients with blood cancers to shield, massive re‐organisation of NHS haematology and cancer services, and changes in treatment plans for thousands of patients. Given the unknown effects that relaxation of social‐distancing measures will have on the infection rate, we review the evidence to date to see whether a history of haematological malignancy is associated with increased risk of COVID‐19. Multivariable analysis of large population studies, taking other known risk factors into account, do indicate that patients with haematological malignancy, especially those diagnosed recently, are at increased risk of death from COVID‐19 compared to the general population. The evidence that this risk is higher than for those with solid malignancies is conflicting. There is suggestive evidence from smaller cohort studies that those with myeloid malignancy may be at increased risk within the blood cancer population, but this needs to be confirmed on larger studies. Ongoing large collaborative efforts are required to gain further evidence regarding specific risk factors for severe complications of COVID‐19.