Abstract
Background: Pre-clinical studies show that statins may improve the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy in patients with DLBCL, through interference with cell membrane-initiated signaling pathways. Clinical retrospective studies, however, yield conflicting data, due to heterogeneous properties of statins, including potency and hydrophilicity. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients with previously untreated, advanced stage DLBCL, non-double hit, treated with frontline R-CHOP between 01/01/2000 and 09/01/2019 (data cut-off 04/15/2020) at MD Anderson Cancer Center, and for whom data regarding statin use at time of initiation of treatment were available. Lugano 2014 response criteria were applied retrospectively for response assessment. Cellular cholesterol levels were analyzed in 6 DLBCL cell lines using an Amplex red fluorometric assay. A doxorubicin (DXR)-resistant cell line was generated exposing SUDHL4 cells to escalating doses of DXR; a DXR-resistant DLBCL patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model was established through serial transplantation and exposure to DXR. Results: 271 patients were included in the analysis, 182 (67%) were older than 60 years, 134 (49%) were male, 212 (72%) had stage IV disease, and 217 (80%) had an IPI score > 3; upon pathological review, 38 (36%) cases were non-GCB type, and 18 (28%) were double-expressors; 214 (79%) were able to complete all planned 6 cycles of RCHOP. Seventy-nine (29%) patients received statins at time of initiation of chemoimmunotherapy: 15 patients received low potency statin, 51 medium and 13 high; 18 patients received hydrophilic statins and 61 lipophilic. Patients receiving statins were significantly older as compared to patients who did not (p<0.001); no other significant difference in baseline characteristics was observed when comparing the 2 groups. Overall, 265 out of 271 patients were evaluable for response, as 6 stopped treatment because of toxicity before first response assessment. Among these, ORR was 95% (252/265) and CR rate was 62% (165/265). ORR rate was identical in patients who were treated with statin and those who did not (95% both, p=1). After a median follow-up of 77 months (95% CI, 70-84 months), 119 patients progressed/died, median PFS was not reached and 6-year PFS was 57%. 6-year PFS rate according to statin intensity was: 48% (low), 72% (medium), 57% (high). PFS. 6-year PFS rate was 64% for hydrophilic and 72% for lipophilic statins. Patients treated with statins had a trend for longer PFS (p=0.06), significantly longer for patients receiving medium potency statins (p=0.04). No significant difference in PFS was observed when comparing patients treated with lipophilic statins to all others (not reached vs 84 months, p=0.22). To confirm these clinical data, in-vitro and in-vivo studies were performed. Six cell lines were tested: 4 with high cholesterol content (SUDHL4, HBL1, HT, and U2932; 5.0-8.0 µg/mg protein), and 2 with low cholesterol content (DOHH2 and OCI-LY19; 1.5-2.0 µg/mg protein); the latter showed the highest sensitivity to DXR-mediated killing. The combination of lovastatin and DXR (10nM) was tested in all 4 cell lines with high cholesterol content, resulting in more cell death than either treatment alone. Lovastatin (at the nanomolar range) resensitized DXR-resistant SUDHL4 cells to DXR. Finally, in a DXR-resistant PDX model, the combination of lovastatin and DXR resulted in delayed tumor growth as compared to chemotherapy alone. Conclusions: Use of medium potency statins is associated with improved outcomes after frontline RCHOP in patients with DLBCL. This was further confirmed in functional in-vitro and in-vivo studies. Future interventional studies, aimed at improving outcomes in these patients using this novel combination, are warranted. Disclosures Westin: Amgen: Consultancy; 47: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nastoupil:Gamida Cell: Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria. Neelapu:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: personal fees; Celgene: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: personal fees; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; N/A: Other; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties; Acerta: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Other; Adicet Bio: Other; Allogene Therapeutics: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Cell Medica/Kuur: Other: personal fees; Calibr: Other; Incyte: Other: personal fees; Unum Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding. Landgraf:NCI/NIH: Research Funding. Vega:NCI: Research Funding.
