Consensus recommendations from the 2024 International Follicular Lymphoma Scientific Workshop.

Introduction

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, in which most patients harbor the t(14;18) chromosomal translocation, 1 resulting in overexpression of the B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2) protein. 2 Mutations in chromatin-modifying genes are common features of the disease, and the lymphoma microenvironment (LME) plays a key role in disease pathogenesis. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Progress in drug development has enabled most patients to achieve an overall survival (OS) of ≥15 years. 8 However, the natural history of FL can include histologic transformation to a higher-grade subtype, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which is associated with decreased OS. 9 , 10 , 11 Although most patients with FL respond to current standard-of-care treatments, many relapse and require intermittent treatment throughout their lifetime. Consequently, there are unmet patient needs that should be addressed, including the impact of FL and its treatment on quality of life(QOL). Understanding the marked heterogeneity of FL remains a challenge at both biologic and clinical levels. Crossdisciplinary collaboration is critical to better understand the disease and to devise solutions that address existing gaps in patient care.

The Lymphoma Research Foundation, the largest nonprofit organization in the United States exclusively dedicated to lymphoma research and patient advocacy, hosted the biannual 2024 International Follicular Lymphoma Scientific Workshop, funded through the Lymphoma Research Foundation Jaime Peykoff Follicular Lymphoma Initiative. The workshop examined recent updates in FL biology, including advances in the genetics and epigenetics of FL and their interplay with the immune microenvironment. Speakers debated the continued role of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) as first-line therapy in context of emerging therapies, such as bispecific antibodies (BsAbs). The prognostic and therapeutic value of progression of disease within 24 months of initial therapy (POD24) was addressed. Next, the discussion focused on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and minimal residual disease (MRD) as biomarkers in FL, and their potential roles in clinical trials. New and emerging therapies were also explored. Finally, the panel deliberated on the feasibility of curing FL within the current therapeutic framework. This report reviews these topics, and Table 1 summarizes key recommendations. Table 1. Lymphoma Research Foundation workshop recommendations Recommendations Despite marked heterogeneity in FL, biologic characteristics are not currently factored into treatment decisions, likely leading to both overtreatment and undertreatment. Identification of predictive biomarkers to guide treatment decisions should be a key goal for ongoing and future first-line clinical trials. Biologic insights are needed to determine which patients with FL are likely to transform to aggressive lymphoma; these patients should be prioritized for clinical trials using novel approaches. QOL end points should be considered mandatory for randomized FL trials. Only by integrating both efficacy outcomes and QOL measurements can we gain a fuller understanding of the impact of treatment. Because current first-line FL treatments achieve durable remissions for many patients, the development of surrogate end points (such as detection of ctDNA) is needed to expedite trial readouts and therapeutic development in FL. Modern ctDNA approaches should be feasible to perform in all, or nearly all, patients with FL. Extended follow-up in FL clinical trials is critical to understanding long-term outcomes and toxicities, especially for novel treatments, including CAR T cells and BsAbs. Treatment goals, including the formidable goal of achieving a cure in FL, differ between patients. Aggressive early interventions should be targeted to selected patients. Treatment goals, including the formidable goal of achieving a cure in FL, differ between patients. Aggressive early interventions should be targeted to selected patients. Achieving curative strategies for FL will require a comprehensive molecular understanding of the mechanisms driving its heterogeneity, early progression, and transformation. Increased efforts are needed to ensure that novel therapeutic approaches are accessible to all patients with FL.

FL biology

Over the past decades, significant progress has been made in understanding the biology and pathogenesis of FL, which results from a complex interplay of genetic, epigenetic, immunologic, and microenvironmental factors. However, the remarkable heterogeneity of the disease, both spatial and temporal, and technological limitations, including scarcity of accurate preclinical models and difficulty of obtaining adequate biologic material, pose challenges to achieving a comprehensive view of FL that could inform patient management strategies.

Genetic insights

Genomic analysis of sequential patient samples has allowed us to infer the evolutionary history of FL, revealing that dominant clones at diagnosis, relapse, and transformation originate through divergent evolution from a common mutated precursor cell (CPC). 3 , 12 Recurrent mutations in epigenetic modifier genes, such as those encoding for acetyltransferases (eg, CREBBP) and methyltransferases (eg, KMT2D and EZH2), have emerged as genetic hallmarks of the disease, which occur early in the CPC, preceding its final clonal expansion into FL or transformed FL (tFL). 3 , 12 Notably, cells carrying CREBBP mutations can be detected in blood of apparently healthy individuals who later develop FL, up to 12 years before diagnosis. 13 Therefore, intercepting the CPC is critical to eradicating the reservoir of cells responsible for relapse and transformation. 14 Targeting vulnerabilities specific to the CPC may pave the basis for rationally selected, effective treatments capable of preventing its progression to a more aggressive state. Another unresolved challenge is mapping the full spectrum of functionally relevant genetic alterations in the largely unexplored noncoding genome of tFL, because these regions may harbor pathogenic events that contribute to deregulated expression of driver genes, and may reveal new therapeutic targets. Increasing evidence indicates the preferential enrichment of aberrant somatic hypermutation activity in tFL, targeting noncoding sequences with potential regulatory functions. 12 , 15 , 16 Notably, a recent whole-genome sequencing study developed a classifier based on coding and noncoding mutations that divided FL into 2 genetically distinct subgroups showing a remarkable difference in time to transformation, with the so called diffuse large B-cell lymphoma–like FL featuring increased aberrant somatic hypermutation. 15

From genetics to epigenetics and the LME

The high mutation frequency of histone/chromatin-modifying genes underscores a key role for epigenetic dysregulation in the expansion of the premalignant clone and the heterogeneity of FL. The programs modulated by CREBBP, KMT2D, or EZH2, and disrupted in cells carrying these mutations, are implicated in the control of germinal center B-cell state transitions, fate decisions, and cross talk with other immune cells. For instance, these programs govern the expression of major histocompatibility complex class II (MHC-II; a substrate of CREBBP ) 6 , 17 , 18 and MHC-I (negatively regulated by EZH2). 19 CREBBP-mutated FLs show downregulation of MHC-II, and EZH2 gain-of-function mutations are associated with reduced MHC-I levels. 19 , 20 These findings suggest that tumor cells may instruct the surrounding LME, and these 2 compartments coevolve over time. For example, FLs developing in compound BCL2-transgenic/EZH2-mutant knockin mice switched from T follicular helper cells to follicular dendritic cell dependence, 21 and inhibition of EZH2 enhanced response to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in a preclinical tFL model by restoring tumor immunogenicity and priming the LME and T-cell cytotoxicity. 22 , 23 These data suggest that dual targeting of FL and the LME may represent an effective therapeutic approach.

Toward a deeper understanding of the LME

Although the importance of the LME in FL has long been recognized, prior studies relied on limited markers. Advanced multiplexed technologies and multimodal integrative analyses enable detailed characterization of LME complexity, including tumor architecture, spatial organization, and immune-cell interactions, evident across different tumor sites and among individual patients. 24 More recently, single-cell analysis of evolutionary dynamics of transformation revealed a shifting LME landscape, with an emerging immune-cell exhaustion signature coevolving with the malignant B-cell phenotype. 25 These insights are anticipated to identify novel predictive and prognostic biomarkers, informing precision medicine approaches.

Translating biology into therapy

Although the concept of biomarker-driven precision epigenetic targeting will require clinical validation, preclinical proof of principle has been shown for the preferential sensitivity of CREBBP- and/or EZH2-mutant cells to targeted approaches, including, among others: (1) small-molecule inhibitors of the KAT3 acetyltransferase family, which exploit p300 paralogue lethality and are currently in clinical trials for hematologic malignancies 26 , 27 ; and 2) inhibitors of HDAC3, a component of the BCL6 co-repressor complex that opposes CREBBP activity. 6 , 7 HDAC3i are currently under development and could act as sensitizers when combined with immunotherapy or immunomodulatory agents, as recently shown for EZH2 inhibitors, 22 possibly as fixed or intermittent duration to prevent toxicity.

First-line treatment in FL

Outcomes of initial therapy for patients with FL have improved over the last 2 decades, driven by advances in treatment and supportive care. 28 The incorporation of CD20-targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) into frontline therapy represents the most significant advancement. Four randomized trials demonstrated that the addition of rituximab to chemotherapy results in improved OS. 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 Additional maintenance rituximab for 2 years after CIT induction yields extension in progression-free survival (PFS) but does not improve OS. 8 Alternatively, some patients, particularly those with lower disease burden, can be managed with rituximab alone. 33 , 34 , 35 Although rituximab remains widely used in clinical practice, the phase 3 GALLIUM study demonstrated that incremental improvement in PFS could be achieved by substituting rituximab with the second-generation CD20 mAb obinutuzumab in combination with chemotherapy. 36 , 37 Modification of the chemotherapy backbone may also yield improved outcomes. Two randomized trials compared bendamustine-based CIT to CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone)– or CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)–based treatment and found that bendamustine improved complete response (CR) rate and possibly PFS (with a significant improvement in PFS in 1 trial and numerical improvement in PFS in the other), but did not affect OS. 38 , 39 , 40 In addition, the RELEVANCE trial established lenalidomide plus rituximab as an alternative frontline treatment, with a distinct toxicity profile and similar PFS compared to CIT. 41

With these changes in treatment, newly diagnosed patients with FL can expect to have an initial remission of ≥10 years with CIT and rituximab maintenance and a life expectancy of ≥15 years. 8 , 28 However, limitations remain for patients with newly diagnosed FL.

CIT is associated with considerable toxicity

Frontline CIT is associated with infections, hematologic side effects, and secondary malignancies. Growing evidence suggests that bendamustine-based therapy may have increased long-term risks compared to other frontline approaches. 40 , 42 Bendamustine is associated with prolonged lymphopenia and infections. In the phase 3 GALLIUM study, 5% to 6% of patients receiving bendamustine-based treatment had a fatal adverse event, driven primarily by infections. 36 , 43 , 44

Improved first-line treatments have not significantly reduced the risk of histologic transformation

Transformation remains a feared outcome for patients with FL and is associated with inferior OS. 9 , 10 , 11 Nonrandomized data suggest that patients receiving rituximab may have modest reduction in this risk, 45 but transformation is still commonly observed. Although studies have shown high rates of transformation among early progressing patients after bendamustine plus rituximab, 46 a randomized study comparing rituximab plus CHOP and bendamustine plus rituximab 40 and well-conducted retrospective studies 47 , 48 have not shown a significant difference in transformation risk based on chemotherapy backbone.

FL biologic heterogeneity is not factored into treatment decisions

FL is a heterogeneous disease composed of distinct genomic, transcriptomic, and immunologic subtypes that are still being defined. 4 , 15 , 49 , 50 , 51 Outcomes with current frontline therapies are variable, with some patients achieving a functional cure (with ongoing remissions beyond 15 years) and others experiencing primary refractory disease or transformation. Multiple clinical and clinicogenetic risk scores (Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index [FLIPI], FLIPI-2, m7FLIPI, PRIMA-PI, others) 43 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 have been developed to identify patients at low and high risk, but these scores were developed in historical cohorts and do not perform as well for patients receiving current standard treatments. 56 , 57 Furthermore, they do not guide treatment decisions.

The lack of predictive biomarkers results in both overtreatment and undertreatment of patients with FL

Durable remissions are observed with CIT, but also for some patients receiving less-intensive therapies. A subset of patients (20%-40%) have disease control lasting ≥10 years with rituximab treatment alone. 34 , 58 Prospective trials have even shown that watchful waiting can be used for ≥10 years for a small subset of patients, 59 suggesting that some patients require minimal therapy. At that same time, ∼20% of patients will have POD24 after CIT, 60 including some with transformed disease. Such patients are poorly served by initial treatment and would benefit from alternative frontline treatments.

Frontline treatment for FL may be changing soon

Multiple randomized phase 3 trials are currently enrolling patients with untreated FL ( Table 2 ). Many are testing BsAbs, which have the potential to alter treatment algorithms for FL to a similar degree that rituximab did 20 years ago. Currently, 2 BsAbs targeting CD3×CD20 (mosunetuzumab and epcoritamab) are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with multiply relapsed FL, although other BsAbs targeting CD3×CD20 (odronextamab) and CD3×CD19 (surovatamig) are in late stages of clinical development. BsAbs have demonstrated high response rates (overall response rate, 78%-96%) and durable remissions (PFS, 15-24 months) in phase 2 trials among patients who had received ≥2 prior lines of therapy. 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 In addition, phase 2 trials have demonstrated encouraging results as initial therapy, either as monotherapy or in combination with lenalidomide. 65 , 66 , 67 BsAbs have a distinct side-effect profile compared to CIT, including frequent, mostly low-grade cytokine release syndrome, infections, and immunosuppression. As these drugs are relatively new, predictors of toxicity and long-term safety profiles are still being defined. At least 6 phase 3 trials (with a combined planned enrollment of nearly 5000 participants) are planned or actively enrolling patients. These studies are investigating different strategies, including BsAb monotherapy and combinations with lenalidomide, rituximab, and chemotherapy. These ongoing phase 3 trials may establish new treatment options for patients with untreated FL. Table 2. Ongoing phase 3 clinical trials with BsAbs in frontline FL Clinical trial N Description Patients Primary end point(s) Start date/anticipated primary end point date BsAbs in GELF + patients MorningLyte 790 Mosun + Len vs R or O + CHOP or B Grade 1-3A, FLIPI 2-5 PFS May 2024/November 2028 EPCORE FL-2 1080 4-way randomization with main comparison between arm A (Epco + Len + R) and arm B (investigator’s choice of R or O + chemotherapy [CHOP or B]) Arm A1: shorter course Epco + Len + R Arm C: Len + R Stage II-IV, Grade 1-3A CR30, PFS February 2024/October 2028 OLYMPIA-1 478 Odro followed by Odro maintenance vs CIT (R-CVP, R-CHOP, or BR, all followed by R maintenance) Stage III-IV or stage II bulky, Grade 1-3A CR30 December 2023/April 2029 OLYMPIA-2 733 1:1:1 randomization to R chemotherapy (CVP or CHOP) with R maintenance vs Odro chemotherapy (CVP or CHOP) vs Odro chemotherapy + Odro maintenance Stage III-IV or stage II bulky, Grade 1-3A CR30 November 2023/July 2029 SOUNDTRACK-F1 1015 1:1:1 randomization: arms A and B (different schedules of AZD0486 + R) vs arm C (R-CVP, R-CHOP, or BR followed by R maintenance) Grade 1-3A PFS August 2024/April 2031 BsAb in GELF − patients SWOG2308 600 4 weekly doses of R followed by 5 doses every 8 weeks vs 8 cycles of Mosun Grade 1-3A, low GELF PFS August 2024/March 2032 B, bendamustine; Epco, epcoritamab; Len, lenalidomide; Mosun, mosunetuzumab; O, obinutuzumab; Odro, odronextamab; R, rituximab.

Currently enrolling trials offer key challenges and opportunities. Identifying predictive biomarkers may be more feasible in these frontline trials, given the stark differences in mechanisms of action between treatment arms; however, the differences in design between frontline BsAbs trials (combination partners, duration of treatment, etc) may make it challenging to generalize potential biomarkers. These trials also will not immediately settle questions around the optimal sequencing of these therapies. How will short-term and long-term safety compare between CIT and BsAb-based treatment? How will frontline BsAb-based treatment affect efficacy and safety of subsequent CIT? Will loss of CD20 (observed in a subset of relapses) 68 have a negative effect on subsequent treatment? If chemotherapy is used in initial therapy, will it impair the efficacy of BsAbs in the relapsed/refractory setting? Will this impact depend upon the chemotherapy used and proximity to BsAb initiation, as observed in patients receiving CAR T cells after bendamustine? 69 Finally, as we strive to optimize care for patients with FL, we must recognize that large, randomized trials are a key opportunity to better understand how different treatments impact QOL and patient-reported outcomes.

Role of POD24

POD24 was established as a correlate for poor outcomes in FL in 2015, when an analysis of the National LymphoCare study demonstrated marked difference in survival based on remission status at this time point. 60 This work built on prior reports of inferior survival in patients with short response duration in indolent lymphomas. 70 , 71 Event-free survival at 12 months after diagnosis and 24 months after treatment are other predictors of outcomes in FL. 72 , 73 Subsequently, the Follicular Lymphoma Analysis of Surrogacy Hypothesis study analyzed 5225 patients enrolled in 12 multicenter randomized trials receiving frontline treatment and confirmed the impact of POD24 on prognosis in this group of heterogeneously treated patients. 74 The prognostic impact of POD24 appears less striking among patients undergoing active surveillance compared with those treated with immunotherapy or immunochemotherapy. 72 , 75 , 76 , 77

Importance of transformation

Variability in imaging and biopsy practices have contributed to an unclear incidence of transformation within the subset of patients with POD24. 11 , 46 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 Performing positron emission tomography (PET)–computed tomography scans and biopsies when feasible is of key importance in confirming relapse of FL vs transformed lymphoma, particularly because treatment strategies may be different and are dependent on the frontline treatment received. Before approval of novel treatments, several studies suggested that patients with tFL after CIT benefited from autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). 11 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 CAR T cells and BsAbs have improved survival in patients with tFL and, 84 ASCT is now less frequently deployed. 85 The timing of transformation is key. Early events affect prognosis most, regardless of whether transformation has occurred. In addition, those with occult transformation at diagnosis represent a distinct biologic group compared with those experiencing later events.

Significance of POD24 on later lines of therapy

The effect of POD24 designation on prognosis in later lines of therapy is unclear. In the relapsed/refractory setting, patients with POD24 and no evidence of transformation have similar response rates to those without POD24 but may have more limited response duration. 86 , 87 , 88 Intriguingly, responses of patients with POD24 receiving CAR T-cell therapy and BsAbs are similar or even higher than those in patients without POD24. 61 , 62 Unfortunately, these patients can have lower rates of T-cell expansion compared with those without POD24, which could affect the duration of response with CAR T-cell therapy. 89 Whether these differences are because of prior therapy or biologic aspects of the disease remains unknown.

Future use of POD24

POD24 remains an excellent parameter to predict survival in FL. As patients with POD24 status proceed with additional therapy, they should be re-evaluated at multiple time points to try to better understand biologic differences at each relapse. Analysis of the disease, ideally with material obtained noninvasively, such as ctDNA, should ideally be performed at diagnosis and throughout a patient’s trajectory. A recent retrospective analysis of 141 patients enrolled in the RELEVANCE trial with available serum samples and PET data reported that 6 of 7 patients with detectable ctDNA and a positive PET scan at the end of induction relapsed within 2 years (POD24). 90 In the future, we aspire to identify patients with high-risk biologic profiles so that we can predict which patient will have POD24. We could then select treatment most likely to be effective in these patients in a tailored approach to avoid early progression.

Clinical trial design

Designing clinical trials in FL presents challenges driven by disease heterogeneity and favorable outcomes with modern therapies. At what point should a patient no longer be managed with watchful waiting and instead be considered a candidate for systemic therapy? Currently, Group d’Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires (GELF) criteria are used to identify patients in need of treatment, but studies suggest that individual GELF criterion have different prognostic impacts, 91 and the presence or absence of GELF criteria at treatment initiation may not affect PFS with initial treatment. 92 With remissions to initial therapy exceeding 10 years in some studies, phase 3 trials can take more than a decade to reach a primary end point. What approaches can be used to identify promising therapies more rapidly?

Patient selection

Excellent outcomes with current frontline FL therapies pose a challenge in trial design as they set a high benchmark for therapeutic improvement. Prognostic enrichment, which aims to enroll patients with an increased likelihood of reaching a disease-related end point, can facilitate more rapid completion of clinical studies with smaller sample sizes. Among newly diagnosed patients, identifying those at highest risk remains a challenge. 56 , 57 Newer prognostic indices, such as FLIPI24, were developed and validated among patients receiving bendamustine-based treatment and appear to be better able to risk-stratify patients in contemporary cohorts. 93 Although most frontline FL trials continue to enroll all patients with an indication for treatment, prognostic enrichment is being implemented in some frontline trials; for example, the MorningLyte trial, which restricts enrollment to patients with a FLIPI score of 2 to 5 ( Table 2 ). In the relapsed/refractory setting, POD24 initially appeared to be an attractive candidate for prognostic enrichment; however, trials targeting POD24 patients have been challenging to enroll (eg, SWOG 1608). Because the POD24 population is relatively small and includes many patients with transformed disease, a wider group of high-risk patients with relapsed/refractory FL may need to be targeted in future trials. Enrichment could also be achieved by targeting biologic subgroups of FL most likely to respond to a specific therapy. This approach was used in initial trials of tazemetostat (in which EZH2 mutations were associated with higher response rates but similar PFS), 94 but has not been widely used in other studies.

Trial end points

Although OS remains the most critical end point, its feasibility as a primary end point in FL trials is limited. PFS has become a well-established primary end point for most phase 3 trials, although it is a poor surrogate for OS. 95 However, maximizing PFS is not necessarily the primary goal of patients and their physicians. There are numerous examples of treatments that improve PFS but are used selectively or not at all because of toxicity concerns (radioimmunotherapy, ASCT, obinutuzumab, and CD20 mAb maintenance). 8 , 37 , 46 , 84 , 96 Safety and tolerability are critical considerations in a disease in which patients have access to multiple highly active treatments. Moreover, a patient’s experience of a treatment regimen is not fully encompassed by traditionally reported adverse events. Patient-reported outcomes and QOL metrics are critical to understand how a patient experiences 1 treatment compared with another, yet there is a dearth of QOL data in FL. 97 QOL end points should be mandatory for randomized FL trials. Only by integrating both efficacy outcomes and QOL measurements, can we gain a full understanding of the treatment’s impact on patients’ well-being. We acknowledge that current methods of capturing and interpreting QOL data are inadequate, and we advocate for ongoing efforts to improve these tools.

Although PFS is the most common end point in phase 3 trials, it requires extended follow-up, particularly for frontline trials. Waiting for PFS end points prolongs trial duration and can delay availability of new effective treatments. Efforts are underway to develop surrogate end points that can identify a winning treatment regimen more rapidly. CR rate at 30 months (CR30) has been established as a surrogate end point for PFS in first-line FL therapy based on a large analysis of 13 randomized trials of induction and maintenance therapy in FL. 98 CR30 is being used as a primary or coprimary end point in multiple ongoing frontline phase 3 FL trials ( Table 2 ). Even earlier surrogate end points may be feasible in FL. MRD analyses from multiple phase 3 trials (FOLL5, StiL, GALLIUM, and RELEVANCE) have shown that MRD is associated with PFS among patients receiving frontline CIT. 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 These trials assessed MRD using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect a t(14;18) translocation (and in some cases also a clonal immunoglobulin heavy- or light-chain rearrangement). PCR-based MRD testing is only feasible for a subset of patients (50%-77% in these trials), limiting its utility. More modern MRD approaches that use high-throughput sequencing to track dozens or hundreds of tumor reporters have been tested in FL with promising results, albeit in smaller data sets than seen in other hematologic malignancies. 90 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 More data are needed before MRD could be used as a surrogate end point in FL, but there is a precedent, as the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency now accept MRD as a surrogate end point for accelerated approval of treatments for multiple myeloma.

MRD could also be used as a tool to adapt therapy for patients with FL. The ability to selectively escalate or de-escalate therapy for FL could represent a major advance for patients with FL, but this approach has potential pitfalls. The FOLL12 trial randomly assigned patients with treatment-naive FL to receive standard rituximab maintenance or MRD-adapted maintenance therapy after frontline CIT. In the MRD-adapted arm (which used PCR-based MRD testing), MRD-negative patients received no maintenance and MRD-positive patients received more intensive maintenance with the goal of achieving MRD negativity. The study reported inferior PFS in the MRD-guided arm, sounding a note of caution for MRD-guided treatment strategies in FL. 107

Cure

FL has historically been considered an incurable disease. With more effective therapies, we advocate for a change in terminology. 8 The FLIPI24 prognostic model found that 40% of patients have only a 3% risk of dying from lymphoma within 10 years of their diagnosis. 108 An older patient in remission for 12 years after frontline therapy who subsequently dies of another cause may not have technically been cured but has achieved a functional cure. 109 Such patients are at higher risk of treatment-related toxicities than of death from lymphoma, and clinicians should be cautious not to overtreat them. In these scenarios, QOL should be emphasized. We advocate for fewer monitoring tests in asymptomatic patients to avoid procedures and treatment that are unlikely to extend OS. Models of treatment-related mortality are being developed in patients with FL receiving second- and third-line therapies. A goal is to identify those with relapsed disease who can be monitored without treatment and eventually extrapolate these findings to the frontline setting. Such models would aid clinicians and patients as they face treatment decision-making throughout their disease course.

In other patients, we may be able to refine the definition of cure and potentially achieve it with novel therapeutic approaches. Young, fit patients are among those who may be considered for curative strategies. Patients with symptomatic, high tumor burden disease could be studied in clinical trials to assess whether aggressive novel treatments, such as CAR T cells, are superior to standard CIT. We could even consider whether young patients with low burden disease should be studied with similarly aggressive treatment vs active surveillance. With these novel therapies, long-term follow-up is essential. Clinical trials frequently do not routinely monitor beyond 8 to 10 years, and therefore later events are not captured. We emphasize the importance of extended follow-up in clinical trials enrolling patients with FL, especially in the CAR T-cell therapy, in which long-term toxicity is a concern. We advocate for pharmaceutical companies and other funding sources to include expenses related to long-term follow-up in their budgets. The use of telemedicine and virtual applications in this setting could improve the patient burden and potentially decrease cost. It would also be informative to study the changes in molecular characteristics of patients treated with aggressive up-front strategies compared with standard treatment or active surveillance, to better understand how these interventions affect disease trajectory.

Actualizing cure

Achieving curative strategies for FL will require a comprehensive molecular understanding of the mechanisms driving its heterogeneity, early progression, and transformation. Outstanding requirements include a functional analysis of mutations targeting the noncoding genome, which represents 98% of the cell’s genetic material yet remains almost completely unexplored; the development of preclinical models that accurately recapitulate the tumor and its microenvironment, such as recent syngeneic mouse models of tFL and patient-derived xenografts 22 ; and, ideally, the construction of scalable organoid systems for drug testing and mechanistic studies. 110 , 111 , 112 Equally important is the establishment of large, harmonized data sets from uniformly treated patients, particularly those enrolled in modern clinical trials and those treated in real-world clinical practice, to validate potential biomarkers for risk stratification and treatment guidance. Addressing these challenges will require a concerted effort from investigators with crossdisciplinary expertise across genomics, immunology, epigenetics, and computational biology. The role of private philanthropic funds, such as the one sponsoring this workshop, will be instrumental in achieving this goal.

Ensuring access

Finally, we must expand access to novel therapies for patients with FL. Many from around the world are unable to benefit from the approaches reviewed at this workshop. Patients from diverse backgrounds, countries, and settings should be enrolled on clinical trials in FL and included in real-world studies. Widespread global education efforts should be made to patients and hematologists/oncologists to gain comfort in treatment algorithms and management of side effects of novel therapies. Patient focus groups and discrete choice experiments should be conducted in FL to better understand patient preferences and engage them in clinical trials. 113 , 114 These strategies could facilitate broader uptake of these treatments and improved outcomes.

Conclusions

The 2024 International Follicular Lymphoma Scientific Workshop comprehensively reviewed areas of opportunity and unmet needs in FL. This provided a platform for lymphoma experts to discuss the latest treatments and develop strategies for optimizing patient care and clinical trial design. Continuing efforts are needed to better understand the underlying biology of this heterogenous disease and to promote collaborative efforts to advance biomarkers, disease models, and other resources. Integrating compassionate care and patient engagement into clinical trials is essential. Our strategy must involve not only focusing on eradication of the disease but also enhancing QOL. Including patient voices and experiences in research can drive more patient-centric approaches and improve the overall treatment landscape for FL.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: R.M reports serving on the advisory board for Genmab, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), AbbVie, Ipsen, and Kite; consulting for DG Medicine; receiving honoraria from Genmab and AbbVie; receiving institutional research funding from Merck, BMS, Genmab, and Genentech/Roche. S.C.R. reports consulting for AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, BMS, Genmab, Incyte, Ipsen, Karyopharm, Kite, and Pfizer; serving on the data and safety monitoring board of Karyopharm; and receiving research funding from Constellation, Genentech/Roche, Ipsen, and Karyopharm. P.A. is a consultant for Merck, BMS/Celgene, Pfizer, Affimed, Adaptive, Infinity, ADC Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Daiichi Sankyo, Miltenyi, Tessa, Genmab, C4 Therapeutics, Enterome, Regeneron, Epizyme, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Xencor, Foresight Diagnostics, ATB Therapeutics, and Mabqi; reports research funding from Kite, Merck, BMS/Celgene, Affimed, Adaptive, Tensha, Otsuka, Sigma Tau, Genentech/Roche, IGM Biosciences, and AstraZeneca; and reports honoraria from Merck and BMS. J.P.L. has received research support from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, Genentech Foundation, Lymphoma Research Foundation, Follicular Lymphoma Foundation, Epizyme, and Janssen; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Caribou Biosciences, Foresight, Genentech, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sail Bio, and Treeline Biosciences. L.N. has received honoraria for consulting from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Genentech, Genmab, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Ipsen, Janssen, Novartis, Regeneron, and Takeda; research support from BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, Genmab, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Takeda. S.M.S. has received consulting fees (time limited and/or one time) for Genmab, Regeneron, and Foresight Diagnostics; and her spouse is employed by Caris Life Sciences. A.D.Z. has served as a consultant (including expert testimony) for, and has received honoraria from, Genentech, Ipsen, AbbVie, Allogene, Curio Science, DAVA Oncology, BeOne, Ono Pharma, Kite, AstraZeneca, Genmab, and Eli Lilly; Has received research funding from Genentech/Roche, Arvinas, BeOne, GSK, and Pharmacyclics (Rollover Study); serves as a data monitoring committee member for BMS/Celgene and Juno. C.C. has received honoraria from Incyte, AbbVie, Genentech/Roche, and Genmab; has served as a consultant for Incyte, AbbVie, Genentech/Roche, and Genmab; and has received research funding from Genmab, Gilead , and Genentech. J.C. has received research funding (to Mayo Clinic) from Genentech, Genmab, and BMS; and serves on the science advisory board for Protagonist. M. Green has received research funding from Sanofi, Kite/Gilead, AbbVie, and Allogene; consulting fees from AbbVie and Allogene; serves on the advisory board for BMS, Arvinas, and Johnson & Johnson; has received honoraria from BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, and DAVA Oncology; and has stock ownership in Melbridge Therapeutics and Shenandoah Therapeutics. B.K. reports consulting for AbbVie, BMS, GSK, Roche, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Pfizer, Merck, and Incyte; and receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, and Roche. R.K. has received research funding (to institution) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, and Roche. M.J.M. has received research funding from Roche/Genentech and BMS; and honoraria from MD Education. B.N. has received grant/research support from BMS; and honoraria from BeiGene, Diatech Pharmaceutical, and Mabqi. A.J.R. is an employee of Leica Microsystems. E.L. has received consulting fees from Pfizer and ADC Therapeutics. G.S. is a member of advisory boards, consulting committees, or data monitoring committees for AbbVie, BeiGene, BMS, Canopy, Daiichi Sankyo, Ellipses, Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Janssen, Incyte, Ipsen Kite/Gilead, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, and SERB Pharmaceuticals; and has received research support from AbbVie, Genentech, Genmab Janssen, and Ipsen, which was managed by his institution. L.S. has received consulting fees or honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Cargo, Chugai, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genmab, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Merck, Seagen, and Roche/Genentech; and research funding from Roche/Genentech. L.P. has received research grant from AstraZeneca. A.S.L. has received consulting fees from Genmab, Kite, and Pierre Fabre. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests.

References

1 Yunis JJ Oken MM Kaplan ME Ensrud KM Howe RR Theologides A Distinctive chromosomal abnormalities in histologic subtypes of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma N Engl J Med 307 20 1982 1231 1236 7133054 10.1056/NEJM198211113072002

2 Tsujimoto Y Ikegaki N Croce CM Characterization of the protein product of bcl-2, the gene involved in human follicular lymphoma Oncogene 2 1 1987 3 7 3325884

3 Okosun J Bödör C Wang J Integrated genomic analysis identifies recurrent mutations and evolution patterns driving the initiation and progression of follicular lymphoma Nat Genet 46 2 2014 176 181 24362818 10.1038/ng.2856 PMC3907271

4 Han G Deng Q Marques-Piubelli ML Follicular lymphoma microenvironment characteristics associated with tumor cell mutations and MHC class II expression Blood Cancer Discov 3 5 2022 428 443 35687817 10.1158/2643-3230.BCD-21-0075 PMC9894575

5 Pasqualucci L Dominguez-Sola D Chiarenza A Inactivating mutations of acetyltransferase genes in B-cell lymphoma Nature 471 7337 2011 189 195 21390126 10.1038/nature09730 PMC3271441

6 Jiang Y Ortega-Molina A Geng H CREBBP inactivation promotes the development of HDAC3-dependent lymphomas Cancer Discov 7 1 2017 38 53 27733359 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0975 PMC5300005

7 Mondello P Tadros S Teater M Selective inhibition of HDAC3 targets synthetic vulnerabilities and activates immune surveillance in lymphoma Cancer Discov 10 3 2020 440 459 31915197 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0116 PMC7275250

8 Bachy E Seymour JF Feugier P Sustained progression-free survival benefit of rituximab maintenance in patients with follicular lymphoma: long-term results of the PRIMA study J Clin Oncol 37 31 2019 2815 2824 31339826 10.1200/JCO.19.01073 PMC6823890

9 Al-Tourah AJ Gill KK Chhanabhai M Population-based analysis of incidence and outcome of transformed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma J Clin Oncol 26 32 2008 5165 5169 18838711 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.0283

10 Wagner-Johnston ND Link BK Byrtek M Outcomes of transformed follicular lymphoma in the modern era: a report from the National LymphoCare Study (NLCS) Blood 126 7 2015 851 857 26105149 10.1182/blood-2015-01-621375 PMC4543911

11 Sarkozy C Trneny M Xerri L Risk factors and outcomes for patients with follicular lymphoma who had histologic transformation after response to first-line immunochemotherapy in the PRIMA trial J Clin Oncol 34 22 2016 2575 2582 27298402 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7163

12 Pasqualucci L Khiabanian H Fangazio M Genetics of follicular lymphoma transformation Cell Rep 6 1 2014 130 140 24388756 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.12.027 PMC4100800

13 Schroers-Martin JG Soo J Brisou G Tracing founder mutations in circulating and tissue-resident follicular lymphoma precursors Cancer Discov 13 6 2023 1310 1323 36939219 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-23-0111 PMC10239329

14 Collin M Gagey G Shanmugam V Follicular lymphoma research: an open dialogue for a collaborative roadmap Histopathology 86 1 2025 79 93 39468961 10.1111/his.15344 PMC11648361

15 Dreval K Hilton LK Cruz M Genetic subdivisions of follicular lymphoma defined by distinct coding and noncoding mutation patterns Blood 142 6 2023 561 573 37084389 10.1182/blood.2022018719 PMC10644066

16 Leeman-Neill RJ Song D Bizarro J Noncoding mutations cause super-enhancer retargeting resulting in protein synthesis dysregulation during B cell lymphoma progression Nat Genet 55 12 2023 2160 2174 38049665 10.1038/s41588-023-01561-1 PMC10703697

17 Zhang J Vlasevska S Wells VA The CREBBP acetyltransferase is a haploinsufficient tumor suppressor in B-cell lymphoma Cancer Discov 7 3 2017 322 337 28069569 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1417 PMC5386396

18 Hashwah H Schmid CA Kasser S Inactivation of CREBBP expands the germinal center B cell compartment, down-regulates MHCII expression and promotes DLBCL growth Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114 36 2017 9701 9706 28831000 10.1073/pnas.1619555114 PMC5594639

19 Ennishi D Takata K Béguelin W Molecular and genetic characterization of MHC deficiency identifies EZH2 as therapeutic target for enhancing immune recognition Cancer Discov 9 4 2019 546 563 30705065 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1090

20 Green MR Kihira S Liu CL Mutations in early follicular lymphoma progenitors are associated with suppressed antigen presentation Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112 10 2015 E1116 E1125 25713363 10.1073/pnas.1501199112 PMC4364211

21 Béguelin W Teater M Meydan C Mutant EZH2 induces a pre-malignant lymphoma niche by reprogramming the immune response Cancer Cell 37 5 2020 655 673.e11 32396861 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.04.004 PMC7298875

22 Isshiki Y Chen X Teater M EZH2 inhibition enhances T cell immunotherapies by inducing lymphoma immunogenicity and improving T cell function Cancer Cell 43 1 2025 49 68.e9 39642889 10.1016/j.ccell.2024.11.006 PMC11732734

23 Porazzi P Nason S Yang Z EZH1/EZH2 inhibition enhances adoptive T cell immunotherapy against multiple cancer models Cancer Cell 43 3 2025 537 551.e7 39983725 10.1016/j.ccell.2025.01.013 PMC13312562

24 Radtke AJ Postovalova E Varlamova A Multi-omic profiling of follicular lymphoma reveals changes in tissue architecture and enhanced stromal remodeling in high-risk patients Cancer Cell 42 3 2024 444 463.e10 38428410 10.1016/j.ccell.2024.02.001 PMC10966827

25 Sarkozy C Wu S Takata K Integrated single cell analysis reveals co-evolution of malignant B cells and tumor micro-environment in transformed follicular lymphoma Cancer Cell 42 9 2024 1003 1017.e6 38861923 10.1016/j.ccell.2024.05.011

26 Meyer SN Scuoppo C Vlasevska S Unique and shared epigenetic programs of the CREBBP and EP300 acetyltransferases in germinal center B cells reveal targetable dependencies in lymphoma Immunity 51 3 2019 535 547.e9 31519498 10.1016/j.immuni.2019.08.006 PMC7362711

27 Nicosia L Spencer GJ Brooks N Therapeutic targeting of EP300/CBP by bromodomain inhibition in hematologic malignancies Cancer Cell 41 12 2023 2136 2153.e13 37995682 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.11.001

28 Tan D Horning SJ Hoppe RT Improvements in observed and relative survival in follicular grade 1-2 lymphoma during 4 decades: the Stanford University experience Blood 122 6 2013 981 987 23777769 10.1182/blood-2013-03-491514 PMC3739040

29 Marcus R Imrie K Solal-Celigny P Phase III study of R-CVP compared with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone alone in patients with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma J Clin Oncol 26 28 2008 4579 4586 18662969 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.5376

30 Hiddemann W Kneba M Dreyling M Frontline therapy with rituximab added to the combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) significantly improves the outcome for patients with advanced-stage follicular lymphoma compared with therapy with CHOP alone: results of a prospective randomized study of the German Low-Grade Lymphoma Study Group Blood 106 12 2005 3725 3732 16123223 10.1182/blood-2005-01-0016

31 Salles G Mounier N de Guibert S Rituximab combined with chemotherapy and interferon in follicular lymphoma patients: results of the GELA-GOELAMS FL2000 study Blood 112 13 2008 4824 4831 18799723 10.1182/blood-2008-04-153189

32 Herold M Haas A Srock S Rituximab added to first-line mitoxantrone, chlorambucil, and prednisolone chemotherapy followed by interferon maintenance prolongs survival in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma: an East German study group hematology and oncology study J Clin Oncol 25 15 2007 1986 1992 17420513 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.4618

33 Kahl BS Hong F Williams ME Rituximab extended schedule or re-treatment trial for low-tumor burden follicular lymphoma: eastern cooperative oncology group protocol e4402 J Clin Oncol 32 28 2014 3096 3102 25154829 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.5853 PMC4171355

34 Kahl BS Jegede OA Peterson C Long-term follow-up of the RESORT study (E4402): a randomized phase III comparison of two different rituximab dosing strategies for low-tumor burden follicular lymphoma J Clin Oncol 42 7 2024 774 778 38194625 10.1200/JCO.23.01912 PMC10906638

35 Ardeshna KM Qian W Smith P Rituximab versus a watch-and-wait approach in patients with advanced-stage, asymptomatic, non-bulky follicular lymphoma: an open-label randomised phase 3 trial Lancet Oncol 15 4 2014 424 435 24602760 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70027-0

36 Hiddemann W Barbui AM Canales MA Immunochemotherapy with obinutuzumab or rituximab for previously untreated follicular lymphoma in the GALLIUM study: influence of chemotherapy on efficacy and safety J Clin Oncol 36 23 2018 2395 2404 29856692 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.8960

37 Townsend W Hiddemann W Buske C Obinutuzumab versus rituximab immunochemotherapy in previously untreated iNHL: final results from the GALLIUM Study Hemasphere 7 7 2023 e919 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000919 PMC10317485 37404773

38 Flinn IW van der Jagt R Kahl BS Randomized trial of bendamustine-rituximab or R-CHOP/R-CVP in first-line treatment of indolent NHL or MCL: the BRIGHT study Blood 123 19 2014 2944 2952 24591201 10.1182/blood-2013-11-531327 PMC4260975

39 Rummel MJ Niederle N Maschmeyer G Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial Lancet 381 9873 2013 1203 1210 23433739 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61763-2

40 Flinn IW van der Jagt R Kahl B First-line treatment of patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma or mantle-cell lymphoma with bendamustine plus rituximab versus R-CHOP or R-CVP: results of the BRIGHT 5-year follow-up study J Clin Oncol 37 12 2019 984 991 30811293 10.1200/JCO.18.00605 PMC6494265

41 Morschhauser F Fowler NH Feugier P Rituximab plus lenalidomide in advanced untreated follicular lymphoma N Engl J Med 379 10 2018 934 947 30184451 10.1056/NEJMoa1805104 PMC11003525

42 Shotton R Broadbent R Alchawaf A Safety of bendamustine for the treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a UK real-world experience Blood Adv 8 4 2024 878 888 37967358 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023011305 PMC10875258

43 Jurinovic V Kridel R Staiger AM Clinicogenetic risk models predict early progression of follicular lymphoma after first-line immunochemotherapy Blood 128 8 2016 1112 1120 27418643 10.1182/blood-2016-05-717355 PMC5457130

44 Fung M Jacobsen E Freedman A Increased risk of infectious complications in older patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma exposed to bendamustine Clin Infect Dis 68 2 2019 247 255 29800121 10.1093/cid/ciy458 PMC6321852

45 Federico M Caballero Barrigón MD Marcheselli L Rituximab and the risk of transformation of follicular lymphoma: a retrospective pooled analysis Lancet Haematol 5 8 2018 e359 e367 30078408 10.1016/S2352-3026(18)30090-5

46 Freeman CL Kridel R Moccia AA Early progression after bendamustine-rituximab is associated with high risk of transformation in advanced stage follicular lymphoma Blood 134 9 2019 761 764 31300404 10.1182/blood.2019000258

47 Bastos-Oreiro M Gutierrez A Cabero A Comparing R-bendamustine vs. R-CHOP plus maintenance therapy as first-line systemic treatment in follicular lymphoma: a multicenter retrospective GELTAMO Study Cancers (Basel) 16 7 2024 1285 10.3390/cancers16071285 PMC11010804 38610963

48 Alonso-Álvarez S Magnano L Alcoceba M Risk of, and survival following, histological transformation in follicular lymphoma in the rituximab era. A retrospective multicentre study by the Spanish GELTAMO group Br J Haematol 178 5 2017 699 708 28782811 10.1111/bjh.14831

49 Shelton V Detroja R Liu T Identification of genetic subtypes in follicular lymphoma Blood Cancer J 14 1 2024 128 39112453 10.1038/s41408-024-01111-w PMC11306633

50 Laurent C Trisal P Tesson B Follicular lymphoma comprises germinal center-like and memory-like molecular subtypes with prognostic significance Blood 144 24 2024 2503 2516 39374535 10.1182/blood.2024024496

51 Milpied P Cervera-Marzal I Mollichella ML Human germinal center transcriptional programs are de-synchronized in B cell lymphoma Nat Immunol 19 9 2018 1013 1024 30104629 10.1038/s41590-018-0181-4

52 Solal-Céligny P Roy P Colombat P Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index Blood 104 5 2004 1258 1265 15126323 10.1182/blood-2003-12-4434

53 Federico M Bellei M Marcheselli L Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2: a new prognostic index for follicular lymphoma developed by the international follicular lymphoma prognostic factor project J Clin Oncol 27 27 2009 4555 4562 19652063 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.3991

54 Bachy E Maurer MJ Habermann TM A simplified scoring system in de novo follicular lymphoma treated initially with immunochemotherapy Blood 132 1 2018 49 58 29666118 10.1182/blood-2017-11-816405 PMC6034646

55 Mir F Mattiello F Grigg A Follicular lymphoma evaluation index (FLEX): a new clinical prognostic model that is superior to existing risk scores for predicting progression-free survival and early treatment failure after frontline immunochemotherapy Am J Hematol 95 12 2020 1503 1510 32815559 10.1002/ajh.25973 PMC7756469

56 Rodríguez-Sevilla JJ Fernández-Rodríguez C Bento L Evaluation of 4 prognostic indices in follicular lymphoma treated in first line with immunochemotherapy Blood Adv 7 8 2023 1606 1614 36260737 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022007949 PMC10173729

57 Jurinovic V Passerini V Oestergaard MZ Evaluation of the m7-FLIPI in patients with follicular lymphoma treated within the Gallium trial: EZH2 mutation tatus may be a predictive marker for differential efficacy of chemotherapy Blood 134 suppl 1 2019 122

58 Martinelli G Schmitz SF Utiger U Long-term follow-up of patients with follicular lymphoma receiving single-agent rituximab at two different schedules in trial SAKK 35/98 J Clin Oncol 28 29 2010 4480 4484 20697092 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.4786

59 Ardeshna KM Smith P Norton A Long-term effect of a watch and wait policy versus immediate systemic treatment for asymptomatic advanced-stage non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a randomised controlled trial Lancet 362 9383 2003 516 522 12932382 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14110-4

60 Casulo C Byrtek M Dawson KL Early relapse of follicular lymphoma after rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone defines patients at high risk for death: an analysis from the National LymphoCare Study J Clin Oncol 33 23 2015 2516 2522 26124482 10.1200/JCO.2014.59.7534 PMC4879714

61 Budde LE Assouline S Sehn LH Single-agent mosunetuzumab shows durable complete responses in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas: phase I dose-scalation study J Clin Oncol 40 5 2022 481 491 34914545 10.1200/JCO.21.00931 PMC8824395

62 Budde LE Assouline S Sehn LH Durable responses with mosunetuzumab in relapsed/refractory indolent and aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas: extended follow-up of a phase I/II study J Clin Oncol 42 19 2024 2250 2256 38547425 10.1200/JCO.23.02329 PMC11210942

63 Linton KM Vitolo U Jurczak W Epcoritamab monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (EPCORE NHL-1): a phase 2 cohort of a single-arm, multicentre study Lancet Haematol 11 8 2024 e593 e605 38889737 10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00166-2

64 Kim TM Taszner M Novelli S Safety and efficacy of odronextamab in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma Ann Oncol 35 11 2024 1039 1047 39147364 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.08.2239

65 Falchi L Leslie LA Belada D Subcutaneous epcoritamab in combination with rituximab + lenalidomide (R2) for first-ine treatment of follicular lymphoma: initial results from phase 1/2 trial Blood 140 suppl 1 2022 1471 1473

66 Morschhauser F Patel K Bobillo S Preliminary findings of a phase Ib/II trial indicate manageable safety and promising efficacy for mosunetuzumab in combination with lenalidomide (M + Len) in previously untreated (1L) follicular lymphoma (FL) Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 605

67 Falchi L Okwali M Ghione P Subcutaneous (SC) mosunetuzumab (mosun) as first-line therapy for patients (pts) with high tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (FL): first results of a multicenter phase 2 study Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 604

68 Schuster SJ Huw LY Bolen CR Loss of CD20 expression as a mechanism of resistance to mosunetuzumab in relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas Blood 143 9 2024 822 832 38048694 10.1182/blood.2023022348 PMC10934296

69 Iacoboni G Navarro V Martín-López AÁ Recent bendamustine treatment before apheresis has a negative impact on outcomes in patients with large B-cell lymphoma receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy J Clin Oncol 42 2 2024 205 217 37874957 10.1200/JCO.23.01097

70 Weisdorf DJ Andersen JW Glick JH Oken MM Survival after relapse of low-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: implications for marrow transplantation J Clin Oncol 10 6 1992 942 947 1588373 10.1200/JCO.1992.10.6.942

71 Montoto S López-Guillermo A Ferrer A Survival after progression in patients with follicular lymphoma: analysis of prognostic factors Ann Oncol 13 4 2002 523 530 12056701 10.1093/annonc/mdf119

72 Maurer MJ Bachy E Ghesquières H Early event status informs subsequent outcome in newly diagnosed follicular lymphoma Am J Hematol 91 11 2016 1096 1101 27465588 10.1002/ajh.24492 PMC5073042

73 Sarkozy C Maurer MJ Link BK Cause of death in follicular lymphoma in the first decade of the rituximab era: a pooled analysis of French and US cohorts J Clin Oncol 37 2 2019 144 152 30481079 10.1200/JCO.18.00400 PMC6366812

74 Casulo C Dixon JG Le-Rademacher J Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials Blood 139 11 2022 1684 1693 34614146 10.1182/blood.2020010263 PMC9974165

75 Lansigan F Barak I Pitcher B The prognostic significance of PFS24 in follicular lymphoma following firstline immunotherapy: a combined analysis of 3 CALGB trials Cancer Med 8 1 2019 165 173 30575311 10.1002/cam4.1918 PMC6346218

76 Sortais C Lok A Tessoulin B Progression of disease within 2 years (POD24) is a clinically relevant endpoint to identify high-risk follicular lymphoma patients in real life Ann Hematol 99 7 2020 1595 1604 32417940 10.1007/s00277-020-04025-2

77 Weibull CE Wästerlid T Wahlin BE Survival by first-line treatment type and timing of progression among follicular lymphoma patients: a national population-based study in Sweden Hemasphere 7 3 2023 e838 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000838 PMC9953041 36844185

78 Batlevi CL Sha F Alperovich A Positron-emission tomography-based staging reduces the prognostic impact of early disease progression in patients with follicular lymphoma Eur J Cancer 126 2020 78 90 31927165 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.12.006 PMC7331469

79 Lee YP Hong JY Yoon SE Real-world, single-center data for lenalidomide plus rituximab in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and transformed follicular lymphoma Cancer Manag Res 13 2021 4241 4250 34093038 10.2147/CMAR.S309092 PMC8168964

80 Muntañola A Mozas P Mercadal S Early progression in follicular lymphoma in the absence of histological transformation or high-risk Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index still has a favourable outcome Br J Haematol 200 3 2023 306 314 36261137 10.1111/bjh.18522

81 Williams CD Harrison CN Lister TA High-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell support for chemosensitive transformed low-grade follicular non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a case-matched study from the European Bone Marrow Transplant Registry J Clin Oncol 19 3 2001 727 735 11157024 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.3.727

82 Villa D Crump M Panzarella T Autologous and allogeneic stem-cell transplantation for transformed follicular lymphoma: a report of the Canadian blood and marrow transplant group J Clin Oncol 31 9 2013 1164 1171 23401459 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.0693

83 Casulo C Friedberg JW Ahn KW Autologous transplantation in follicular lymphoma with early therapy failure: a National LymphoCare Study and Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research analysis Biol Blood Marrow Transpl 24 6 2018 1163 1171 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.12.771 PMC5993598 29242111

84 Jurinovic V Metzner B Pfreundschuh M Autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with early progression of follicular lymphoma: a follow-up study of 2 randomized trials from the German Low Grade Lymphoma Study Group Biol Blood Marrow Transpl 24 6 2018 1172 1179 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.03.022 29605716

85 Day JR Larson MC Casulo C Patterns of care and prognostic modeling following follicular lymphoma transformation to aggressive B-cell lymphoma: an analysis from the LEO consortium Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 3111

86 Leonard JP Trneny M Izutsu K AUGMENT: a phase III study of lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma J Clin Oncol 37 14 2019 1188 1199 30897038 10.1200/JCO.19.00010 PMC7035866

87 Alderuccio JP Alencar AJ Schatz JH Loncastuximab tesirine with rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: a single-centre, single-arm, phase 2 trial Lancet Haematol 12 1 2025 e23 e34 39662486 10.1016/S2352-3026(24)00345-4

88 Zinzani PL Mayer J Flowers CR ROSEWOOD: a phase II randomized study of zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab versus obinutuzumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma J Clin Oncol 41 33 2023 5107 5117 37506346 10.1200/JCO.23.00775

89 Jacobson CA Chavez JC Sehgal AR Axicabtagene ciloleucel in relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (ZUMA-5): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol 23 1 2022 91 103 34895487 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00591-X

90 Claudel A Cottereau AS Bachy E Combined PET and ctDNA response as a predictor of POD24 for follicular lymphoma after first-line induction treatment Blood 146 8 2025 913 925 40499012 10.1182/blood.2024027727

91 Decaudin D Lepage E Brousse N Low-grade stage III-IV follicular lymphoma: multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in 484 patients-a study of the groupe d’Etude des lymphomes de l’Adulte J Clin Oncol 17 8 1999 2499 2505 10561315 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.8.2499

92 Barraclough A Agrawal S Talaulikar D Impact and utility of follicular lymphoma GELF criteria in routine care: an Australasian Lymphoma Alliance study Haematologica 109 10 2024 3338 3345 38450504 10.3324/haematol.2023.284538 PMC11443368

93 Casulo C Larson MC Flowers CR The FLIPI24 prognostic model identifies poor outcomes in non-immunochemotherapy treated patients with follicular lymphoma Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 1657

94 Morschhauser F Tilly H Chaidos A Tazemetostat for patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: an open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial Lancet Oncol 21 11 2020 1433 1442 33035457 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30441-1 PMC8427481

95 Milrod CJ Kim KW Raker C Ollila TA Olszewski AJ Pelcovits A Progression-free survival is a weakly predictive surrogate end-point for overall survival in follicular lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis Br J Haematol 204 6 2024 2237 2241 38571449 10.1111/bjh.19449

96 Witzig TE Gordon LI Cabanillas F Randomized controlled trial of yttrium-90-labeled ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy versus rituximab immunotherapy for patients with relapsed or refractory low-grade, follicular, or transformed B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma J Clin Oncol 20 10 2002 2453 2463 12011122 10.1200/JCO.2002.11.076

97 Johnson PC Bailey A Ma Q Quality of life evaluation in patients with follicular cell lymphoma: a real-world study in Europe and the United States Adv Ther 41 8 2024 3342 3361 38976122 10.1007/s12325-024-02882-1 PMC11263223

98 Shi Q Flowers CR Hiddemann W Thirty-month complete response as a surrogate end point in first-line follicular lymphoma therapy: an individual patient-level analysis of multiple randomized trials J Clin Oncol 35 5 2017 552 560 28029309 10.1200/JCO.2016.70.8651

99 Galimberti S Luminari S Ciabatti E Minimal residual disease after conventional treatment significantly impacts on progression-free survival of patients with follicular lymphoma: the FIL FOLL05 trial Clin Cancer Res 20 24 2014 6398 6405 25316810 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0407

100 Zohren F Bruns I Pechtel S Prognostic value of circulating Bcl-2/IgH levels in patients with follicular lymphoma receiving first-line immunochemotherapy Blood 126 12 2015 1407 1414 26239087 10.1182/blood-2015-03-630012

101 Delfau-Larue MH Boulland ML Beldi-Ferchiou A Lenalidomide/rituximab induces high molecular response in untreated follicular lymphoma: LYSA ancillary RELEVANCE study Blood Adv 4 14 2020 3217 3223 32673385 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020001955 PMC7391139

102 Pott C Jurinovic V Trotman J Minimal residual disease status predicts outcome in patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma: a prospective analysis of the phase III GALLIUM Study J Clin Oncol 42 5 2024 550 561 38096461 10.1200/JCO.23.00838

103 Kurtz DM Soo J Co Ting Keh L Enhanced detection of minimal residual disease by targeted sequencing of phased variants in circulating tumor DNA Nat Biotechnol 39 12 2021 1537 1547 34294911 10.1038/s41587-021-00981-w PMC8678141

104 Fernández-Miranda I Pedrosa L Llanos M Monitoring of circulating tumor DNA predicts response to treatment and early progression in follicular lymphoma: results of a prospective pilot study Clin Cancer Res 29 1 2023 209 220 36269794 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-1654 PMC9811164

105 Jiménez-Ubieto A Poza M Martin-Muñoz A Real-life disease monitoring in follicular lymphoma patients using liquid biopsy ultra-deep sequencing and PET/CT Leukemia 37 3 2023 659 669 36596983 10.1038/s41375-022-01803-x

106 Nagy Á Bátai B Kiss L Parallel testing of liquid biopsy (ctDNA) and tissue biopsy samples reveals a higher frequency of EZH2 mutations in follicular lymphoma J Intern Med 294 3 2023 295 313 37259686 10.1111/joim.13674

107 Luminari S Manni M Galimberti S Response-adapted postinduction strategy in patients with advanced-stage follicular lymphoma: the FOLL12 study J Clin Oncol 40 7 2022 729 739 34709880 10.1200/JCO.21.01234

108 Maurer MJ Prochazka VK Flowers CR FLIPI24: an improved International Prognostic Model developed on early events in follicular lymphoma Blood 140 suppl 1 2022 2292 2295

109 Shadman M Kaminski MS Spier CM A “functional cure” may be achievable in a subset of patients with follicular lymphoma treated with chemoimmunotherapy: 15-year follow-up of phase III SWOG-S0016 Hematological Oncol 41 suppl 2 2023 116 117

110 Lamaison C Latour S Hélaine N A novel 3D culture model recapitulates primary FL B-cell features and promotes their survival Blood Adv 5 23 2021 5372 5386 34555842 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003949 PMC9153016

111 Kastenschmidt JM Schroers-Martin JG Sworder BJ A human lymphoma organoid model for evaluating and targeting the follicular lymphoma tumor immune microenvironment Cell Stem Cell 31 3 2024 410 420.e4 38402619 10.1016/j.stem.2024.01.012 PMC10960522

112 Araujo-Ayala F Béguelin W Biology as vulnerability in follicular lymphoma: genetics, epigenetics, and immunogenetics Blood 146 15 2025 1759 1769 40089999 10.1182/blood.2024026020 PMC12783527

113 Boeri M Purdum AG Sutphin J Hauber B Kaye JA CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: physician preferences trading off benefits, risks and time to infusion Future Oncol 17 34 2021 4697 4709 34581197 10.2217/fon-2021-0160

114 Birch K Snider JT Chiu K Baumgardner J Wade SW Shah G Patient preferences for treatment in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment Future Oncol 18 25 2022 2791 2804 35837970 10.2217/fon-2022-0421

Acknowledgments

M. Green is supported by a 10.13039/100005189 Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Scholar award. A.J.R. was supported by the 10.13039/100030692 Intramural Research Program of the 10.13039/100000002 National Institutes of H ealth, including National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and 10.13039/100000054 National Cancer I nstitute, at the time of this workshop. The workshop was supported by grants from the Lymphoma Research Foundation as part of the Jaime Peykoff Follicular Lymphoma Initiative.

Authorship

Contribution: R.M., S.C.R., and L.P. wrote and reviewed the manuscript; and S.A., P.A., J.P.L., L.N., S.M.S., J.T., A.D.Z., M. Gutierrez, W.B., C.C., J.C., M. Green, B.K., R.K., B.L., M.J.M., B.N., A.J.R., E.L., G.S., L.S., and A.S.L. reviewed the manuscript.

R.M. and S.C.R. contributed equally to this study.