Cytotoxic lymphoma assessment response (CLyAR): A harmonized, compartment-based consensus response assessment framework for cytotoxic T-cell lymphomas

S Swami Iyer (15MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States) P Pamela Allen M Michael Khodadoust (3Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, United States) E Enrica Marchi (1University of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA) A Alejandro Gru (5Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Dermatopathology, New York, United States) S Susan Thornton (6Cutaneous Lymphoma Foundation, Warren, United States) L Lore Gruenbaum (Blood Cancer United, Washington, District of Columbia, United States) M Meghan Gutierrez (8Lymphoma Research Foundation, New York, United States) R Rishabh Lohray W Won-Seog Kim (17Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea) R Ranjit Nair C Carlos Torres-Cabala (1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States) Y Youn-H Kim (3Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, United States) J Jasmine Zain (1Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Medicine, Lymphoma Service, NEW YORK, United States) P Pierluigi Porcu (7Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, United States) W Wan-Jen Hong (14Dren Bio, Foster City, United States) K Kimberley Dilley (14Dren Bio, Foster City, United States) J Jaehyuk Choi (13UT Southwestern, Dallas, United States) P Pier Luigi Zinzani (12IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Istituto di Ematologia “Seràgnoli,” Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy) S Steven Horwitz (1memorial Sloan Kettering, NYC, United States)

Abstract

Abstract Background: Cytotoxic T-cell lymphomas (CTLs) are rare, comprising only 3–5% of all Mature T-cell lymphomas and have very poor outcomes. While sharing key biological features, including frequent expression of CD8, or NK-associated cytotoxic markers, and CD94 as a common molecular target, they present with wide clinical variability across anatomical compartments—cutaneous, intestinal, hepatosplenic, nodal, and leukemic. Current response criteria based on anatomic involvement have challenges in endpoint objectivity, response determination, cross-study interpretation, and regulatory approval. Objectives: The CLyAR (Cytotoxic Lymphoma Assessment of Response) initiative aimed to harmonize response assessment by integrating existing validated criteria into a single, compartment-based framework for CTL subtypes. The goal was to improve consistency in therapeutic response evaluation and support broader patient inclusion in clinical trials for this underserved population. Methods: An international expert panel and patient advocates convened to develop a harmonized response assessment framework for CTLs, drawing from current practices across trials and institutions. In preparation for the workshop, panelists reviewed the full spectrum of CTL histologies and provided structured evaluations of the appropriateness of existing response tools—Lugano, Olsen, and modified T-PLL—for each subtype and disease compartment. Using a structured matrix, experts rated the suitability of each modality (e.g., PET, CT, skin scoring, marrow assessment) as “Yes,” “No,” or “Maybe” based on their clinical experience. These pre-meeting assessments were developed to identify areas of consensus and divergence. During the workshop, the panel systematically revisited each histology and compartment, deliberating on discrepancies and refining criteria recommendations. Results: The harmonized CLyAR framework applies to the heterogeneous set of cytotoxic T-cell lymphoma subtypes, including ENKTL (nasal type), EATL, MEITL, HSTCL, SPTCL, PCγδTCL, ET-CTCL, ANKL, HVLPD, PTCL-NOS, and cutaneous PTCL-NOS. The panel concluded that no single response criterion is adequate across all subtypes. Instead, they were grouped into four compartments: (1) nodal/systemic diseases. (2) leukemic or marrow-based diseases with or without organomegaly, (3) cutaneous/subcutaneous presentations, and (4) gastrointestinal (GI) presentations. The following conclusions were reached: Nodal cytotoxic PTCLs are best evaluated using Lugano criteria with PET/CT. ENKTL, while using Lugano criteria, still requires MRI of the sino-nasal area for treatment planning, serial EBV PCR, and bone marrow evaluation. For leukemic presentations and HSTCL, modified T-PLL criteria were adapted, combining disease-specific parameters with hematologic recovery markers. A complete response (CR) requires normalization across all areas including the bone marrow; partial response (PR) requires improvement in at least two disease-specific and one hematologic criterion. For cutaneous and subcutaneous variants (SPTCL and PCγδTCL), a global approach is necessary for response assessment. The primary evaluation method for quantifiable cutaneous disease is the Olsen criteria, with a strong emphasis on mSWAT scoring and serial photography. PET imaging is recommended for evaluating deeper lesions. Due to false-negative results (microscopic disease) and false-positive results (inflammatory changes), gastrointestinal lymphomas require careful PET interpretation and endoscopic confirmation. The panel emphasized that dominant anatomical presentation, measurable sites, and imaging features should be the basis for assigning response criteria. For non-standard presentations, a decision-tree algorithm was developed to direct the assignment of criteria. This adaptable, compartment-driven model takes into account the clinical diversity of CTLs while enabling harmonized assessment. Conclusions: The CLyAR framework offers a single, compartment-based response that encompasses the diverse CTL presentations. It provides a way forward for standardized evaluation in real-world registries as well as prospective trials. Key priorities include patient-centered outcomes, coordinating response benchmarks with regulatory authorities, and engaging biopharma sponsors to use the framework in the trial design of novel treatments. The consensus details will be forthcoming at ASH 2025.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 1872-1872
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (20)

S

Swami Iyer

15MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States

P

Pamela Allen

M

Michael Khodadoust

3Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, United States

E

Enrica Marchi

1University of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA

A

Alejandro Gru

5Columbia University Irving Medical Center, Dermatopathology, New York, United States

S

Susan Thornton

6Cutaneous Lymphoma Foundation, Warren, United States

L

Lore Gruenbaum

Blood Cancer United, Washington, District of Columbia, United States

M

Meghan Gutierrez

8Lymphoma Research Foundation, New York, United States

R

Rishabh Lohray

W

Won-Seog Kim

17Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

R

Ranjit Nair

C

Carlos Torres-Cabala

1University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States

Y

Youn-H Kim

3Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, United States

J

Jasmine Zain

1Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Medicine, Lymphoma Service, NEW YORK, United States

P

Pierluigi Porcu

7Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, United States

W

Wan-Jen Hong

14Dren Bio, Foster City, United States

K

Kimberley Dilley

14Dren Bio, Foster City, United States

J

Jaehyuk Choi

13UT Southwestern, Dallas, United States

P

Pier Luigi Zinzani

12IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Istituto di Ematologia “Seràgnoli,” Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

S

Steven Horwitz

1memorial Sloan Kettering, NYC, United States