Dinner, Shira

The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide recommendations for the appropriate use of growth factors in the clinical management of febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT), and chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Management and prevention of these sequelae are an integral part of supportive care for many patients undergoing cancer treatment. The purpose of these guidelines is to operationalize the evaluation, prevention, and treatment of FN, CIT, and CIA in adult patients with nonmyeloid malignancies and to enable the patient and clinician to assess management options for FN, CIT, and CIA in the context of an individual patient’s condition. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of the important recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors, with particular emphasis on the incorporation of a newly developed section on CIT.

The NCCN Guidelines for Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) provide recommendations for the evaluation, diagnosis, and management of patients with MDS based on a review of clinical evidence that has led to important advances in treatment or has yielded new information on biologic factors that may have prognostic significance in MDS. The multidisciplinary panel of MDS experts meets on an annual basis to update the recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on some of the updates for the 2022 version of the NCCN Guidelines, which include treatment recommendations both for lower-risk and higher-risk MDS, emerging therapies, supportive care recommendations, and genetic familial high-risk assessment for hereditary myeloid malignancy predisposition syndromes.

AbstractGilteritinib is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3‐mutation (FLT3mut+). However, the gilteritinib phase 3 ADMIRAL study (Perl et al NEJM 2019) was conducted prior to widespread adoption of either midostaurin as a component of standard intensive induction and consolidation or posttransplant FLT3 inhibitor maintenance. We performed a retrospective analysis using data from 11 US centers and where we identified 113 patients who received gilteritinib alone or as combination therapy for the treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. The composite complete remission (CR) rate (CRc, defined as CR + CRi + CR with incomplete platelet recovery [CRp]) was 48.7% (n = 55). The CRc rate after treatment with gilteritinib in patients who were treated with only prior 7+3 and midostaurin with or without consolidation was 58% with a median survival of 7.8 months. Survival was longest in patients who obtained a CR, particularly a cMRD (clinical minimal or measurable residual disease) negative response; this remained significant after censoring at the time of stem cell transplant. The mitogen‐activated protein kinase pathway activating mutations that are known for gilteritinib resistance (NRAS, KRAS, and PTPN11) had lower CRc (35% vs. 60.5%) and lower median overall survival than patients' whose leukemia did not express these mutations (4.9 months vs. 7.8 months) (HR 2.4; 95% CI 1. 5.4) p value <.01.

Abstract Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remain a therapeutic challenge, especially in elderly patients(pts) or those with T-cell immunophenotype. Inhibition of apoptosis is an increasingly recognized mechanism for resistance to conventional chemotherapy. Recently, the oral bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) has shown remarkable activity in a variety of hematologic malignancies. Preclinical data in both B- and T-ALL suggests synergy of VEN with vincristine(VCR). Liposomal VCR (L-VCR) is FDA approved for relapsed ALL having progressed following 2 or more antileukemia therapies. We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L-VCR and VEN for pts with r/r B-or T-cell ALL or LL. Here, we report for the first time the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644). Methods: This open-label phase I/II study enrolled pts age&gt;=18 with ALL or LL who were R/R to multiagent chemotherapy. Subjects could have received prior VCR or VEN . In a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design, subjects were given a two week lead-in phase of single agent VEN in the following schedule: dose level 1 - 20, 50, 100, 200 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 400 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; dose level 2 - 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; and dose level 3 ‒ 100, 200, 400, 600 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 800 mg on days 5 ‒ 42. Weekly L-VCR 2.25mg/m 2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1, and starting day 1 for subsequent cycles (cycle 2+ = 28 days). For cycle 2 and beyond, VEN 400mg, 600mg, or 800mg based on dose level was given starting on day 1 of the cycle. Primary objective of the phase I portion was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of VEN in combination with L-VCR. Secondary objectives included determining preliminary response rates. Results: EA9152 was activated on April 26, 2018 and the phase I portion closed to accrual on March 2, 2021. Among the 18 pts in dose escalation (Table 1), the median age was 42 years (22-77). The majority of pts were male (56%), white (80%), and with a performance status (PS) of 1 (78%). Among 13 pts with disease diagnosis reported, 9 had ALL and 4 had LL. Seventeen of 18 (94%) reported previous chemotherapy, two of which had previous stem cell transplant. Median treatment cycles received is 1 (range 1-11). One patient, having received 11 cycles, remains on study at the time of data analysis. Grade &gt;=3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated pts, with neutrophil count decreased (67%), white blood cell decreased (56%), and anemia (50%) as the most common. One pt experienced grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome. Twelve pts were considered evaluable for MTD determination. Six pts were considered not evaluable for toxicity analysis on account of withdraw of consent for treatment (n=4) or rapid disease progression (n=2). Two pts (2 of 3) at dose level 3 experienced DLTs, one each of hypokalemia and heart failure. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 - VEN 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42 and for subsequent cycles, with L-VCR 2.25mg/m2 IV weekly. In regards to best overall responses observed (Table 2) 4 of 18 pts (22%) achieved complete response (CR), 4 patients (22%) had stable disease, and 7 (39%) had progressive disease. Two patients in CR were found to be measurable residual disease (MRD) negative as well. Conclusions: In the phase 1 portion of this study, the combination of VEN and L-VCR was found to be safe for patients with ALL and LL. The MTD of the combination was found to be VEN 600mg daily with encouraging preliminary efficacy seen including MRD negative responses. The phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with VEN 600mg daily starting C1D1. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palmisiano: Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Foundation One: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Claxton: Astellas: Other: Clinical Trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Park: BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Podoltsev: Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Dinner: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Webster: AmGen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Litzow: AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inihibitor, is not FDA-approved for use in ALL.

Abstract Background: Clinical data support the combination of an immunomodulatory drug, a proteasome inhibitor, and a glucocorticoid for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and low-dose dexamethasone is a very active, well-tolerated standard of care in the transplant-ineligible NDMM population. Ixazomib, an oral proteasome inhibitor is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed MM. Given that ixazomib has improved binding kinetics and pharmacologic profile compared with bortezomib, it is expected that these differences will translate into similar, if not improved, efficacy and safety profiles in the upfront setting. A phase l/ll study of lenalidomide, ixazomib, and dexamethasone in previously untreated patients with MM demonstrated that this combination was well-tolerated and active (NCT01217957). More recently, the GRIFFIN study evaluated the addition of the anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, daratumumab to lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in transplant-eligible NDMM and demonstrated the ability of daratumumab to improve efficacy of the three-drug combination with an acceptable safety profile. Building upon these data, our study evaluates the addition of daratumumab to the all-oral regimen of lenalidomide, ixazomib, and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible NDMM. The combination proposed in this study has been evaluated in NDMM irrespective of transplant eligibility and has demonstrated excellent efficacy and tolerability. Responses were rapid with 88% achieving a partial response (PR) or better after 2 cycles (33% very good partial response (VGPR) and 52% VGPR for 29 patients who had completed 4 cycles) with an overall response rate of 95%. 1 In our study, transplant-ineligible NDMM patients will be randomized to receive 12 cycles of induction with lenalidomide, ixazomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab followed by lenalidomide alone versus lenalidomide, ixazomib, and daratumumab. Study Design and Methods: A randomized, phase II clinical trial (NCT04009109) is being conducted to assess the impact on progression-free survival (PFS) of the addition of ixazomib and daratumumab to lenalidomide as maintenance treatment following induction with lenalidomide, ixazomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab. In this ongoing trial, eligible patients are randomized 1:1 to Arm A (12 cycles of lenalidomide, ixazomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab followed by lenalidomide until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 2 years of maintenance therapy) vs. Arm B (12 cycles of lenalidomide, ixazomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab, followed by lenalidomide, ixazomib, and daratumumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or a maximum of 2 years maintenance therapy). Eligible patients have NDMM requiring treatment, are ≥18 years, have ECOG PS of 0-2, and must have been deemed ineligible for stem cell transplantation. The primary endpoint is PFS. With a sample size of 188 patients (94 patients per arm) enrolled over a 36-month period and followed for a minimum of 24 months after the close of enrollment, a one-sided alpha=0.10 log rank test will have an 85% chance of detecting an increase in median PFS time from 30 months to 48 months (a hazard ratio of 0.625) with the addition of ixazomib and daratumumab to lenalidomide as a maintenance treatment following induction with ixazomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab. Secondary outcomes of interest include minimal residual disease, overall survival, changes in body composition, quality of life, psychosocial measures of functional status including social activity and support, psychological state, and nutrition using a geriatric assessment tool, and the association of these psychosocial measures with therapy-associated toxicities. 1Kapoor et al. Blood (2019) 134 (Supplement_1): 864. Support: Alliance Foundation Trials; Janssen, Takeda, Celgene; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures O'Donnell: Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Oncopeptide: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Nadeem: GSK: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bristol Myer Squibb: Consultancy. Dinner: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Yee: Takeda: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Mo: Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Consultancy. Tuchman: Karyopharm: Research Funding; Shattuck Labs: Consultancy; Sanofi / Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Raje: Caribou: Other; Janssen: Other; bluebird bio: Other; Amgen: Other; Celgene: Other; BMS: Other. Richardson: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding.

The NCCN Guidelines for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) focus on the classification of ALL subtypes based on immunophenotype and cytogenetic/molecular markers; risk assessment and stratification for risk-adapted therapy; treatment strategies for Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive and Ph-negative ALL for both adolescent and young adult and adult patients; and supportive care considerations. Given the complexity of ALL treatment regimens and the required supportive care measures, the NCCN ALL Panel recommends that patients be treated at a specialized cancer center with expertise in the management of ALL This portion of the Guidelines focuses on the management of Ph-positive and Ph-negative ALL in adolescents and young adults, and management in relapsed settings.

BackgroundThe availability of novel agents (NAs), including blinatumomab and inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO), has improved the outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) B‐cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Because of the relative effectiveness, it is often a challenge for clinicians to determine how to best sequence these NAs with respect to efficacy and toxicity.MethodsIn this multicenter, retrospective study of patients with RR ALL treated with blinatumomab, InO, or both, their efficacy as a first or second NA was compared.ResultsAmong 276 patients, 221 and 55 received blinatumomab and InO, respectively, as a first NA therapy. The complete remission (CR)/complete remission with incomplete count recovery (CRi) rate was 65% and 67% for the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively (P = .73). The rate of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was 4% and 7% in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. Ninety‐two patients (43%) in the blinatumomab group and 13 patients (29%) in the InO group proceeded with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The median overall survival (OS) was 15 and 11.6 months in the blinatumomab and InO groups, respectively. A subset analysis was performed for 61 patients who received both NAs (blinatumomab and then InO [n = 40] or InO and then blinatumomab [n = 21]). The CR/CRi rate was 58% for patients who received InO as the second NA and 52% for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA. The median OS was 10.5 for patients who received InO as the second NA and 5.9 months for patients who received blinatumomab as the second NA (P = .09).ConclusionsAlthough the limited power of this study to detect a significant difference between subgroups is acknowledged, the data suggest that blinatumomab and InO may have comparable efficacy as a first or second NA therapy in RR ALL.

Background: Gilteritinib is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML and FLT3-mutation (FLT3mut+). However, the gilteritinib phase 3 ADMIRAL study (Perl et al NEJM 2019) enrolled prior to widespread adoption of either midostaurin as a component of standard intensive induction and consolidation or post-transplant FLT3inhibitor (FLT3i) maintenance. Some mechanisms of drug resistance can be shared across FLT3i's, suggesting response to gilteritinib might differ in patients treated with frontline FLT3i. A better understanding of how prior therapy modulates response to gilteritinib is necessary to clarify this novel agent's role in the current FLT3-mutated AML treatment algorithm. Methods: This is an ongoing multi-institutional analysis from 13 US centers identifying patients who received gilteritinib alone or as combination therapy for the treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Patients who received gilteritinib as a part of an ongoing trial were excluded. Response criteria were identical to the ADMIRAL trial. For patients with available data and a composite complete remission (CRc), we defined clinically measurable residual disease (cMRD) negative status by bone marrow flow cytometry using a cutoff of &lt;1 x 10x105 cells as well as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for FLT3 mutation with a minimum sensitivity of 5%. Survival from the time of gilteritinib initiation was recorded. Multivariate analysis included all variables collected to determine interaction with patient outcome (CR and survival data). Kaplan-Meier curves and log rank test were used for survival analysis after gilteritinib initiation. Results: 72 patients treated with prior FLT3i exposure received gilteritinib for treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Patient characteristics are presented in table-1 with 46 (64%) previously receiving midostaurin, 19 (26%) sorafenib, and 7 (10%) other FLT3i. 8 (11%) received more than one prior TKI. NGS at diagnosis were available in 66 patients (92%) and co-mutations in DNMT3A, NPM1 and NRAS were observed in more than 10% of patients. Average duration of gilteritinib therapy was 5.7 months (range: 0.2-25 months). 27 (37.5%) received stem cell transplant (SCT) before gilteritinib and 15 (21%) underwent SCT after gilteritinib. The composite CR rate (CRc, defined as CR + CRi + CRp) was 51.4% (n= 37 patients). With regard to specific FLT3i's, we found no significant difference in median survival (7.1 months and 6.4 months for midostaurin and sorafenib, respectively) or remission rates (CRc 54% and 47% for prior midostaurin and sorafenib, respectively). The CRc rate for patients who received only prior 7+3 and midostaurin with or without consolidation was 58% with a median survival of 7.8 months. A trend toward higher CRc rate was noted in patients treated with gilteritinib in combination regimens rather than as a single agent (64% vs 43%, respectively, p=0.09 using Chi-square test). No survival advantage for combination therapy was seen over single agent. Survival was longest in patients who obtained a CR, particularly a cMRD negative response; this remained significant after censoring at the time of SCT (figures 1&2). Patients who received SCT after gilteritinib had significantly longer survival than non-transplanted patients (9.3 months vs 5.6 months, respectively, HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.2-0.8)(figure-3). Patients with concurrent mutations of NPM1/DNMT3A had a trend toward a higher CRc compared to FLT3 mutation alone (71% vs 50%, p= 0.2) but similar survival. With regard to mutations associated with drug resistance to other FLT3i's, patients with both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-D835 mutation had similar response and survival to FLT3-ITD alone. However, patients with MAPK pathway activating mutations (e.g. NRAS and PTPN11) had lower CRc (37.5% vs 59.5%) and poorer median survival than other patients (3.3 months vs 7.5 months) (HR 2.2- 95% CI 1.1-4.4) p value &lt;0.01(figure-4). Conclusions: In this multi-center, retrospective analysis, gilteritinib remains a clinically active agent after treatment failure of prior FLT3i's (midostaurin or sorafenib). Mutations activating MAPK pathway have been implicated in secondary gilteritinib resistance but are seldom co-mutated at initial FLT3mut+ AML diagnosis. While further study is required, we hypothesize that their detection after frontline FLT3i therapy may represent treatment-emergent clones with propensity for pan-FLT3i resistance. Disclosures Zeidan: Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aprea: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; CCITLA: Other; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Yilmaz:Pint Pharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Daicho Sankyo: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy. Daver:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Syndax: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novimmune: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trillium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Perl:Novartis: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Other; FORMA Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Honoraria, Other; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: writing/editorial support, travel costs for meeting presentations related to study, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Writing/editorial support, travel costs for meetings, Research Funding; Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Beat AML: Consultancy; Arog Pharmaceuticals Inc: Other: uncompensated consulting, travel costs for meetings; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel costs for meeting. Altman:Kartos: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Amphivena: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Syros: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; ASH: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety and monitoring committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board - no payment but was reimbursed for travel; Kura Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board - no payment accepted, Research Funding; BioSight: Other: No payment but was reimbursed for travel , Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Agios: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Theradex: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Other: Advisory Board, Speaker (no payment), Steering Committee (no payment), Research Funding; PrIME Oncology: Consultancy; PeerView: Consultancy; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; France Foundation: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Some of the patients we are reporting on received gilteritinib in combination with other agents which is off-label use.

Abstract The availability and use of blinatumomab symbolizes a paradigm shift in the management of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort analysis of 239 ALL patients (227 relapsed refractory [RR], n = 227; minimal residual disease [MRD], n = 12) who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy in the “real-world” setting. The median age of patients at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) patients had ≥3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) had allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation before blinatumomab. The response rate (complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery) in patients with RR disease was 65% (47% MRD−). Among 12 patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) patients achieved MRD negativity. In patients with RR disease, median relapse-free survival and overall survival (OS) after blinatumomab was 32 months and 12.7 months, respectively. Among patients who received blinatumomab for MRD, median relapse-free survival was not reached (54% MRD− at 2 years) and OS was 34.7 months. Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and hepatotoxicity were observed in 3%, 7%, and 10% of patients, respectively. Among patients who achieved complete remission/complete remission with incomplete count recovery, consolidation therapy with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation retained favorable prognostic significance for OS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.97; P = .04). In this largest “real-world” experience published to date, blinatumomab demonstrated responses comparable to those reported in clinical trials. The optimal sequencing of newer therapies in ALL requires further study.