McMillan, Andrew

Abstract The UKALLXII/ECOG2993 international study for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukeamia (ALL) included a separate, single-arm study (still open) to evaluate the role of etoposide/TBI conditioned allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) in patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph pos) disease. Patients received 2 phases of induction, intensification with high dose methotrexate and BMT using unrelated donor stem cells where a matched sibling was not available. 267 patients with Ph pos ALL were treated from 1993 onwards, in the pre-imatinib era. The study was amended in 2003 to add imatinib 600mg per day following induction and after BMT for 2 years or until relapse. A subsequent amendment at the end of 2005, added imatinib 600mg per day also to phase 2 of induction. 153 patients have now been treated on the imatinib-containing protocol − 89 received imatinib following induction and 64 started imatinib with phase 2 induction. Complete remission (CR) rate at the end of 2 phases of induction was 91% with imatinib started in induction, 81% with imatinib started in consolidation only & 83% in the pre imatinib era. 128 of the 153 patients treated with any imatinib were eligible for BMT. Of the 98 patients with over 6 months follow-up, 57 (58%) actually received BMT. This transplant rate does not differ from the 62% in the pre-imatinib era although the data pertain mostly to those whose imatinib started later during therapy. Overall survival of the imatinib-treated group as a whole is 23% at 3 years, which does not differ from the 26% pre-imatinib rate as shown in the figure. Hence, imatinib started post-induction does not appear to improve survival. Imatinib given with induction may improve the CR rate, but there is insufficient follow up to assess transplant or survival rates. Earlier imatinib may be optimal but overall, our study does not provide evidence yet that imatinib alters the outcome of this disease. Figure Figure Patient characteristics Pre-imatinib (N=267) Post-imatinib (N=153) Gender: Male 150 (56%) 96 (63%) WBC (x 10 ^9/l) (2 unknown): <30 141(53%) 86 (56%) ≥ 30 124 (47%) 67 (44%) Median (range) 26.8 (1.5–438) 21.0 (0.5–491) Age: median (range) 40 (15–60) 42 (16–64) CNS disease (82 unknown) 14 (8%) 4 (3%)

Abstract Abstract 493 The International MRC UKALL XII/ECOG E2993 trial for adults with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) recruited 1,914 patients to the main part of the trial from 1995 up to its closure in 2006, of whom 100 were over the age of 55 years (median 57, range 55–65). Beginning in 2003 (MRC) or 2004 (ECOG), patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+ve) disease were entered into an Imatinib sub-study. We report here baseline characteristics, treatment course and outcomes, and discuss implications for future management strategies. Direct comparison of the 100 patients over 55 yrs with 1,814 under 55 yrs showed that the groups are comparable for gender, immunophenotype and white cell count but there is an indication that more elderly patients had Ph+ve disease (28% aged ≥55 vs 17% aged <55 of those entered before the start of the Imatinib trial; p=0.02). All patients in this trial received a 2 stage induction regimen, consisting of Daunorubicin, Vincristine, Asparaginase and Steroid followed by Cyclophosphamide, Cytarabine, 6-Mercaptopurine and Methotrexate. CNS prophylaxis with IT Methotrexate and Cytarabine was given during both phases. There was a randomisation to autograft or chemotherapy, but only a small number of patients in this age group were randomised (13 autograft and 13 consolidation chemotherapy). Outcomes Complete remission (CR) rate, event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were all worse in the over 55 age group, and even after achieving CR, the 5-year OS rate was reduced. There were more infections in phase I induction (67% vs 45%, p<0.0001) and more deaths during induction chemotherapy (18% vs 4% p<0.0001). Excluding those who died in induction, 47% had drug dose reductions in phase I or phase II vs 27% <55 yrs (P=0.0006). Of these, Asparaginase was the most common in those aged ≥55 years, usually due to hepatotoxicity. Age p-value <55 vs ≥55 <55 ≥55 Number 1814 100 CR No v Yes p<0.0001 No 131 (7%) 27 (27%) No (died in induction) 70 (4%) 18 (18%) No (but survived induction) 61 (3%) 9 (9%) Yes 1641 (90%) 70 (70%) Unknown 42 (2%) 3 (3%) Deaths 1112/1814 (61%) 78/100 (78%) Relapses 750/1683 (45%) 36/73 (49%) Overall survival at 5 years (95% CI) 41% (38–43%) 21% (12–29%) p<0.0001 Event free survival at 5 years (95% CI) 37% (34–39%) 19% (10–27%) p<0.0001 Relapse free survival at 5 years (95% CI) 50% (48–53%) 38% (25–52%) p=0.08 Overall survival at 5 years (95% CI) in those who achieved CR 44% (41–46%) 30% (18–41%) p=0.03 In those patients aged ≥55 years, baseline factors causing a significantly worse 5-yr EFS were Ph-positivity (0% vs 23%, p=0.005), unfavourable vs standard cytogenetic risk (7% vs 26%, p=0.02) and a presenting WCC >50 × 109/l (0% vs 25% for WCC between 10 and 49.9 × 109/l and 23% for WCC <10 × 109/l, p=0.003). Infection during induction chemotherapy predicted for worse EFS; this was especially significant in those who had infection in both phases of induction (6% vs 38%, p=0.007). In those patients who received chemotherapy and were not transplanted, the differences in outcome were smaller: 5-yr OS 25% in ≥55 years vs 38% in <55 years (p=0.06), 5-yr EFS 22% vs 32% (p>0.1). Conclusion Older adults fared significantly worse than younger adults both in terms of achieving an initial CR and long-term survival. This difference cannot be explained solely by a difference in disease characteristics, and the marked increase in infection and deaths during induction reflect the inability of many older patients to tolerate the intensive level of treatment. This is also supported by the large numbers of drug omissions or dose reductions seen. Our data show that this inability to tolerate induction chemotherapy is a major contributor to the poor outcomes seen in this age group. The less marked differences between age groups when transplant patients are excluded, indicates the significant mortality associated with these procedures in older patients. Alternative approaches to consider in this group include less intensive induction with a steroid and vinca alkaloid combination, in conjunction with targeted therapies (eg Rituximab in B-lineage CD20+ disease, Imatinib Mesylate in Ph+ disease). Even amongst those patients who do achieve CR however, the long-term outcome is worse. Reduced intensity allografts may play a role in carefully selected patients in this age group, and the emerging use of MRD monitoring may also assist in selecting patients for more or less intensive approaches. Disclosures: McMillan: EUSA: Honoraria. Goldstone: Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Abstract 524 The International UKALLXII/E2993 trial enrolled 2091 pts with newly diagnosed adult ALL between 1993 and 2006. Patients received 2 months of combination induction chemotherapy followed by an intensification course of high dose methotrexate and L-asparaginase after which pts were randomized to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) or consolidation and maintenance chemotherapy. Patients <55 years of age with a matched sibling donor were assigned myeloablative allogeneic HSCT (Goldstone, et al, Blood 2008; 111:1827). Here we report a detailed analysis of 1,229 pts from this trial with B-ALL, excluding Philadelphia-chromosome-positive patients. The median age was 30 years (range 14–65) and 59% were male. The median WBC was 9.2×109/L (range 0.1–930) and 73% of pts had a WBC <30 × 109/L. CNS involvement was present in 4% of pts at diagnosis. Comprehensive centralized immunophenotyping was performed in 372 of the 409 (91%) ECOG pts enrolled and initial analysis demonstrated pro-B/pre-pre-B in 17%, early pre-B in 52%, pre-B in 14%, either early pre-B or pre-B in 6%, mature B in 2% and B-lineage, not otherwise specified, in 9%. Outcomes were similar between patients with immunophenotyping data and those without. The complete remission (CR) rate was 93% and there were 4% induction deaths. The overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), relapse risk (RR) and non-relapse mortality (NRM) at 5 years for the overall group is shown in the table. There were no significant differences in CR rate, OS, EFS, RR or NRM for the immunophenotypic subgroups. There was better OS and EFS with less relapse and similar risk of NRM for pts randomized to chemotherapy as compared with autologous HSCT (Figure 1). In the matched sibling donor-no donor comparison, OS and EFS were improved, RR was less and NRM was higher in the donor group (Figure 2). Cytogenetic analysis confirmed that patients with t(4;11) (n=77, 8% total), t(8;14) (n=19, 2% total), a complex karyotype (≥5 abnormalities in the absence of an established chromosomal abnormality) (n=38, 5% total), or low hypoploidy/near triploidy (n=41, 5% total) had an inferior OS and patients with high hyperdiploidy had a superior OS when compared to other patients. In conclusion, this is the largest series of B-ALL in uniformly treated adults ever reported and confirms the superior outcome of patients randomized to chemotherapy as compared with autologous HSCT and shows that patients with a matched sibling donor have an improved survival over patients without a donor. No difference in CR rates or outcome was noted for patients with different immunophenotypic subtypes of B-ALL. Future improvements in outcome of pts with B-ALL will rely on the addition of new agents such as B cell monoclonal antibodies and improvements in allogeneic HCT.Table.Outcomes at 5 years of follow-upnCR rate (%)OSEFSRRNRMOverall12299342375021Pro-B/pre-pre-B639236345421Early pre-B/pre-B2689340345421Age ≤ 35 years746 (61%)9653454516Chi square p<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001Age >35 years483 (39%)8932265930Randomized to autologous HSCT15735316610Log rank p0.030.010.01NSRandomized to chemotherapy1694742558Matched sib donor34452483032Chi square p0.050.03<0.001<0.001No Donor47445415510Values are % except n and p values. CR=complete remission, OS=overall survival, EFS=event-free survival, RR=relapse risk, NRM=non-relapse mortality NS=not significant. The p values represent the difference between age groups for the first comparison, randomized to autologous HSCT versus chemotherapy for the second comparison and between matched sibling donor and no donor for the third comparison. Overall survival by randomized allocation at 10 years Overall survival by donor availability at 10 years Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 663 Introduction: The biology and outcome of adult t(4;11) ALL are poorly understood. We report here 85 patients treated uniformly on the prospective trial (UKALL XII/ECOG 2993) with the aim of describing outcome and identifying prognostic factors and optimal therapy. Patients and methods: 1914 adult patients (≥15 years) with ALL were registered on the UKALL XII/ECOG 2993 study in the UK or United States from 1993–2006. Cell lineage was classified by local institutions (UK) or central immunophenotyping (ECOG). Cytogenetic, FISH and RT-PCR analyses of pre-treatment samples were either performed locally and reviewed centrally or performed centrally. Results: The 85 patients with t(4;11) were predominantly female (68%). Median age was 38 years (vs 32 years in the non-t(4;11) group) and 42% were >40 years. They had high white cell counts with 87% >30 and 66% >100 × 109/l (vs 7% in the non-t(4;11) group). Among the 27 ECOG patients, 22 (81%) had the typical pro-B (CD10NEG) immunophenotype, compared to 12% in t(4;11)NEG patients. Aside from expression of myeloid antigens, CD65 and CD15, which is part of the pro-B immunophenotype, t(4;11)POS lymphoblasts showed a unique combination of stem cell antigens: lower expression of CD34 and CD105, but higher expression of CD133 and CD135 compared to t(4;11)NEG blasts (p<0.0001). Additional cytogenetic abnormalities (ACAs) were present in 31/75 (41%) evaluable cases. Most common ACAs were gain of chromosome X (n=13), i(7)(q10) (n=7) and abnormalities of 1p (n=4). Deletion of IKZF1 or CDKN2A/B was present in 18% of patients tested; neither affected outcome. Seventy seven evaluable patients attained complete remission (CR1, 93%). Treatment received in CR1 was either chemotherapy (n=46, 59%) or a myeloablative allograft (N=31, 16 matched sibling, 1 mismatched related and 15 unrelated donors UD). CR1 treatment received strongly correlated with age with the number of allografts decreasing with age: <25 years 12/17 patients; 24–39 years 13/29 and 40+ years 6/31 (p=0.001). At median follow up of 5.4 years, five year EFS was 34% (24–44%, 95% CI) and OS 35% (25–45%). Five year relapse rate was 45% (33–58%); only 1 relapsed patient survived, nearly all events had occurred by 2 years. The 46 patients who received chemotherapy had 24% survival and 69% relapsed but 5 year OS of patients who had sibling or UD allografts was 56% and 67% respectively (p=0.013) and only 3/31 relapsed. An allograft improved OS, EFS and relapse in the <40 year group. Age was also strongly associated with outcome (figure). Conclusions: This is the largest series of adult t(4;11) ALL patients treated uniformly. Allograft in CR1 from sibling or unrelated donors is an effective strategy. Current prospective trials of intensive pediatric-type regimens in younger patients will determine if CR1 allografts are necessary. Older patients have a poor outcome and different strategies such as reduced intensity allografting should be explored. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Abstract 169 The Philadelphia positive (Ph+) arm of the international adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) trial UKALL12/ECOG2993 opened in 1993 and is the largest single study of patients with Ph+ ALL, with a total of 441 participants. The first cohort of study patients was treated prior to Imatinib (N=266 “Pre Imatinib“) with 2 phases of induction therapy given over 2 months followed by matched sibling or unrelated donor myeloablative allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) whenever possible. The treatment protocol and outcome for these patients has been published (Fielding et al, Blood 2009). Beginning March 2003, a second cohort of study patients had Imatinib 600mg daily added, as a consolidation block after the second induction chemotherapy, (N=86, “Late Imatinib”). From late 2005, a final cohort within the trial were given Imatinib earlier, in conjunction with the second phase of induction (N=89, “Early Imatinib”). Patients in both Imatinib cohorts resumed the drug for a further 2 years following alloHSCT, if tolerated. If alloHSCT was not possible, Imatinib was permitted for 2 years, with maintenance. The trial closed to recruitment in December 2006 (USA) and October 2008 (UK). All except 8 patients have now completed therapy. An earlier analysis of these data did not indicate a clear long-term advantage to receiving Imatinib. We now report 3-year follow-up, which shows large outcome differences between the 3 groups. There were no pre-existing differences between the 3 cohorts in terms of gender, presenting white blood cell counts and presence of central nervous system disease at diagnosis. However, the Pre-Imatinib cohort was younger than the two Imatinib cohorts, due to an increase in the upper age limit for study entry. Percentage complete remission (CR) rates and survival of induction therapy are shown in table 1. The total CR rate for the imatinib cohorts was significantly higher than for the pre-imatinib cohort (p=0.004). Table 1 Pre-Imatinib With Imatinib N=266 Total With Imatinib N=175 Part 1 Late Imatinib N=86 Part 2 Early Imatinib N=89 Died in induction<d56 5 5 3 7 Survived induction but never achieved remission 13 3 5 1 Total not achieving CR 18 8 8 8 CR on protocol induction 67 77 73 80 Total CR rate (includes those achieving remission later than post induction) 82 92 92 92 Pre- Imatinib, only 28% of patients went on to receive alloHSCT as per protocol. With any Imatinib, 44% of patients received alloHSCT as per protocol. Survival outcomes of patients in the 3 cohorts are shown in the table 2. Overall survival (OS), event free survival (EFS) and relapse free survival (RFS) are all at 3 years with 95% confidence intervals (CI) shown in brackets. The P values are for two comparisons - ** denotes the comparison between patients receiving any Imatinib and patients receiving none and ^ denotes the comparison between the Early and Late Imatinib cohorts. Table 2 Pre-Imatinib With Imatinib Total With Imatinib Part 1 Late Imatinib Part 2 Early Imatinib % OS (95% CI) (see also Figure 1) 25 (20–30) 42 (34–49) 34 (24–44) 48 (36–60) p=0.0001** p=0.05^ % EFS (95% CI) 19 (14–24) 36 (29–44) 29 (19–38) 45 (34–56) p=0.0001** p=0.04^ % RFS (95% CI) 36 (28–43) 54 (45–63) 45 (33–57) 62 (50–75) p=0.0001** p=0.02^ Figure 1 Three-year OS for patients who received per protocol alloHSCT was 59% vs. 28% (with no plateau on the curve) for those who did not receive alloHSCT as per protocol. By comparison, pre-imatinib, 5 year OS was 40% for transplanted- and 19% for non-transplanted patients. Hence, the extent to which Imatinib without subsequent alloHSCT can improve the outcome for adult Ph+ ALL is not yet clear. Figure 1. Three-year OS for patients who received per protocol alloHSCT was 59% vs. 28% (with no plateau on the curve) for those who did not receive alloHSCT as per protocol. By comparison, pre-imatinib, 5 year OS was 40% for transplanted- and 19% for non-transplanted patients. Hence, the extent to which Imatinib without subsequent alloHSCT can improve the outcome for adult Ph+ ALL is not yet clear. In conclusion, receiving any Imatinib during induction for Ph+ ALL significantly enhances CR rate and increase alloHSCT rate. This translates into a highly significant EFS, OS and RFS advantage to receiving Imatinib during therapy. An earlier start to Imatinib is significantly better than a later start. Though comparisons between study cohorts are not randomised, the large differences seen are unlikely to be explained by factors other than treatment. There can be no basis for omitting Imatinib from the initial therapy of adult patients with Ph+ ALL. However, our data show that the best outcome is seen when patients receive Imatinib followed by myeloablative alloHSCT, where nearly 60% of such patients survive 3 years from diagnosis. Disclosures: Goldstone: Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

Key Points Imatinib improves outcomes for adults with Ph+ ALL at least in part by facilitating allogeneic stem cell transplant. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant is not dispensible in Ph+ ALL in the imatinib era.

SummaryAlthough the incidence rate of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) is slightly higher in older than in younger adults, response rates to induction chemotherapy and survival rates are poorer. The contribution of disease‐related versus treatment‐related factors remains unclear. We analysed 100 older patients (aged 55–65 years) treated on the UKALLXII/ECOG2993 trial compared with 1814 younger patients (aged 14–54 years). Baseline characteristics, induction chemotherapy course, infections, drug reductions and survival outcomes were compared. There were more Philadelphia‐positive (Ph+) patients in the older group (28% vs. 17%, P = 0·02), and a trend towards higher combined cytogenetic risk score (46% vs. 35%, P = 0·07). The complete remission rate in older patients was worse (73% vs. 93%, P < 0·0001) as was 5‐year overall survival (21% vs. 41%, P < 0·0001) and event‐free survival (EFS) (19% vs. 37%, P < 0·0001). Older patients had more infections during induction (81% vs. 70%, P = 0·05), and drug reductions (46% vs. 28%, P = 0·0009). Among older patients, Ph+ and cytogenetic risk category as well as infection during induction predicted for worse EFS. Poorer outcomes in these patients are partly due to cytogenetic risk, but there is significant morbidity and mortality during induction chemotherapy with frequent delays and drug reductions. New approaches, including better risk stratification and use of targeted therapies, could improve treatment for these patients.

AbstractThe biology and outcome of adult T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia are poorly understood. We present here the clinical and biologic features of 356 patients treated uniformly on the prospective trial (UKALL XII/ECOG 2993) with the aim of describing the outcome and identifying prognostic factors. Complete remission was obtained in 94% of patients, and 48% survived 5 years. Positivity of blasts for CD1a and lack of expression of CD13 were associated with better survival (P = .01 and < .001, respectively). NOTCH1 and CDKN2A mutations were seen in 61% and 42% of those tested. Complex cytogenetic abnormalities were associated with poorer survival (19% vs 51% at 5 years, P = .006). Central nervous system involvement at diagnosis did not affect survival (47% vs 48%, P = not significant). For 99 patients randomized between autograft and chemotherapy, 5-year survival was 51% in each arm. Patients with a matched sibling donor had superior 5-year survival to those without donors (61% vs 46%, χ2, P = .02); this was the result of less relapse (25% vs 51% at 5 years, P < .001). Only 8 of 123 relapsed patients survive. This study provides a baseline for trials of new drugs, such as nelarabine, and may allow risk-adapted therapy in patients with poor-prognosis T-cell ALL.

Abstract Prospective data on the value of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) in Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are limited. The UKALLXII/ECOG 2993 study evaluated the outcome of assigning alloHSCT with a sibling (sib) or matched unrelated donor (MUD) to patients younger than 55 years of age achieving complete remission (CR). The CR rate of 267 patients, median age 40, was 82%. Twenty-eight percent of patients proceeded to alloHSCT in first CR. Age older than 55 years or a pre-HSCT event were the most common reasons for failure to progress to alloHSCT. At 5 years, overall survival (OS) was 44% after sib alloHSCT, 36% after MUD alloHSCT, and 19% after chemotherapy. After adjustment for sex, age, and white blood count and excluding chemotherapy-treated patients who relapsed or died before the median time to alloHSCT, only relapse-free survival remained significantly superior in the alloHSCT group (odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.61). An intention-to-treat analysis, using the availability or not of a matched sibling donor, showed 5-year OS to be nonsignificantly better at 34% with a donor versus 25% with no donor. This prospective trial in adult Ph+ ALL indicates a modest but significant benefit to alloHSCT. This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT00002514 and as ISRCTN77346223.

An international collaboration was set up to prospectively evaluate the role of allogeneic transplantation for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and compare autologous transplantation with standard chemotherapy. Patients received 2 phases of induction and, if in remission, were assigned to allogeneic transplantation if they had a compatible sibling donor. Other patients were randomized to chemotherapy for 2.5 years versus an autologous transplantation. A donor versus no-donor analysis showed that Philadelphia chromosome–negative patients with a donor had a 5-year improved overall survival (OS), 53% versus 45% (P = .01), and the relapse rate was significantly lower (P ≤ .001). The survival difference was significant in standard-risk patients, but not in high-risk patients with a high nonrelapse mortality rate in the high-risk donor group. Patients randomized to chemotherapy had a higher 5-year OS (46%) than those randomized to autologous transplantation (37%; P = .03). Matched related allogeneic transplantations for ALL in first complete remission provide the most potent antileukemic therapy and considerable survival benefit for standard-risk patients. However, the transplantation-related mortality for high-risk older patients was unacceptably high and abrogated the reduction in relapse risk. There is no evidence that a single autologous transplantation can replace consolidation/maintenance in any risk group. This study is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00002514.