Claxton, David F.

Abstract Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remain challenging to treat, particularly in older patients and those with a T-cell phenotype. Venetoclax (VEN), a selective BCL-2 inhibitor, has shown preclinical synergy with vincristine (VCR) in multiple preclinical ALL models. Following the previously reported establishment of the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), we now report the results of the Phase II (Ph2) portion of EA9152 (VEN 600 mg daily with weekly L-VCR 2.25 mg/m² IV or VCR 1.5 mg/m2 IV capped at 2 mg), evaluating efficacy and safety in this high-risk population. Methods: This open-label, multicenter Phase II study enrolled adults (≥18 years) with R/R B- or T-cell ALL or LL. The phase II portion of this trial was a single-arm, open-label study evaluating the combination of VEN (600 mg po D1–28) with either L-VCR (2.25 mg/m² IV weekly x4) or vincristine sulfate (VCR) (1.4 mg/m² IV weekly x4). Following the market withdrawal of L-VCR in the United States in April 2022, no new patients were initiated on this formulation and patients already receiving L-VCR were transitioned to VCR at the start of their next treatment cycle or sooner if necessitated by drug availability. Prior VCR but not VEN exposure was permitted in Ph2. The primary endpoint was achievement of a complete response or complete response with incomplete count recovery CR + CRi rate by end of cycle 3. Secondary endpoints included measurable residual disease (MRD) response, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The association of phenotype with response and time-to-event were evaluated using Fisher's exact test and the Cox proportional hazards model, respectively. Results: Twenty-one eligible patients were treated (B-cell ALL/LL: n=12; T-cell ALL/LL: n=9). The trial was terminated early after 22/56 patients were accrued on account of withdrawal of sponsor support. Median age was 50 years and 76.2% were male. Performance status was 0–1 in 85.7%. All patients had received prior chemotherapy; 47.6% had undergone prior transplant. Median number of treatment cycles was 1 (2 for B-cell, 1 for T-cell). By end of cycle 3, no patients in the B-cell cohort (0/12; 90% CI, 0.00–0.22) achieved CR or CRi, 8 had stable disease (SD). In the T-cell cohort, 1 of 9 patients (11.1%; 90% CI, 0.01–0.43) achieved CR, 1 achieved PR and 1 had SD. There was no statistically significant difference in CR + CRi rate between phenotypes (p=0.43). None of the patients achieved an MRD-negative CR/CRi by flow cytometry or molecular methods. At the time of this analysis, 16 of 21 patients had died. Median overall survival (OS) was 4.3 months (95% CI, 1.5–22.0) for B-cell and 10.2 months (95% CI, 2.0–16.4) for T-cell patients (HR 1.32, p=0.60). Median PFS was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.7–3.7) for B-cell and 1.2 months (95% CI, 0.7–4.6) for T-cell cohorts (HR 2.18, p=0.18). Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in most patients. One T-cell patient experienced grade 5 respiratory failure. Among 16 patients enrolled under the revised protocol using VCR, only 1 experienced grade 3 peripheral motor neuropathy, and no peripheral sensory neuropathy was reported (combined AE rate 0.06; 90% CI, 0.00–0.26). Tumor lysis syndrome was not observed in this cohort. Conclusions: The combination of VEN at the established RP2D and L-VCR/VCR was feasible and had an acceptable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with R/R ALL/LL. However, response rates, including CR/CRi and MRD negativity, were limited, particularly in the B-cell cohort. Median OS and PFS remain poor in both subtypes, highlighting the need for improved strategies in this high-risk population. Venetoclax, in combination with other chemotherapy regimens, has shown encouraging response rates warranting continued exploration of its benefit in ALL.

Abstract Background We performed a prospective study evaluating a baseline GA battery and clinical outcomes in fit older adults (age ≥60 years) with AML and normal cardiac and renal function in the recent E-A NCTN E2906 phase 3 study. A patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment of Depression, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Cognitive Function, Social Support (SS) domains, and comorbidity was performed at study registration to evaluate the prevalence of vulnerabilities and their impact on overall survival (OS) and 30-day induction mortality rates (IM) in this cohort selected for fitness to receive IC. Methods E2906 study design and results have been presented previously [n=727, age ≥60 years, randomized 1:1 to ‘standard 7&3‘ & high dose cytarabine (Arm A) vs. single agent clofarabine (CLO, Arm B), as remission induction (Step 1) and consolidation (Step 2)]. There was no difference in composite complete remission (CCR, 50%) or IM (8.5%), and CLO was inferior for OS. A baseline GA was a key secondary protocol objective, offered to all patients, and n=532 (73%) participated. We assessed Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS, none vs. any depressive symptoms, n=524); cognitive screen using Mini-Mental Exam Section (MMES, score 8/8 vs. <8, n=516); ADL & Instrumental ADL (iADL), (need for assistances vs. not n=526); a Medical Outcomes Study SS Survey (MOS-SS, measured as per unit increase, n=527); a Comorbidity survey ( ≤4 vs. ≥5 patient-reported comorbidities, n=530), patient-reported prescription medications use (PM, 0-3 vs. ≥4, n=519); and a survey of Sexual Desire (n=491) and Sexual Activity (n=477) within 4 weeks of AML diagnosis. Association of GA domains with OS, IM, and achievement of CCR was evaluated using the Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Survival analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for treatment arm. All p-values are 2-sided. Results The median age among those participating in GA battery was 67 yrs (range 60-85), including 38% age ≥70. There were 42% females, and ECOG performance status was 0 (28%), 1 (54%), 2 (16%), or 3 (2%). Central Cytogenetic review was classified (ELN2017) as Favorable (3%), Intermediate (66%), and Adverse (31%) risk. There was a notable rate of GA scores outside ‘normal’ clinical cutoff, including Depression (GDS 31%), cognitive and functional impairment [MMSE (37%), ADL (25%) and iADL (32%)], ≥5 Comorbidities (23%), and ≥4 PM's (44%). 81% & 76%, respectively, reported no sexual activity and low/none sexual desire. MOS-SS tended to be high in this cohort [mean (SD) score 87 (17)]. We observed a significant association of GA domains with OS & IM. For OS, absence of depressive symptoms [GDS, Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence Intervals (CI) 0.64-0.97, p=0.025)], MMES 8/8 (HR 0.78, 95%CI 0.64-0.96, p=0.016), requiring no assistance with ADLs (HR 0.65, 95%CI 0.52-0.82, p<0.001) and iADLs (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.57-0.85, p<0.001), and ≤4 Comorbidities (HR 0.68, 95%CI 0.54-0.84, p=0.001) were significant for superior OS; use of ≥4 PM's was associated with inferior OS (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.09-1.61, p=0.005). There was no association of sexual activity/desire, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, or MOS-SS with OS. IM was significantly higher among those with any depression symptoms (GDS, p=0.005), any ADL (p=0.010) or iADL (p=0.013) impairment, ≥5 comorbidities (p=0.037) and ≥4 PM's (p=0.001); there was no association with MOS-SS or MMES. There was no significant association of GA scores with cytogenetic risk group or with CCR rates. Only ADL independence (p=0.048), and possibly Comorbidity ≤4 (p=0.071), were associated with proceeding to Step 2. Conclusions In this large prospective cohort of fit older adults with AML selected to receive IC, we observed high rates of PRO-assessed GA vulnerability, which was significantly associated with inferior OS and higher IM rates, and (for ADL impairment) lower rates of proceeding to consolidation therapy. This suggests that functional and cognitive impairments are prevalent and can significantly impact outcome even in fit older adults. Despite potential long-term OS advantages of IC previously observed in E2906, efforts to systematically recognize those at higher risk based on GA PROs are needed to help identify patients who may be more appropriate for study of lower intensity treatment options to mitigate impact on IM and OS. SImilarly we plan to evaluate the potential benefit of GA-driven supportive care to improve patients' outcomes.

AbstractIntroductionRelapsed or refractory (r/r) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remains a therapeutic challenge. Preclinical data in both B‐ and T‐ALL suggests synergy of venetoclax (VEN) with vincristine (VCR). We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L‐VCR and VEN for patients with r/r B‐or T‐cell ALL or LL. Here, we report the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644).MethodsIn a 3+3 dose escalation design, r/r ALL subjects were given single‐agent VEN doses reaching 400, 600, or 800 mg for the three respective dose levels. Weekly L‐VCR at 2.25 mg/m2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1. The primary phase I objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination.ResultsAmong the 18 patients in phase I, grade ≥ 3 treatment‐related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated patients. Two patients (two of three) at dose level 3 experienced dose‐limiting toxicities. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 (VEN 600 mg). Twenty‐two percent of evaluable patients (N = 4) achieved a complete response, with two of them showing no evidence of measurable residual disease (MRD).ConclusionThe combination of VEN and L‐VCR was found to be safe for patients with r/r ALL and encouraging preliminary efficacy, including MRD negative responses. With the removal of L‐VCR from the US market, the phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with vincristine sulfate.

Background There is limited prospective or comparative data evaluating the HRQoL impact of intensive chemotherapy (IC) in older adults (age ≥60 years) with AML. In the recent EA E2906 phase 3 study of '7&3' (daunorubicin & cytarabine) vs. clofarabine (CLO), a putative lower intensity therapy, we incorporated a prospective patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment of HRQoL and fatigue to understand treatment impact from the patients' (pts) perspective. Methods E2906 study design and results have been presented previously [n=727, med. age 68 years (range 60-86), randomized 1:1 to ‘standard’ ‘7&3‘ & high dose cytarabine (Arm A) vs. single agent CLO (Arm B), as remission induction (Step 1) and consolidation (Step 2), respectively]. There was no difference in composite complete remission (CCR, 50%) or 30-day mortality rates (8.5%), and in primary analysis CLO was inferior for Overall Survival. HRQoL was a key secondary protocol endpoint. PROs assessed HRQoL and leukemia-specific symptoms and concerns using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia scale (FACT-Leu), & Fatigue using FACT-Fatigue subscale. PROs were administered at prespecified time points: (1) Baseline; (2) Cycle 1 at nadir (approx. Day 15); (3) End of Step 1 restaging (approx. D 40); (4) Beginning of Step 2 (1 st consolidation, approx. D 45); and (5) 2 nd cycle consolidation/End Step 2 (approx. D 60). The FACT-Leu Trial Outcome Index ( TOI) was calculated by summing physical well-being, functional well-being, and leukemia-specific concerns subscales to create a single composite score. Higher TOI scores correspond to better HRQoL. The primary endpoint was to evaluate TOI difference from randomization to day 30 after induction therapy between arms, evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum test. We also compared Clinically Meaningful differences (CMiD) in TOI (defined as patient change ≥½ standard deviation from baseline TOI) between arms, using the X2 test. Pts not completing at least 2 assessment forms (including baseline) were excluded. Testing of constructs of Physical Well-being (PWB), Functional, Leukemia & Fatigue scales demonstrated high Cronbach's a values (a >0.7) except for PWB (a=0.672) at a single time point (End of Step 2). Results Baseline TOI was available for n=489, and 364 pts (n=182 each Arm) were evaluable in this planned analysis. Evaluating CMiD during Cycle 1 induction, pts in Arm B were less likely to experience ‘Worse’ TOI score (32% vs. 40.7%, Arm A), more likely to maintain stable TOI scores (49.1% vs. 39%, Arm A), and had a similar proportion of ‘Better’ TOI scores (20.3%, A vs. 18.9%, B) although differences were not significant (p=0.1389). Conversely in cycle 1 consolidation, more patients in Arm A experienced Better TOI (45.1% vs. 29.2%, Arm B), fewer had stable TOI (45.1% vs. 58.3%, Arm B), and rates of ‘Worse’ TOI were similar (9.8%, A vs 12.5%, Arm B), again differences were not significant (p=0.2616). There was no difference in Fatigue scores between Arms (p=0.49). We evaluated whether TOI and Fatigue scores could predict the ability to complete protocol therapy. In univariate analysis baseline TOI (p=0.0059) and Fatigue (p=0.0057) were associated with Step 1 completion, however on multivariate analysis (adjusting for age, sex, and Arm) were no longer significant [TOI, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 (0.98-1.08, p=0.27); Fatigue, OR 1.03 (0.96-1.11, p=0.42)]. There was a borderline association of TOI with Step 2 completion [TOI OR 1.10 (1.00-1.23, p=0.06)]. Using a multivariable linear mixed effects model, we observed similar and significant changes in TOI scores in both Arms, demonstrating the effect of IC & CLO on HRQoL (Figure). Comparing to baseline, TOI scores decreased significantly at C1 induction nadir (-4.0873, p<0.0001), and increased by 5.0762 (p=0.0004) at end Step 1, by 6.9047 at cycle 1 consolidation (p<0.0001), and by 11.4601 (p<0.0001) at end Step 2. Differences were mainly apparent in those who achieved CCR, and there was significant attrition in PRO responses in non-CCR pts. Conclusions Older adults experienced significant improvement in HRQoL after nadir regardless of therapy, and those achieving CCR report significantly higher scores. We did not observe differences in leukemia specific HRQoL or fatigue between treatment Arms (7&3 vs. CLO). Patient-reported HRQoL & Fatigue was not predictive of completion of protocol therapy. These results serve as a benchmark for expectations with IC in older adults.

Abstract Detection of hallmark genomic aberrations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is essential for diagnostic subtyping, prognosis, and patient management. However, cytogenetic/cytogenomic techniques used to identify those aberrations, such as karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), are limited by the need for skilled personnel as well as significant time, cost, and labor. Optical genome mapping (OGM) provides a single, cost-effective assay with a significantly higher resolution than karyotyping and with a comprehensive genome-wide analysis comparable with CMA and the added unique ability to detect balanced structural variants (SVs). Here, we report in a real-world setting the performance of OGM in a cohort of 100 AML cases that were previously characterized by karyotype alone or karyotype and FISH or CMA. OGM identified all clinically relevant SVs and copy number variants (CNVs) reported by these standard cytogenetic methods when representative clones were present in >5% allelic fraction. Importantly, OGM identified clinically relevant information in 13% of cases that had been missed by the routine methods. Three cases reported with normal karyotypes were shown to have cryptic translocations involving gene fusions. In 4% of cases, OGM findings would have altered recommended clinical management, and in an additional 8% of cases, OGM would have rendered the cases potentially eligible for clinical trials. The results from this multi-institutional study indicate that OGM effectively recovers clinically relevant SVs and CNVs found by standard-of-care methods and reveals additional SVs that are not reported. Furthermore, OGM minimizes the need for labor-intensive multiple cytogenetic tests while concomitantly maximizing diagnostic detection through a standardized workflow.

Abstract Asparaginase is a key component of pediatric-inspired regimens in young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Truncation of asparaginase therapy is linked to inferior outcomes in children with ALL. However, a similar correlation in adults is lacking. Here, we studied the prevalence and risk factors associated with pegylated (PEG)-asparaginase discontinuation in young adults with ALL treated on the US intergroup Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 10403 study and examined the prognostic impact of early discontinuation (ED) (defined as <4 of 5 or 6 planned doses) on survival outcomes. The analysis included 176 patients who achieved complete remission and initiated the delayed intensification (DI) cycle. The median number of PEG-asparaginase doses administered before DI was 5 (range, 1-6), with 57 (32%) patients with ED. The ED patients were older (median, 26 vs 23 years; P = .023). Survival was apparently lower for ED patients compared with those receiving ≥4 doses, but this finding was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-3.43; P = .06), with corresponding 5-year overall survival (OS) rates of 66% and 80%, respectively. In patients with standard-risk ALL, the ED of PEG-asparaginase adversely influenced OS (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.02-5.22; P = .04) with a trend toward inferior event-free survival (EFS) (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.92-3.67; P = .08). In contrast, there was no impact of early PEG-asparaginase discontinuation on OS (P = .64) or EFS (P = .32) in patients with high-risk disease based on the presence of high-risk cytogenetics, Ph-like genotype, and/or high white blood cell count at presentation. In conclusion, early PEG-asparaginase discontinuation is common in young adults with ALL and may adversely impact survival of patients with standard-risk ALL.

Abstract Introduction: Allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) is the most effective post remission anti-leukemia strategy. However, the associated toxicity is a barrier for its routine adoption as standard of care in older adults. Studies of AML patients who underwent alloSCT are mainly retrospective as randomized controlled trials comparing transplantation to non-transplantation are very difficult to conduct. We herein present prospective data from a randomized controlled phase III study, E2906, designed to compare two intensive chemotherapy arms. Patients who achieved remission and had a donor were to proceed to alloSCT after induction or first consolidation, at investigator discretion. Non-transplanted patients received 2 cycles of consolidation and then underwent a second randomization between observation and decitabine maintenance. Herein are reported all patients who received alloSCT either on protocol during first remission (CR1) or at other post induction time-points. Patients and Methods: Enrolled to E2906 study were 727 AML patients age 60 years and over. AlloSCT was performed in 166 patients, of whom 71 received alloSCT as part of the study and 95 received alloSCT off protocol. 105 patients (66/71 on protocol, 39/95 off protocol) received alloSCT at CR1/CRi1/LFS1 (CR: 92, CRi: 9 LFS: 4). Patients were followed for a median of 33.6 months from diagnosis and 29.1 months from transplant. No patients received decitabine maintenance prior to alloSCT. Overall survival (OS) is defined as the time from allo transplant to death from any cause, with follow-up censored at the date of last contact. Disease free survival (DFS) is defined as the time from alloSCT transplant to relapse or death of any cause. The censored follow-up time for patients without relapse or death information is the date of last contact. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to estimate OS and DFS. DFS and OS were compared between subgroups using log rank tests. A cumulative incidence analysis, with death without prior relapse as competing events, was performed to evaluate the subgroup effect on time to relapse after transplant. Results: Patient characteristics of those who received alloSCT at CR1/CRi1/LFS1 are similar to the general distribution of AML patients eligible for intensive chemotherapy. Median age was 66 years, 52% were male and 88% with ECOG PS of 0-1. Cytogenetic data were available for 85 patients of whom 26% presented with unfavorable cytogenetics. Minimal residual disease (MRD) status prior to alloSCT was available for 44 patients of whom 19 (43%) achieved a MRD negative state. Long-term OS and DFS rates for all 105 patients who underwent alloSCT at CR1/CRi1/LFS1 are encouraging (Figure 1). OS and DFS at two years were 56.4% and 53.6% and 49.4%, 45.6% and 42.9%, 39% at 3 and 4 years, respectively. Age above or below 65 years, gender, induction regimen (3+7 or clofarabine) and MRD status prior to transplantation had no impact on outcome. Survival curves by intermediate or adverse cytogenetic risk are not significantly different. The numbers of patients with CRi1 or LFS1 are too small to compare with patients in CR1. Nevertheless, 36/38 patients that were alive and remain in first remission at the time of data cutoff, are patients who achieved CR1 and only 2/38 are patients transplanted at CRi1 or LFS1. Notably, the non-relapse mortality (NRM) was not significantly different for patients less or over 65 years. NRM at 6 months and 2 years for patients over and under 65 years of age were 4.4%, 8.4% and 15.6%, 24.0% respectively. Relapse during the first year post alloSCT is the main barrier for longer survival, particularly in patients with adverse cytogenetics and MRD positivity prior to transplantation (Figure 2). Conclusions: Fit older patients, including those over age 65, who undergo an alloSCT in CR1, can expect a 4-year survival of 43% with an acceptable NRM rate. The NRM was, surprisingly, not higher than for a typically younger cohort of AML. Relapse within one year after transplant is the major limitation to prolonged survival and this finding reflects the biology of the leukemia in these patients. In this patient population, novel post remission strategies should either be complimentary to alloSCT or competitive with updated outcome of alloSCT. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ofran: Medison Israel: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Claxton: Astellas: Other: Clinical Trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Tallman: Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Honoraria; UC DAVIS: Honoraria; Northwell Grand Rounds: Honoraria; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Danbury Hospital Tumor Board: Honoraria; Acute Leukemia Forum: Honoraria; Miami Leukemia Symposium: Honoraria; New Orleans Cancer Symposium: Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; NCCN: Honoraria. Melnick: Constellation: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; KDAC Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Levine: Prelude: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ajax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Zentalis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mission Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; QIAGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Imago: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Auron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lazarus: Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. 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. Foran: gamida: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; syros: Honoraria; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; kura: Research Funding; takeda: Research Funding; abbvie: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; bms: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee.

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>=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 >=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.

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low‐intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML.MethodsThis randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1‐hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1‐hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109/L and ≥10 × 109/L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1‐year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796).ResultsBetween October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017).ConclusionsThe regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.