Liesveld, Jane L.

Abstract We evaluate the impact of donor types on outcomes of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in myelofibrosis, using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry data for HCTs done between 2013 and 2019. In all 1597 patients, the use of haploidentical donors increased from 3% in 2013 to 19% in 2019. In study-eligible 1032 patients who received peripheral blood grafts for chronic-phase myelofibrosis, 38% of recipients of haploidentical HCT were non-White/Caucasian. Matched sibling donor (MSD)–HCTs were associated with superior overall survival (OS) in the first 3 months (haploidentical hazard ratio [HR], 5.80 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.52-13.35]; matched unrelated (MUD) HR, 4.50 [95% CI, 2.24-9.03]; mismatched unrelated HR, 5.13 [95% CI, 1.44-18.31]; P < .001). This difference in OS aligns with lower graft failure with MSD (haploidentical HR, 6.11 [95% CI, 2.98-12.54]; matched unrelated HR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.51]; mismatched unrelated HR, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.58-5.72]). There was no significant difference in OS among haploidentical, MUD, and mismatched unrelated donor HCTs in the first 3 months. Donor type was not associated with differences in OS beyond 3 months after HCT, relapse, disease-free survival, or OS among patients who underwent HCT within 24 months of diagnosis. Patients who experienced graft failure had more advanced disease and commonly used nonmyeloablative conditioning. Although MSD-HCTs were superior, there is no significant difference in HCT outcomes from haploidentical and MUDs. These results establish haploidentical HCT with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide as a viable option in myelofibrosis, especially for ethnic minorities underrepresented in the donor registries.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the outcomes of patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Many older patients (pts) are not good candidates for intensive chemotherapy and are treated with TKIs plus corticosteroids or low-intensity chemotherapy. Although the remission rates with this approach have been high, the median disease-free survival (DFS) has been short. Therefore, novel treatment strategies are needed. This trial evaluated the feasibility of combining the TKI dasatinib with prednisone and blinatumomab in older pts with Ph+ ALL. Here we present updated results (median follow-up, 4.3 years). Methods: This trial was activated through the NCTN in January 2015 and closed to accrual in April 2021. Pt eligibility included: age ≥ 65 years; Ph+ or Ph-like ALL (with dasatinib-sensitive fusions or mutations); newly diagnosed or relapsed/ refractory; no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease; and adequate organ function. Treatment: For induction, pts received dasatinib 140 mg/d orally (PO) Days 1-56 along with prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d PO Days 1-24. Pts achieving complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (Day 28 or Day 56) continued dasatinib until Day 84, followed by 3 cycles of post-remission therapy (PRT) with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Pts not achieving CR or CRi by Day 56 received re-induction with blinatumomab. The response rate was assessed on Day 35 of blinatumomab. Pts not achieving CR/ CRi could receive a second cycle of blinatumomab. This was followed by 3 cycles of PRT with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Maintenance therapy consisted of prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d x 5 days every 28 days for a total of 18 cycles, along with dasatinib 140 mg po qd indefinitely. CNS prophylaxis included intrathecal (IT) methotrexate every 4-6 weeks x 8 doses. IT methotrexate was given at least 2 days apart from blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Days 28, 56, and 84, and additional time points were dependent on response. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed centrally by multi-color flow cytometry on Day 28. Statistics: A total of 24 eligible patients were accrued. The primary objective was the feasibility of the combination therapy. The combination was to be deemed feasible if the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was < 33%. DLT included: > Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities (excluding nausea, vomiting, diarrhea) and Grade 4 neutropenia lasting > 42 days. The primary results were reported in 2022 with a median of 2.7 years of follow-up. Herein, we report long-term outcomes for these patients. Results: The median age was 73 years (range 65-87). All pts had newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL; 79% of Ph+ pts had additional cytogenetic abnormalities. During induction, 2 pts experienced treatment-related non-hematologic Grade 4 toxicities. No Grade 4 or higher treatment-related non-hematologic toxicities occurred during post-remission therapy or maintenance. The toxicity of the combination was deemed acceptable. Twenty-two of 24 pts (92%) achieved a CR during dasatinib and prednisone induction therapy. Four did not receive PRT (2 due to adverse events, 1 to receive a transplant, and 1 because of insurance issues). Sixteen pts who achieved CR had MRD data. Six of 16 pts (38%) were MRD undetectable by multi-color flow cytometry on Day 28. Most sites also monitored patients' blood or bone marrow with real-time quantitative PCR to quantify the BCR-ABL1 transcript for molecular response. Of 19 patients analyzed, 17 (89%) were in a major or complete molecular remission at some time point after treatment, with at least 12 of these patients achieving complete molecular remission. Four patients remain on maintenance. The median follow- up for pts who are alive is 4.3 years (range 2.6-6.5 years). The median overall survival (OS) is 6.5 years (95% CI 3-NA) and the median DFS has not been reached as of June 29, 2023. Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimates of OS and DFS are 75% (95% CI 52%-88%) and 72% (95% CI 49%-87%), respectively (Figure). Of the 8 relapses, 4 patients were CD19+ and 3 had T315I mutations. Conclusions: Median DFS and OS with dasatinib and blinatumomab in this older group of Ph+ ALL patients remain excellent despite only 1 patient proceeding to an allogeneic transplant. Further correlative studies (single cell transcriptomics and DNA methylation sequencing) are being planned to evaluate predictors of relapse and will be presented at the meeting.

AbstractTo develop a prognostic model for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for myelofibrosis (MF), we examined the data of 623 patients undergoing allo-HCT between 2000 and 2016 in the United States (the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research [CIBMTR] cohort). A Cox multivariable model was used to identify factors prognostic of mortality. A weighted score using these factors was assigned to patients who received transplantation in Europe (the European Bone Marrow Transplant [EBMT] cohort; n = 623). Patient age >50 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-1.96), and HLA-matched unrelated donor (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.98-1.7) were associated with an increased hazard of death and were assigned 1 point. Hemoglobin levels <100 g/L at time of transplantation (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.2-2.19) and a mismatched unrelated donor (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.25-2.52) were assigned 2 points. The 3-year overall survival (OS) in patients with a low (1-2 points), intermediate (3-4 points), and high score (5 points) were 69% (95% CI, 61-76), 51% (95% CI, 46-56.4), and 34% (95% CI, 21-49), respectively (P < .001). Increasing score was predictive of increased transplant-related mortality (TRM; P = .0017) but not of relapse (P = .12). The derived score was predictive of OS (P < .001) and TRM (P = .002) but not of relapse (P = .17) in the EBMT cohort as well. The proposed system was prognostic of survival in 2 large cohorts, CIBMTR and EBMT, and can easily be applied by clinicians consulting patients with MF about the transplantation outcomes.

Abstract Novel treatment strategies are needed for the treatment of Philadelphia chromosome–positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in older patients. This trial evaluated the feasibility and outcomes with the anti-CD19 bispecific T-cell–engaging antibody, blinatumomab, in combination with dasatinib and steroids. Patients 65 years of age or older with Ph+ or Ph-like ALL (with dasatinib-sensitive fusions/mutations) were eligible and could be newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory. Induction therapy consisted of dasatinib/prednisone. Patients not achieving response by day 56 proceeded to blinatumomab reinduction therapy. Patients achieving response with induction or reinduction therapy proceeded to blinatumomab/dasatinib postremission therapy for 3 cycles followed by dasatinib/prednisone maintenance. All patients received central nervous system prophylaxis with intrathecal methotrexate for a total of 8 doses. Response was assessed at days 28, 56, and 84 and at additional time points based on response parameters. Measurable residual disease was assessed centrally by 8-color flow cytometry at day 28. A total of 24 eligible patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL were enrolled with a median age of 73 years (range, 65-87 years). This combination was safe and feasible. With a median of 2.7 years of follow-up, 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival were 87% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64-96) and 77% (95% CI, 54-90), respectively. Although longer follow-up is needed, these results are encouraging, and future trials are building on this backbone regimen. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02143414.

Abstract Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the outcomes of patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Many older patients (pts) are not good candidates for intensive chemotherapy and are treated with TKIs plus corticosteroids or low intensity chemotherapy. Although the remission rates with this approach have been high, the median disease-free survival (DFS) has been short. Therefore, novel treatment strategies are needed. This trial evaluated the feasibility of combining the TKI dasatinib with prednisone and blinatumomab in older pts with Ph+ ALL. Methods: This trial was activated through the NCTN in January 2015 and closed to accrual in April 2021. Pt eligibility included: age ≥ 65 years; Ph+ or Ph-like ALL (with dasatinib-sensitive fusions or mutations); newly diagnosed or relapsed/ refractory; no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease; and adequate organ function. Treatment: For induction, pts received dasatinib 140 mg/d orally (PO) Days 1-56 along with prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d PO Days 1-24. Pts achieving complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (Day 28 or Day 56) continued dasatinib until Day 84 followed by 3 cycles of post-remission therapy (PRT) with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Pts not achieving CR or CRi by Day 56 received re-induction with blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Day 35 of blinatumomab. Pts not achieving CR/ CRi could receive a second cycle of blinatumomab. This was followed by 3 cycles of PRT with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Maintenance therapy consisted of prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d x 5 days every 28 days for a total of 18 cycles along with dasatinib 140 mg po qd indefinitely. CNS prophylaxis included intrathecal (IT) methotrexate every 4-6 weeks x 8 doses. IT methotrexate was given at least 2 days apart from blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Days 28, 56, 84 and additional time points were dependent on response. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed centrally by multi-color flow cytometry at Day 28. Statistics: 9 eligible/ evaluable pts receiving PRT were to be evaluated before enrolling additional pts. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined as: > Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities with the exception of nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea (if manageable with supportive care measures) or Grade 4 neutropenia lasting > 42 days with possible relationship to dasatinib or blinatumomab. If due to unexpected accrual, 12 pts were evaluable for DLT, the following rules would apply. If > 4 of the 12 pts experienced a DLT, the study would be temporarily closed pending review. Upon re-opening, 8 additional eligible and evaluable pts would be enrolled for a total of 20 pts receiving blinatumomab. Results: Due to rapid accrual, 16 pts enrolled before accrual was paused to assess feasibility and safety. Twelve pts were evaluable for DLT and 4 experienced a DLT: Grade 3 dyspnea and gastrointestinal pain (n=1), Grade 3 hypertension (n=1), Grade 3 dyspnea (n=1), Grade 3 hyperglycemia (n=1). These adverse events were deemed acceptable by the NCI and FDA and the study re-opened. A total of 25 eligible pts were accrued. The median age was 73 years (range 62-87). All pts were newly diagnosed. One pt was Ph-like, with the remainder being Ph+; 89% of Ph+ pts had additional cytogenetic abnormalities. During induction, 2 pts experienced treatment-related non-hematologic Grade 4 toxicities. No Grade 4 or higher treatment-related non-hematologic toxicities occurred during post-remission therapy or maintenance. Twenty-three out of 25 pts (92%) achieved a CR during dasatinib-based and prednisone induction therapy. Four did not receive PRT (2 due to adverse events, 1 to receive transplant, 1 because of insurance issues). Sixteen pts who achieved CR had MRD data. Five out of 16 pts (31%) were MRD negative at Day 28. One pt remains on PRT and 10 are on maintenance. The median follow up for pts who are alive is 1.7 years. The median overall survival (OS) and DFS have not been reached as of July 8, 2021. Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimates of OS and DFS are 85% (95% CI 58%-95%) and 80% (95% CI 55%-92%), respectively (Figure). Conclusions: This trial demonstrates the feasibility of combining dasatinib and blinatumomab in Ph+ ALL. In addition, with 1.7 years of follow up, outcomes are encouraging with high estimated 3-year DFS and OS. Longer follow up will be needed to determine the durability of these results. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Advani: Kite Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; OBI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moseley: BioSight Ltd: Consultancy. Wood: Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Juno, Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Other: Laboratory Services Agreement. Park: Intellia: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Wieduwilt: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Reata: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Jeyakumar: Jazz: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Atallah: Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Gerds: PharmaEssentia Corporation: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Constellation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Othus: Celgene: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Merck: Consultancy; Biosight: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Stone: Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Consultancy; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee.

Abstract The role of haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) using posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is being defined. We performed a retrospective, multivariable analysis comparing outcomes of HCT approaches by donor for adults with ALL in remission. The primary objective was to compare overall survival (OS) among haploidentical HCTs using PTCy and HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD), 8/8 HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD), 7 /8 HLA-MUD, or umbilical cord blood (UCB) HCT. Comparing haploidentical HCT to MSD HCT, we found that OS, leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) were not different but chronic GVHD (cGVHD) was higher in MSD HCT. Compared with MUD HCT, OS, LFS, and relapse were not different, but MUD HCT had increased NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; P = .02), grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.59; P = .005), and cGVHD. Compared with 7/8 UD HCT, LFS and relapse were not different, but 7/8 UD HCT had worse OS (HR, 1.38; P = .01) and increased NRM (HR, 2.13; P ≤ .001), grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.86; P = .003), and cGVHD (HR, 1.72; P ≤ .001). Compared with UCB HCT, late OS, late LFS, relapse, and cGVHD were not different but UCB HCT had worse early OS (≤18 months; HR, 1.93; P < .001), worse early LFS (HR, 1.40; P = .007) and increased incidences of NRM (HR, 2.08; P < .001) and grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.97; P < .001). Haploidentical HCT using PTCy showed no difference in survival but less GVHD compared with traditional MSD and MUD HCT and is the preferred alternative donor HCT option for adults with ALL in complete remission.

Abstract There is a lack of large comparative study on the outcomes of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transplantation using fludarabine/busulfan (FB) and fludarabine/melphalan (FM) regimens. Adult AML patients from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research who received first RIC allo-transplant between 2001 and 2015 were studied. Patients were excluded if they received cord blood or identical twin transplant, total body irradiation in conditioning, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with in vitro T-cell depletion. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and GVHD. Multivariate survival model was used with adjustment for patient, leukemia, and transplant-related factors. A total of 622 patients received FM and 791 received FB RIC. Compared with FB, the FM group had fewer transplant in complete remission (CR), fewer matched sibling donors, and less usage of anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. More patients in the FM group received marrow grafts and had transplantation before 2005. OS was significantly lower within the first 3 months posttransplant in the FM group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, P < .001), but was marginally superior beyond 3 months (HR = 0.87, P = .05). LFS was better with FM compared with FB (HR = 0.89, P = .05). NRM was significantly increased in the FM group during the first 3 months of posttransplant (HR = 3.85, P < .001). Long-term relapse was lower with FM (HR = 0.65, P < .001). Analysis restricted to patients with CR showed comparable results. In conclusion, compared with FB, the FM RIC showed a marginally superior long-term OS and LFS and a lower relapse rate. A lower OS early posttransplant within 3 months was largely the result of a higher early NRM.

Abstract Comparative outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for BCR-ABL1− myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) in blast phase (MPN-BP) vs de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and AML with prior myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs; post-MDS AML), are unknown. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we compared HCT outcomes in 177 MPN-BP patients with 4749 patients with de novo AML, and 1104 patients with post-MDS AML, using multivariate regression analysis in 2 separate comparisons. In a multivariate Cox model, no difference in overall survival (OS) or relapse was observed in patients with MPN-BP vs de novo AML with active leukemia at HCT. Patients with MPN-BP in remission had inferior OS in comparison with de novo AML in remission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.76]) due to higher relapse rate (HR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.69-2.80]). MPN-BP patients had inferior OS (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.00-1.43]) and increased relapse (HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.31-1.96]) compared with post-MDS AML. Poor-risk cytogenetics were associated with increased relapse in both comparisons. Peripheral blood grafts were associated with decreased relapse in MPN-BP and post-MDS AML (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57-0.86]). Nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was similar between MPN-BP vs de novo AML, and MPN-BP vs post-MDS AML. Total-body irradiation–based myeloablative conditioning was associated with higher NRM in both comparisons. Survival of MPN-BP after HCT is inferior to de novo AML in remission and post-MDS AML due to increased relapse. Relapse-prevention strategies are required to optimize HCT outcomes in MPN-BP.